1000+ Comments on the Quran: Surah 105 -- AL-FIL (The Elephant)
20 June 2012
Revelation: Year unknown; Likely Mecca.
(See general comments on Surahs here: Introduction)
The quotes and comments
001 "In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful". Please read the surahs from Medina, the immoral parts of the Muslim moral code, the unjust/immoral parts of sharia, and the Quran's rules for lying, thieving/looting, enslaving, raids and wars, plus the rules for treatment of girls and women - free and captured - and see if you agree. Always when there is a distance between words and corresponding demands and deeds, we personally believe in the demands and deeds. Glorious words are cheap, demands and deeds are reliable. Glorifying words and claims are too cheap for anyone to use and disuse - when you read, judge from realities, not from propaganda.
002 105/1: "- - - the Companions of the Elephant- - -". This refers to an attack from Abyssinia in 570 AD (though modern science question if the year is quite correct). The vice king Abrahah or Abrah, lost much of his army because of a virulent illness - perhaps smallpox - and had to return home without attacking Mecca. The troops were NOT killed by stones from birds. (Muslims sometimes try to “explain” the clear text and the as clear mistake away by some linguistic gymnastics that includes that the Arab word for stone and the one for writings are not dissimilar, and they think that these words have been mixed up (in a holy book sent down by Allah, and without mistakes - how many more mixed ups?), and then say the meaning is metaphorical (in a book the Allah says shall be understood as it is written), it may not mean stones, but hard physical strikes - but also hard physical strikes is not the same as illness. Muslims frequently have to use far out “explanations” like this to try to camouflage mistakes in the Quran. But if there is a linguistic mistake here according to Muslims – how many more linguistic mistakes are there in the Quran?
003 105/2a: "Did He (Allah*) not make their (the Abyssinians*) treacherous plan go astray". Was it in reality Allah or nature that sent the illness?
004 105/2b: "- - - treacherous - - -". An open attack against someone with whom you have no covenance or similar, is not treachery.
005 105/3: “- - - Han (Allah*) sent against them Flights of Birds - - -". We quote (YA6272): "The miracle consisted in birds coming in large flights and flinging stones at the army which caused a great pestilence to arise and destroy the whole of Abrahah' army". This is scientifically so stupid an explanation that we do not bother to comment on it - everyone with the least knowledge about contagious deceases (included Mr. Abdullah Yusuf Ali) know this is nonsense anyhow. But how come that a top Islamic scholar uses an explanation there is no chance he did not know was wrong? And how come that even the educated part of the Muslims are able to accept it?
006 105/3+4: “- - - Han (Allah*) sent against them Flights of Birds, Striking them with stones of baked clay.” The soldiers were not killed by birds dropping stones. This just was the one of the fairy tales Muhammad came to believe in. Besides the tale is nonsense - in addition to all the other improbabilities in it, there is a limit to the size of bird claws, of beaks, and of ability to lift weight for birds; there is not a bird in Arabia who could lift a stone too big for a man to meet with his shield - and in addition the biggest birds exist just in small numbers in an area. And this to defend the holy city of pagans.
Surah 105: Sub-total: 6 + 20.751 = 20.757 comments.
>>> Go to Next Surah
>>> Go to Previous Surah
This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".