Thank you TG12345. That makes the argument clearer; -

1. The Quran says the Thamud built dwellings that still existed in the 7th Century.

2. Archaeologists/scholars believe that the Thamud were nomads and had no permanent dwellings.

3. Scholars assume that the Thamud dwellings mentioned in the Quran must be referring to the Nabatean rock tombs

How unlikely is it that other structures could have been destroyed since the 7th Century, or that the caves containing the rock art were identified as Thamud dwellings?

In his tafsir of 29:38, Ibn Qathir wrote that Al Hijr is located near Wadi Al Qura.

Allah tells us about these nations who disbelieved in their Messengers, and how He destroyed them and sent various kinds of punishments and vengeance upon them. `Ad, the people of Hud, peace be upon him, used to live in the Ahqaf (curved sand-hills), near Hadramawt, in the Yemen. Thamud, the people of Salih, lived in Al-Hijr, near Wadi Al-Qura. The Arabs used to know their dwelling place very well, and they often used to pass by it. Qarun was the owner of great wealth and had the keys to immense treasures. Fir`awn, the king of Egypt at the time of Musa, and his minister Haman were two Coptics who disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger, peace be upon him.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2167&Itemid=85

Wadi Al Qura is another name for Al Ula, Saudi Arabia. Al Ula is close to Madain Saleh.


Tourists who visit Al Ula often also visit Madain Saleh.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201311150307.html

http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Middle_East/Saudi_Arabia/Mintaqat_al_Madinah/Al_Ula-1807519/Things_To_Do-Al_Ula-TG-C-1.html

These sites are about 22 kilometres away from each other.

Mada�in Saleh, not far from al-Ula (22 km), was known as al-Hijr, or Hegra, by the Nabataean people who carved its magnificent tombs into the golden Quweira sandstone outcrops.

http://saudi-archaeology.com/sites/madain-saleh/

I believe that this is more evidence that the Quran mistakenly attributes the structures of the Nabataeans to the Thamud.

Lachi wrote: I do not know what the 'official' take on the passage in Surah 29:38 is, but I would read it as directed towards Mohammed's audience at that time - not to all mankind for ever. It is not a law or command, otherwise there would have been a regular pilgrimage to the site in order for every Muslim to see the ruins.

Why would it be a pilgrimage spot? Remember that Muhammad and his men rode through the valley quickly, and he told them to only enter the habitations of the Thamud weepingly, lest the same fate befall them. It would to me seem more like a curses place than a place to visit.

Lachi wrote: Yusuf Ali's comments on the Thamud are taken directly from the Quranic scriptures, not from an archaeological or historical investigation.

True. And he claims they are still around.

Lachi wrote: Ibn Qathir was writing over 700 years after the Quran was written. He is preserving a tradition, but can we say he is accurately describing the geographical opinions of people seven centuries earlier?

 True, there is a large time gap. I am unaware of earlier historians who give the location. I am unaware of Muslim scholars who have challenged his statement, and I am aware of Muslim archaeologists and historians who agree with him.

Lachi wrote:  Also note the sentence straight after his mention of Thamud; "The Arabs used to know their dwelling place very well, and they often used to pass by it." Notice the past tense? - implying that the dwellings no longer existed in Ibn Qathir's time.

Yet in his tafsir of 26:149, he writes:

(And you hew out in the mountains, houses with great skill.) Ibn `Abbas and others said, "With great skill.'' According to another report from him: "They were greedy and extravagant.'' This was the view of Mujahid and another group. There is no contradiction between the two views, because they built the houses which they carved in the mountains as a form of extravagant play, with no need for them as dwelling places. They were highly skilled in the arts of masonry and stone-carving, as is well known to anyone who has seen their structures. So, Salih said to them:

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2263&Itemid=82

He seems to be saying that it is obvious to anyone who has seen the structures, that the Thamud were very skilled builders. This seems to be a reference to the present, not only the past.

Ibn Qathir did state that the city that the Thamud lived in was still around in his time.

Here Allah tells us about His servant and Messenger Salih, whom He sent to his people Thamud. They were Arabs living in the city of Al-Hijr -- which is between Wadi Al-Qura and Greater Syria. Their location is well known. In our explanation of Surat Al-A`raf, we mentioned the Hadiths which tell how the Messenger of Allah passed by their dwelling place when he wanted to launch a raid on Syria. He went as far as Tabuk, then he went back to Al-Madinah to prepare himself for the campaign. Thamud came after `Ad and before Ibrahim, peace be upon him. Their Prophet Salih called them to Allah, to worship Him alone with no partner or associate, and to obey whatever commands were conveyed to them, but they refused, rejecting him and opposing him. He told them that he did not seek any reward from them for his call to them, but that he would seek the reward for that with Allah. Then he reminded them of the blessings of Allah.

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2264&Itemid=82#1

Lachi wrote: I'm not suggesting that any buildings left were 'suddenly' destroyed. If they were in an advanced state of decay in the time of Mohammed, then why could they not have become completely destroyed in a few centuries after? It might not have taken any great event - just a couple of earthquakes and a storm or two. Not unusual events over a few generations.

How do you know they were in an advanced state of decay?

Also, I find it improbable that all traces of them would be destroyed. Consider the city of Ur, built in the 6th century BCE. Sure, most of it is gone, yet there are still remains.
http://www.ancient.eu.com/ur/

Or the stone pillars at Al Jawf.

Al-Jawf

An article] in the March/April 1998 issue of Aramco World recommends a visit to a little-known place called Al-Jawf. How little known? As the article states, "Even among historians of the Arabian Peninsula, al-Jawf is not a name that comes tripping off the tongue."

Al-Jawf is an oasis located at the northern curve of Saudi Arabia's Great Nafud desert. The current community is relatively modern, but as it is set where the trade routes met that once linked Mesopotamia, Persia and Syria with Arabia and Yemen, habitation goes back for millennia.

As the article states:

During the Chalcolithic, or Copper Age, approximately 6000 years ago, the population of Al-Jawf laboriously erected 54 groups of squared-off stone pillars, some of which measured up to three meters (9'6") in height. Called al-rajajil ("the men") today, the pillars appear to the casual observer to be randomly placed, although a bird's-eye view shows that they are placed in roughly parallel east-west lines.

Their significance is no more certain than that of the more famous megaliths at Stonehenge, or the dolmens of Jordan. ....

Today, Al-Jawf is part of an agricultural area, and its ancient history is only now being rediscovered.

http://www.hziegler.com/articles/historical-ancient-sites-in-ksa.html

Structures that were built longer ago than when the Thamud are estimated to have lived, are still around. In ruins, yes, but it's not like all traces of them are gone. They would have been subjected to no less earthquakes and ravages of time than the dwellings of the Thamud.

Why is there absolutely no trace of the buildings that the Thamud allegedly built?

And why do scholars like Ibn Qathir and Yusuf Ali claim that they are around at Madain Saleh? Why do archaeologists, Muslim and non-Muslim, back the claim that the Quran is referring to Madain Saleh?

Lachi wrote: Petroglyphs would survive because they are inside caves within their natural form - not artificially carved out dwellings which could have introduced structural weaknesses that were less likely to withstand the rigours of nature. This is of course assuming some peculiar type of carving was employed that did introduce a weakness. Something I'm only suggesting, not trying to prove.

Interesting, but a lot of the rocks with the petroglyphs on them are found in the open, like this one.


http://www.panoramio.com/photo/1492571

Lachi wrote:  Maybe the 'dwellings carved out of stone' actually refers to natural caves that had been modified to live in?

The Quran refers to "houses" "carved out with great skill".

26:149
And you carve out of the mountains, homes, with skill.

Corpus Quran translates the word "homes" as "houses"
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%2826:149:4%29

The Thamud allegedly carved houses out of the mountains. A natural cave would have been "carved out" by God, not the Thamud.

Lachi wrote: There seems also to be the assumption by you that the Thamud dwellings that were seen in the 7th Century amounted to a veritable city of structures, whereas the reality might have been that only a handful of buildings existed as recognisably such. The disappearance of a few ruins in an advanced state of decay (as I imagine could have been the case) is less improbable than the disappearance of a vast number of structures that were still impressive and sturdy (the scenario you seem to imagine).

According to Ibn Qathir, the Thamud dwellings are "the city" of Al Hijr (known today as Madain Saleh).

I don't know of earlier Muslim scholars who state the same thing. I am however aware of Muslim scholars and historians and archaeologists alike who agree with him. Some of them state that their buildings are in Petra... which were also built by the Nabataeans.

Lachi wrote: The Quranic author might indeed have made an historical error, but the interpretation of it as an error seems to be based on an assumption that the Quran is referring to the Nabataean tombs. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence for where the 7th Century Muslims believed the Thamud dwellings to be, we cannot be certain that the modern identification on their behalf is accurate.

That is why you will notice that I asked what 29:38 is referring to. In earlier threads I started I made the claim that the Quran is referring to Madain Saleh, but I decided to not do that, and just ask the Muslim posters first.

Even if the Quran is not stating that Petra and/or Madain Saleh is "Al Hijr", the question remains where these dwellings are, or were. The word "ruined" is inserted btw, in the original text it is not there.
http://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=29&verse=38

I think all historical evidence points to the reality of a historical mistake in the Quran's description of the Thamud.

1. We know they were a nomadic people, who traveled from place to place.

2. We have absolutely no record of any buildings they carved from mountains or rock.

3. The petroglyphs created by the Thamud show pictures of camels, people, ibexes. They are indicative of a lifestyle of traveling around and herding.

4. While the Thamud did not skillfully carve buildings out of mountains, others did. The Nabataeans carved elaborate tombs from mountains, which can still be seen today.

5. While I am unaware of any 7th century source which connects Madain Saleh to "Al Hijr", we know that Ibn Qathir, who lived 700 years later but is a very respected tafsir writer, did make that connection. We know that  Muslim historians and archaeologists agree with him.

Lachi wrote: What we can say is that no other structures in the general area have been identified by modern scholars or archaeologists as being 'carved out of rocks', that mediaeval writers (or at least one) identified the area (albeit implying that the structures no longer exist) as near Madein Salah (although not actually as Madein Salah itself), and that the tourist trade promotes the link in order to boost revenue.

All true, except stating that Ibn Qathir implied the structures no longer exist. In other parts of his exegesis, he described them in the present form.

Also, not only the tourist trade but archaeologists and historians also agree that Madain Saleh is the "Al Hijr" that is mentioned in the Quran.

Lachi wrote: Circumstantial evidence is what we have. In the absence of any other evidence to the contrary, this is what we have to go on. But we must be aware that it is based on an assumption - a highly likely one, but an assumption none the less (unless there is something else written that we haven't seen here yet).

I agree. I think that all evidence that we have does point rather convincingly to the fact that the Thamud were nomadic and did not carve out any homes from mountains. I look forward to any evidence proving my words to be wrong.

Lachi wrote: BTW, this is not a belief of mine I'm trying to prove. I'm only providing alternative thinking on the subject (and hopefully not breaking any academic standards, or sounding fanatical, in the process).

I think you are doing a great job. It's great to have a respectful discussion with an intelligent person.

Looking forward to your response, though I'll be away from the forum for a few days. Will respond then, inshAllah.