Lachi wrote: So the identification rests on whether the word 'alhijr' is to be taken as a specific locality (Al-Hijr where the Nabateans lived), or is just a generic word related to geography (rocky place). Perhaps the identification was erroneously made by early Muslims, based on seeing the impressive rock tombs of the Nabateans, and then became so ingrained as to become 'obvious' when reading the Surah. Modern guide-books, archaeologists and scholars might just be repeating this tradition. What evidence backs up the identification? Does the Hadith mentioned clearly identify the locality? And links it to the Thamud?

THE STORY OF THE ARABIAN ROCK ART: A THAMUDIC 'INFORMANT'

Lachi wrote: 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?

38.  Remember also the 'Ad and the Thamud (people):

C3459. For the 'Ad people see http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/whatever - http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/whatever - ,

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.

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

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?

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.

(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.

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?

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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).

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).