Problems Relating to the Story of Noah (pbuh)

Problems Relating to the Story of Noah (pbuh)

Article:

In two separate articles [1]

[2], Mr.

Katz has pointed out a few contradictions in the Qur’anic narrative of the story

of Noah (pbuh). Mr. Katz’s objections are based on Al-Anbiaa 21: 76, Hu’d

11: 27, 38, 40, 42 – 43, 45, 46 Al-Aa`raaf 7: 64, Al-Tehreem 66:

10, Al-Saaffaat 37: 77 and Al-Qamar 54: 9.

In the following article, we shall consider the objections raised by Mr. Katz

in detail.

The “Family” of Noah (pbuh) — The First and the Second

Objections

Mr. Katz’s first objection relates to the Qur’anic declaration that God saved

Noah’s family from the flood. In Al-Anbiaa 21: 76, the Qur’an says that

God saved Noah’s family. Yet in Hu’d 11: 42 – 43, Noah’s son perished

with those who were drowned.

Al-Anbiaa 21: 76 reads as:

And [We bestowed our guidance upon] Noah. When he called out,

before this, and We answered his prayer and saved him and his family from the

great calamity.

While Hu’d 11: 42 – 43 says:

And as the ark moved on with them amid [huge] mountain-like

waves, Noah (pbuh) cried out to his son, who stood at a side: ‘Embark with us,

my son. Do not remain with the unbelievers’. He replied: ‘I shall seek refuge

in a mountain, which will protect me from the flood’. Noah (pbuh) cried: ‘None

shall be secure today from the judgment of God, but those who deserve His

mercy’. And thereupon the billows rolled between them, and Noah’s son was,

thus, among those who drowned.

However, according to Mr. Katz, the Qur’an has itself given an

explanation for this contradiction in verse 46 of Surah Hu’d. The verse

reads as:

God said: O Noah, he is not your family, Indeed his deeds are

not pious. Therefore, do not ask Me of which you do not know, I admonish you

that you should not be one of ignorant.

Mr. Katz writes:

So, we see that this problem is solved by “divine exclusion” and

the Qur’an even admits that this can be something rather difficult to

comprehend for normal human beings, even for the prophet of God, Noah.

It is certainly possible to disinherit sons or otherwise to deny them the

legal status of a son, but it is impossible even for God that a biological son

looses the property of being the seed of his father.

Another related problem is that of Noah’s wife. Mr. Katz writes:

The inclusion / exclusion dynamics are rather complex in this

story. In Sura 66:10, Noah’s wife is assigned to Hell, and Yusuf Ali’s

commentary implies she perished in the flood.

The verse referred to by Mr. Katz (Al-Tehreem 66: 10)

reads as:

God gives the example of Noah’s wife and Lot’s wife for those

who have rejected. They were both married to our pious servants, but they

deceived their husbands. Thus, both their husbands could not save them from

God and they were told: “Enter the Hellfire with those who deserve to

enter it”.

Thus, Mr. Katz’s first objection is that the declaration of the

Qur’an of saving Noah’s family (Al-Anbiaa 21: 42 – 43) contradicts with

both the latter verses in which it is informed that Noah’s son and wife were

among those who were punished.

Mr. Katz’s second objection relates to the identity of the

people who believed Noah (pbuh). According to Mr. Katz, the implication of two

separate Qur’anic statements, in this respect is also contradictory. The verses

pertinent to this objection are reproduced below.

Al-Saaffaat 37: 75 – 77 reads as:

Noah prayed to Us and his prayers were graciously answered. We

delivered him and his family from the great calamity and made his descendents

the survivors.

While, Hu’d 11: 27 reads as:

The unbelieving elders of his people said: ‘We see you as but

a mortal like ourselves. Nor can we see you being followed by any but the

lowliest of our men, those who are rash and undiscerning. We see nothing

superior to ourselves in you. Indeed we think that you people are lying.

According to Mr. Katz, this verse clearly implies that there

were people other than the immediate family of Noah (pbuh), who had believed

with him. Mr. Katz writes:

It is clear that Noah found some who believed his message and

followed him. That the unbelievers call the believers “mean” and

“immature” is to be expected as angry rhetoric. But it cannot be

denied that he had some followers, apart from his immediate family (which

would not create this reaction, given that it is expected that the family

follows the head of the family).

The fact that people other than the immediate family of Noah (pbuh)

believed in him, according to Mr. Katz, is further supported by Al-Aa`raaf

7: 64. The verse reads as:

They rejected him. So We saved him and all who were with him

in the ark and drowned those who rejected our revelations. Indeed they were a

blind people.

Regarding this verse, Mr. Katz writes:

Those “in the Ark” are contrasted with (i.e. are the

opposite of) those “who rejected”, i.e. they are those who believed.

It is not as clear as 11:27, but it is pointing in the same direction.

Then again in Hu’d 11: 40, the Qur’an clearly tells us

that there were indeed a few others, besides the family of Noah (pbuh) who

believed in him. The verse reads as:

Till Our decision was implemented and water welled out from

the oven. We said to Noah: ‘Take into the ark a pair from every species, your

family, except those against whom a word has already been passed and those who

believe. But none except a very few believed with him.

Mr. Katz writes about this verse:

Here again, we read of “a few believed with him”,

but why are they seemingly not saved according to Sura 37:77?

Thus, Mr. Katz’s second objection is that the verses of the

Qur’an which give the identity of those who were saved with Noah (pbuh) are

contradictory. At one instance, the Qur’an has identified them as Noah’s family,

while in the other two verses (and also in the Torah), the Qur’anic verses imply

that they included others as well.

The Response

The first and the second objection raised by Mr. Katz is

actually based on the usage of the Arabic words (i.e.

‘Ahl‘) and (i.e.

‘Zurriyyah‘), generally, translated as ‘family’ and ‘progeny’ or

‘descendents’ respectively. However, the two words are used in the Arabic

language in a much wider sense than to merely imply one’s biological ‘family’ or

‘descendents’. The Arabic-English dictionary ‘Al-Mawrid’ explains the word as:

• :

  relatives, relations, kin, kinsfolk, kindred, kinsmen,

  kith and kin, folks, people; family; household

• :

  inhabitants, residents; natives, nationals, citizens;

  population

• :

  people, men, members (of a group, class, occupation,

  etc.)

• :

  followers, adherents

• :

  possessors, owners, holders

• :

  masters

• :

  household, family

• :

  the family of the Prophet

• :

  experts, people of experience, specialists, authorities

• :

  free non-Moslems enjoying Moslem protection

• :

  wife

• :

  the Sunnites, the Sunnis

• :

  intelligentsia

• :

  the people of the Book, Christians and the Jews

• :

  Seven Sleepers of the Ephesus

The word ‘Ahl‘, as should be clear from the above

citation, is also commonly used in the meaning of ‘people’; ‘members (of a

group)’, ‘followers’; ‘adherents’ etc. Moreover, it is generally held by most of

the linguists that when the word is used with reference to a prophet of God, it

generally implies the group of his followers, rather than his biological family.

‘Aqrab al-Mawaarid‘, while explaining the word “Ahl”

writes:

*Ahl* When the word is with reference to a man,

it implies his family and those who have close relations with him; the plural

of this word is ‘Ahloon‘, ‘Ahaal‘, ‘Aahaal‘, ‘Ahlaat‘

and ‘Ahalaat‘. Sometimes a ‘ya‘ is added to its plural, as it is

said: “Raja`oo ilaa Ahaaleehim” (They returned to their

families). In “Ahl al-Rajul” the word refers to ‘wife’; in

“Ahl kull nabiyin” (i.e. Ahl of every prophet), the

word refers to the group of the prophet’s followers; in “Ahl al-Balad”

or “Ahl Al-Bayet” the word refers to the inhabitants; in

“Ahl al-Amr” the word refers to the person who is in charge

[of the affairs]; in “Ahl al-Madhab” the word refers to

people who ascribe to the same religion; in “Ahl al-Waber”

the word refers to the people who live in tents; in “Ahl al-Madr wa

al-Hadhar” the word refers to the people who live in buildings.

The Qur’an, in a few of its verses, has clearly used the word

“Ahl” in its wider implication, not restricted to the

biological family of the prophet. For instance, in the phrases “Ahl al-Kitaab“,

“Ahl al-Balad“, “Ahl Madian” the word is

clearly not used to imply a ‘family’. We present below a few verses, which would

further substantiate the wider implication of the word. Maryam 19: 54 –

55 reads as:

N. J. Dawood has correctly translated this verse as:

And in the Book you shall tell of Ishmael: he, too, was a man

of his word, an apostle and a prophet. He enjoined prayer and almsgiving on his

people, and his Lord was pleased with him.

It should be noted that the phrase ‘Ahlahoo‘ in this

verse refers to ‘the people’ or ‘the followers’ of the prophet. Not merely his

biological family. Obviously, the prophet would not enjoin prayer on his

biological family only, but on all his followers. The word is used in exactly

the same connotation in Ta’ Ha’ 20: 132, with reference to the Prophet (pbuh) as

well.

Exactly like the word ,

the word

(i.e. ‘Zurriyyah‘) is also used in the Arabic language in a wider sense

to imply the followers of a person. For instance, in Al-Kahaf 18: 50, the

Qur’an says:

And when We said to the angels to prostrate before Adam, they

all prostrated, except Iblis — he was a Jinn — thus he disobeyed his

Lord. Will you still hold him and his offspring as your masters, rather than

Me, when they are actually your enemies? And indeed evil is the substitute

chosen by the transgressors.

In this verse, it is clear that the word ‘offspring’ does not

imply the biological offspring of Iblis, but the ideological offspring.

In view of the above explanation and references, we can safely

derive that the words ‘Ahl‘ and ‘Zurriyyah‘ in the Arabic language

are used in a much wider connotation than mere biological family. These words

are also used to imply followers and adherents of a person. Furthermore, by

using these words in this wider connotation, the Qur’an has also clarified that

in the eyes of God, a person’s true family consists of those who truly respect

and follow him.

This usage of the words descendants, progeny, children, family

etc. is not specific to the Qur’an. These words are used in the same implication

in the Bible as well. Galatians 3: 6 – 7 reads as:

Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited

to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who believe are

children of Abraham.

While addressing the Israelites, John reports Jesus (pbuh) as

having said:

“I know you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me,

because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the

Father’s presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s

children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. As

it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I

heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. You are doing the things your

own father does.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they

protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” Jesus said to

them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God

and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language

not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to

your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was

a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth

in him.” (John 8: 37 – 44)

Paul, in a few of his addresses is also reported to have implied

the same.

The above clarification regarding the implication and

connotation of the words ‘Ahl‘ and ‘Zurriyyah‘ should adequately

answer Mr. Katz’s first and second objections. 

Mr. Katz had written:

It is certainly possible to disinherit sons or otherwise to

deny them the legal status of a son, but it is impossible even for God that a

biological son looses the property of being the seed of his father

I really do not know what is and is not possible for God to do,

for God has not exhaustively informed me about it, but I do think that the above

explanation would adequately establish that in the referred verses, the words ‘Ahl‘

and ‘Zurriyyah‘ refer to the ideological family of Noah (pbuh), in

exactly the same way as in the cited verses of Galatians, the true believers

have been called the ‘children’ of Abraham and as in the referred verses of

John, the Israelites have been called the family of the devil, because of their

devil-like deeds.

To summarize, the first and the second objections and their

respective answers are:

The First Objection: The declaration of the Qur’an of

saving Noah’s family (Al-Anbiaa 21: 42 – 43) contradicts with both Hu’d

11: 42 – 43 and Al-Tehreem 66: 10 in which it is informed that Noah’s son

and wife were among those who were punished. The Answer: The word (i.e. ‘Ahl‘) in Al-Anbiaa 21: 42 – 43, Hu’d 11: 46 and

(i.e. ‘Zurriyyah‘) in Al-Saaffaat 37: 75 – 77, are used in a wider

connotation to imply the ‘followers’ or ‘adherents’ of Noah (pbuh). Thus, if

Noah’s son and wife were not his followers or adherents, they would obviously

have been left behind.

The Second Objection: At some instances (Al-Anbiaa

21: 76, Al-Saaffaat 37: 75 – 77), the Qur’an has identified those who

were saved as Noah’s family, while in the other two verses (Hu’d 11: 27

and 40) and also in the Torah, the Qur’anic verses imply that they included

others as well. The Answer: As has been clarified above, the Qur’an in

both these instances implies that the group of the followers of Noah (pbuh),

whether consisting of his family members or those not related with him, was

saved. There is absolutely no contradiction in the two verses.

A Scientific Error — The Third Objection

The third objection raised by Mr. Katz is that the dialogue

between Noah (pbuh) and his son, as has been reported by the Qur’an is not

possible in the particular environment in which the Qur’an has reported it to

have taken place. The environment in which the referred conversation took place,

as reported by Hu’d 11: 42 – 43 is:

And as the ark moved on with them amid [huge] mountain-like

waves, Noah (pbuh) cried out to his son…

Mr. Katz writes:

This whole conversation in 11:42-43 is impossible in the way

it is reported. If you ever have been at sea when the waves are towering like

mountains then you know how loud it is. Conversation, even when shouting is

absolutely impossible. Note, it does not say that the water was already as

deep as a mountain is high (but with a calm surface), it specifically speaks

of waves, which means that there have to be strong winds to produce these

waves. And that is always very loud. Also, the Ark, a big ship was already

afloat, i.e. “out on the water”, while Noah’s son seems during this

conversation to be standing on the dry land in a distance allowing

conversation (even if there were no noise around), and not swimming in the

water and struggling with the waves. This is physically impossible for any

normal landscape imaginable. After all this was not in a haven build for

regular docking of ships.

Mr. Katz further writes:

Muhammad was a son of the desert, not acquainted very well

with large amounts of water as at an ocean. That might explain why this story

is narrated in such an unrealistic way.

The Response

Before an explanation is given against the objection raised by

Mr. Katz, I would like to clarify a few things: 

• Firstly, the phrase ‘mountain-like waves’ is obviously used

  in a figurative sense, rather than a literal sense. It simply implies that

  the water had started rising and high waves had started forming in it. 

• Secondly, the environment depicted by the Qur’an is that of

  a rapidly rising flood, not that of a rough sea or ocean, as Mr. Katz has

  interpreted. There is a tremendous difference between the two environments.

  Sea-water, while in high tide, has a lot of noise and roar in it, probably

  because of the depth of the sea as well as because of the density of the

  sea-water. The case of flood-water is different. In fact, after reading Mr.

  Katz objections, I asked one of my acquaintances who had lived through

  fifteen to twenty feet floods in his village (there is no dearth of such

  people in Pakistan, where floods are a common feature after a healthy rain

  season) about oral communication while in a flood and was told that,

  generally, there is not much noise in flood water, on the contrary, it seems

  that such an environment amplifies the sound and also creates a lot of

  echoing effects.

• Thirdly, the Arabic word

  (i.e. “Qaala“), generally translated as: “He

  said”, does not necessarily imply oral or verbal communication. It can

  be used for sign language, as is clearly evidenced by Maryam 19: 26.

  Thus, the referred exchange between Noah (pbuh) and his son could have taken

  place by waving and signs. Words may also have been uttered, as reported by

  the Qur’an, but the communication may primarily have been through signs.

Even if we completely disregard all these points and, for the

sake of this discussion, take all the premises on which Mr. Katz has based his

objections, to be correct, the point remains that Mr. Katz, seems to be pretty

rash in drawing the “scientific error” objection from the information

given in the Qur’an. To make his “scientific error” objection “scientifically”

considerable,  Mr. Katz should first inform us about the exact distance at

which oral communication becomes scientifically impossible between two

individuals, who are speaking/shouting at a specific pitch of voice, in an

environment of rough waters of a specific intensity. Once this information is

established, Mr. Katz should then establish that according to the referred verse

of the Qur’an:

1. The distance between the two communicating points was more

   than the distance in which communication is possible, at the ‘specified’

   pitch of voice and intensity of the roughness of the waters; or

2. The pitch of voice at which communication was carried-out is

   below the prescribed pitch for communication between the two points situated

   at the specified distance and intensity of rough waters; or

3. The intensity of the rough waters was much more than one

   which allows communication between the two points at the ‘specified’

   distance and pitch of voice.

I am sure Mr. Katz would agree that without the above-stated

exact information, considering the Qur’anic narrative to be scientifically

incorrect would be no different than to consider the statement: “We

communicated in whispers” to be scientifically incorrect. It would

definitely be expected of every prudent person to determine the distance between

the two points and the pitch of the ‘whispers’, before declaring the scientific

impossibility of the communication through whispers, between any two points. I

am sure that Mr. Katz would also agree that without the prior determination of

all these variables, any one who considers the statement “we communicated

in whispers” to be ‘scientifically incorrect’, needs appropriate training

in the “scientific method”.

Going Forth of the “Word” — The Fourth

Objection

The fourth objection raised by Mr. Katz is that in Hu’d

11: 40 (given above), the Qur’an has said:

Take into the ark a pair from every species, your family,

except those against whom a word has already been passed and those who

believe.

while in Hu’d 11: 42 – 43 (also given above), Noah calls

out to his son to save himself. This according to Mr. Katz, clearly implies

that:

So, he [that is Noah’s son] was not one “against whom the

word has already gone forth” since then Noah would not have called him in

disobedience to Allah’s command.

The Response

This objection is based on an absolutely incorrect

interpretation of the phrase “word has already gone forth”. The Arabic

phrase: “”

(generally translated as “against whom the word has already gone

forth”), implies against whom the ‘Word’ has already been fulfilled. This

is the same usage of the word “word”, which I have already explained

in detail in my article “Do

the Errors in the Bible Prove that the Qur’an is not From God?”. The

phrase does not necessitate that Noah (pbuh) was already communicated the names

of those who were to be left behind. On the contrary, the phrase only implies

that only those shall be left behind, who according to the decrees (i.e. the

‘word’ sent forth) of God, deserve to be left behind. Keeping this aspect in

consideration, N. J. Dawood has more correctly translated this verse as:

…except for those already doomed.

i.e. except for those about whose doom, God has already decided.

Was Noah (pbuh) Driven Out — The Fifth Objection

The fifth objection raised by Mr. Katz, as given in a different article,

is that according to Al-Qamar 54: 9 Noah was driven out of the land,

while according to the narrative of Hu’d when Noah was constructing the

ark, his people would pass by him quite regularly.

Al-Qamar 54: 9 reads as:

Yusuf Ali has translated this verse (which is noted by Mr. Katz)

as:

Before them the people of Noah rejected (their messenger):

They rejected Our servant and said, “Here is One possessed!” And he

was driven out.

On the contrary, the implication of Hu’d 11: 38 is that

Noah (pbuh) was still living among his people when he started building the ark. Hu’d

11: 38 reads as:

And he started building the ark. And whenever the leaders of

his people passed by him. they mocked at him. He said: ‘If you mock us

[today], then surely [soon] we shall mock you, just as you mock [us].

Regarding the information provided by these two verses, Mr. Katz

writes:

… if he was driven out of the country or out of the area, he obviously

couldn’t build the Ark where his people would regularly pass by.

On the other hand, if he build the Ark before their very eyes, and was then

driven out, how did he get back to the Ark for the flood? This was not a toy

ship, he couldn’t take that with him while “being driven out” and

away from this ship.

Furthermore, it contradicts the record of Noah in the Tora, which is in

this respect in harmony with Sura 11 but not with Sura 54.

The Response

This objection is primarily based on an incorrect translation of

the referred verse, the Arabic word “”

which Yusuf Ali has translated as: “he was driven out”, actually

implies “he was badly scolded/rebuked/reprimanded/reproached”. These

meanings of the words are so well known that there seems to be absolutely no

need for any citations. Every authentic dictionary of the Arabic language bears

witness to this fact.

© Copyright July 2000. All Rights Reserved with the Author