Title:
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 
‘Ahl‘) and 
‘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
-
:
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
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:
-
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
-
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
-
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