FLOOD OF NOAH DIDN�T COVER WORLD IN KORAN

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

 islamispeace wrote:

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

 TG12345 wrote:

I find your argument to be quite interesting, since you have in the past
 referred to the tafsir writers to back up your interpretation of the 
Quran, yet when they say something you disagree with, you oppose them!!!

 islamispeace wrote:

Have you forgotten that I also said that tafsirs are human endeavors and that they cannot replaces the Quran and Sunnah?  Tafsirs are useful for the purposes of exegesis but they are not infallible.  You will not find one Islamic scholar who would say that tafsirs are completely reliable.  In fact, I challenge you to provide one example of an Islamic scholar who believes this.

Then why do you and many other Muslims use them to help 'explain' what certain verses in the Quran mean? How "useful" are they for "purposes of exegesis" if they are based on ex-Jewish sources? Or do you get to choose which ones you agree and disagree with, and whatever disagrees with your interpretation you can blame on the Israelite sources? 

 TG12345 wrote:

The fact  that Ibn Jalalayn only mentioned some people groups does not 
change the fact he claims all human beings descended from Noah`s sons. 
Perhaps he believed all human beings originated from these groups. 
Either way, he did state that all human beings were descended from Noah`s family.

 islamispeace wrote:

Yet, it did not mention every nation.  What happened to the Chinese?

Perhaps the authors believed the Chinese originated from the races named already?

 islamispeace wrote:

Also, you are confused about the authors of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn.  The word "al-Jalalayn" means "the two Jalals".  It is so named because it had two authors, Jalal al-Din al-Mahali and his student Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti [1].  It was not written by someone named "Ibn Jalalayn". 

You are right about that, thank you for correcting me.

 TG12345 wrote:

In addition, according to Dr. Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, like many tafsirs, incorporates many traditions belonging to the "Israliyaat", which I mentioned before:

"...it fills in, based largely on the Bible and its Rabbinical and Patristic Commentaries gleaned mostly from early Christian and Jewish converts to Islam (and therefore containing some confused, polemical and apocryphal material), the historical order, details and context of many of the stories in the Qur�an concerning the Biblical Prophets and Jesus (p.b.u.h.) and his family and disciples. This element is known in Arabic as Isrā�īliyyāt (�Tales of the Children of Israel�) and is generally thought of as not only the
most controversial part of Tafsīr al-Jalālayn, but of Tafsīr in general, because of the tenuousness of some of the material involved. However, it is extremely useful for understanding the background � and therefore
also the meaning (symbolic or otherwise) � of many of the tales of the Qur�an, such that few if any Classical Commentaries have ever able been able to ignore it." [2]

You can find this article on the very website that you used to find the tafsirs.  

This is why all tafsirs need to be read with caution.  To give you a perfect example, consider the tradition mentioned in the tafsirs about Noah's sons being the ancestors of many races of people (or as you claim, of all mankind).  This tradition is nowhere to be found in either the Quran or the authentic hadiths! 

OK, now I am confused. If the tafsirs contain " confused, polemical and apocryphal" material, then what is the point of even referring to them? How would such 'misinformation' from new Jewish and Christian converts help understand the background of the verses in the Quran?

Also, how do you know Ibn Abbas got this tradition from the hadith? According to Bassem Zawadi, the only hadith that teaches mankind descended from Noah's sons is this one:

According to Ibn Bashshar- Ibn `Athmah- Sa'id b. Bashir- Qatadah- al-Hasan- Samurah b. Jundub- the Prophet, in connection with commenting on God's word: `And We made his offspring the survivors': Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ibid, p. 369)

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__does_the_quran_teach_a_local_flood__

 TG12345 wrote:

Bassam Zawadi claims Ibn Abbas` tafsir of the flood verses is `likely 
based from Israelite sources`. Really? How does he know this? What proof
 does he provide for his claim?

 islamispeace wrote:

It is well-known, as I showed above, that the "Israliyyat" were commonly used by the tafsir writers to fill-in certain details in the Quranic narrative.  That does not make them anymore authentic.  

With regard to the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas, Mokrane Guezzou notes in his translation of the tafsir:

"Another striking feature of this commentary of the Qur�an is its heavy reliance on the so-called Isra�iliyyat. Isra�iliyyat is a term used to refer to those reports and narrations found in commentaries of the Qur�an, Sufi literature, histories of the prophets, the reports of the storytellers (qussas) as well as other genres of writing like the belle-letters." [3] 

This is also found on the same website that you have using.  

As you can see, Muslim scholars recognize these problems with the tafsirs.  So, what position are you in to tell us otherwise, being that you are a Christian with limited knowledge about the Islamic sources?  Did you know that there is even some controversy as to whether the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas was even authored by Ibn Abbas?  This is how "Al-Tafsir.com" describes the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas:

"Attributed variously to the Companion Abdullah Ibn Abbas (d. 68/687) and
 to Muhammad ibn Ya�qub al-Firuzabadi (d. 817/1414), Tanw�r al-Miqb�s is
 one of the most pivotal works for understanding the environment which 
influenced the development of Qur�anic exegesis. Despite its uncertain 
authorship and its reliance on the controversial Isr��liyyat or 
Israelite stories, Tanw�r al-Miqb�s nevertheless offers readers valuable
 insight into the circulation and exchange of popular ideas between 
Islam, Judaism and Christianity during the formative phase of Islamic 
exegesis." [3]

Guezzou, the translator I previously referred to, goes even further and explicitly states that the tafsir was not written by Ibn Abbas but has been attributed to him erroneously:

"There is no doubt that this commentary is not the work of Ibn �Abbas. The chain of transmitters of this commentary goes back to Muhammad Ibn Marwan> al-Kalbi> Abu Salih which is described by Hadith experts as the chain of lies (silsilat al-kadhib), for this line of transmission is utterly dubious and unreliable.  One does not even need to use the criteria for reliable transmission applied by Hadith experts to decide this commentary�s wrong attribution to Ibn �Abbas. It is easy to detect obvious anomalies in the text of Tanwir al-Miqbas which leave one with no doubt that whoever wrote it lived many centuries after Ibn �Abbas." [4]

As you can see, there is good reason to read the tafsirs with caution.  You are not in a position to criticize Muslims for accepting some parts and rejecting others. 

Don't get mad at me for interpreting the Quran based on Muslim sources that you and some others happen to disagree with, you do the same with the Bible. 

It seems from this that the tafsirs are unreliable and should not be used to interpret the Quran. It is claimed that tafsir Ibn Abbas was written centuries after him.

I will be sure to point this out to you the next time you use them to 'explain' what verses from the Quran mean (or to support your interpretation of them). 

 TG12345 wrote:

Ibn Abbas personally knew Muhammad when he was a young boy, and knew his
 companions. Why would he turn to Israelite sources for interpretation?

 islamispeace wrote:

You are assuming that Ibn Abbas had all sorts of information from Muhammad (pbuh).  If that were the case, then obviously we would find stories related by Ibn Abbas or the other companions about Noah's sons being the ancestors of all mankind in the Sahih hadiths.  Can you provide any examples?

Just because Ibn Abbas was a companion of the Prophet does not make him infallible. 

Why would that need to be the case? Is everything that Ibn Abbas said that is not recorded in the hadith false?

From this exchange, I guess though that his tafsir, and the tafsirs Jalalayn and Kathir should be dismissed since they contain all kinds of inaccuracies based on ex-Christians and ex-Jews.

 TG12345 wrote:

Bassam Zawadi claims  there are no clear 
texts in reliable Islamic sources that reject or accept Noah's flood as 
being universal

So in other words, are the tafsir of Ibn Abbas, Ibn Kathir and Ibn Jalalayn unreliable?

 islamispeace wrote:

I had already explained this briefly in the email debate.  Perhaps you have not gotten that far yet.  In any case, the information given above shows that the tafsirs are not completely reliable.  I have been saying that for a long time!  Our most trust-worthy sources are the Quran and Sunnah.  The tafsirs are not scripture, so why would they be considered to completely reliable?

I didn't get that far yet, I guess. Given that they are not completely reliable, it would be best if you stopped using them to explain what the Quran teaches.

 TG12345 wrote:

You also didn`t answer my previous question- if the flood was only 
local, why would God command Noah to take two of every species with him 
on the boat?

 islamispeace wrote:

The answer is very simple.  Perhaps God was referring to two of every species in the region, or perhaps He was referring to only Noah's animals.  We can't say for sure.

Why would God tell Noah to take two of every species of his animals? Domestic animals of some sort live in every part of the world!

I guess then it is also possible that when you believe God said "every nation in the following passage", He could have meant every nation in the middle east:

16:36

And  We  certainly  sent  into 
 every  nation  a  messenger,  [saying],  "Worship Allah and avoid  
Taghut."  And  among  them  were  those  whom Allah guided,  and  among 
 them  were those  upon  whom  error  was  [deservedly]  decreed.  So  
proceed  through  the  earth  and observe  how  was  the  end  of  the  
deniers.

http://quran.com/16

I am assuming you aren't sure about that, either? Notice that the author didn't mention the Chinese, as you noticed tafsir Jalalayn does not.

Does the Quran or hadith specifically say that this means every nation, and is not just limited to a part of the world? 

 islamispeace wrote:

But think about it.  Would the ark have been big enough to have room for every single species of animals?  There are literally millions of species of animals, not including insects.  Do you really think that there would have been enough room?

Why would it have been impossible for God to fit them in? 

 islamispeace wrote:

That is why I think that if the flood was global, then there would have been other arks because other prophets would have been sent as well to the other nations.  If, on the other hand, only Noah's people were affected or if they were somehow the only people on the earth (which is unlikely), then it stands to reason that Noah (pbuh) was commanded to only take animals in the region that was going to be affected by the flood. 

Or there is another possibility... that only Noah's people were on the earth at that time, and there were no various nations yet.

According to Bassem Zawadi, it is entirely possible that Noah's people were the only ones around, so the flood drowned all humans who were not on the Ark.

Surah 
71:26-27 could be interpreted in more than one way. One way is that Noah
 was praying against the disbelievers in his land. Another way is that 
Noah was making a general prayer against all disbelievers on planet 
earth; however that does not necessarily imply that the flood was 
global. Our Islamic sources (contrary to Biblical sources) do not tell 
us exactly how many years ago this event took place. Thus, we don't know
 how the people were spread about the earth at that time. It is said 
that Noah came after Adam by approximately ten generations. It would be 
far fetched to believe that in such a time span so many people spread 
throughout the entire planet. It is most likely that all the people on 
planet Earth were only Noah's people or some other people who did not 
live very far away from Noah's land. Therefore, a universal flood 
wouldn't be necessary in order to wipe out all disbelievers from the face
 of the planet earth (America was supposedly not discovered at this time
 yet, so why have a flood occur there?) 

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__does_the_quran_teach_a_local_flood__

What's your view on this?

 TG12345 wrote:

After all, if only part of the earth was flooded, the animals could have
 gone elsewhere. There would have been no need to gather two of each, 
since they could have multiplied with other creatures in the parts of 
the world that were unaffected by the flood.

 islamispeace wrote:

You are assuming that every single animal can adapt to every single environment.  This is completely inaccurate.  For example, some animals cannot survive in desert terrain.  Others are more suited for colder environments. 

If He was referring to two of every species in the region, why include the birds? They are completely capable of migration. 

A bird can easily fly away to a different place. Yet God told Noah to take all species into the Ark with him and his family. 

The claim that "all species" refers to all animals in a particular region makes no sense, since many animals are capable of migration and birds can simply fly away. 

Arguing this applied to only the domestic animals is equally baffling, since most types of domestic animals are found across the globe. People have livestock, dogs, cats, almost everywhere in the world.

 TG12345 wrote:

It is extremely clear that the Quran teaches that the flood was global, 
and killed off every human being on earth with the exception of those 
who got on the boat. Ibn Abbas, who knew Muhammad personally, knew this.
 So did Kathir and Jalalayn. I would say their acknowledgement that the 
Quran teaches the flood was global is far more reliable than Zawadi`s 
thoughts on the matter. He did not know Muhammad or his companions. Ibn 
Abbas did.

 islamispeace wrote:

You are in no position to make these sorts of "fatwas".    There have been many detailed studies done by Islamic scholars that show that the tafsirs are not to be blindly accepted.  These scholars' opinions more weight than your personal opinions. 

The Quran does not say explicitly that the flood was global or local.  The tafsirs do claim that the flood was global, but that is not based on the Quran or Sunnah.  

The only thing that is "extremely clear" is that it is the Bible that teaches that the flood was global.  The Quran is not clear on the issue.  Moreover, whether the flood was global or not is not the point of the Quranic narrative.  What is more important is the moral lesson that needs to be understood for reading the story. 

We agree that the Bible teaches the flood was global. We agree also that the tafsirs do teach that the flood was global. I see that according to you they are also inaccurate and therefore I trust you will not use them in the future to explain the Quran or refer to them for a better understanding.

BTW can you please show me scholarly sources from close to the time of the tafsir writers that claim that the flood was regional, as you and some Muslims claim?

 TG12345 wrote:

Furthermore, the site you cited, uses some of the same style of attacks 
on Christianity as answering-christianity. It isn`t that different from 
answering-islam or similar sites that are used to attack Muslim beliefs.

 islamispeace wrote:

I don't see how that is relevant here.  It is a Muslim website which I used to offer a Muslim perspective on the Quranic story of the flood.  What does that have to do with its "syle of attacks on Christianity"?    

It's an offhand observation. I try to stay away from sites like "answering-islam", which also offer Christian perspectives on the Bible but are used often to attack Muslims. If I am not incorrect, you encourage people to not use "answering islam" as a source... yet you are using a guy whose articles appear on "answering christianity" and writes in the same style as anti-Muslim Christians do.