TG12345 wrote: Do you believe God caused a great flood that overwhelmed the entire world and that He drowned all disbelievers except Noah and those of his people who were believers, or do you believe He caused a regional flood that drowned all of Noah's people who were disbelievers and spared Noah and his followers but did not affect humanity otherwise?

No.

Whew! I'm so glad the two of you finally got that sorted out!

Unfortunately Nazarene's account - or a spell-checked variation of it - still seems way more plausible, to anyone not already instilled with an unquestioning, literal acceptance of scripture.

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

TG21345 wrote: How do you decide what is based on the Israeliyat and what isn't? What assurance do you have that if the tafsir writers listened to the Jewish interpretation of events that happened during the time of Noah, they didn't listen to Jewish intepretation of events that happened at the battle of Badr?

Why would they?  As I said, the authentic sources of information are the Quran and authentic hadiths.  Whatever information is not found there must be left alone.  The Quran and Hadiths both speak about the Battle of Badr.  Why on earth would the exegetes rely on Jewish information about the battle, if there even was any, when they have authentic information in the Hadiths?  In any case, in the unlikely scenario that they did use Jewish sources on the Battle of Badr, all one needs to do is compare it to the information found in the Hadiths.  Anything that diverges from the latter is then obviously to be rejected.

TG12345 wrote: In your words they should be "read with caution" and are "not completely reliable". How do you know which parts are and are not based on Jewish religious traditions or on the accounts of ex-Jews?

  

As I said, anything that can be found in the Quran and Hadiths is authentic.  Anything that isn't is questionable and up to debate.

TG12345 wrote: If the author claimed "all human beings are descended from Noah", this would either imply that the Chinese originated from one of these races, or that he did not believe they were part of the human race. I would assume the first possibility.

But he didn't name all humans!  End of story.

TG12345 wrote: Nothing you have written so far shows they can be trusted. Do you have a list of reliable and unreliable tafsir?

As I said, only the Quran and authentic hadiths are fully reliable.  The tafsirs are not scriptures, so why would anyone say that they are infallible or contain no mistakes?  Not one Muslim says that.  You are the only one who seems to think that a non-scriptural source has to be either completely correct or it is to be rejected.  Not one Muslim scholar would agree with you. 

There is no such thing as a "reliable tafsir" or "unreliable tafsir".  Unless the author was a known heretic, any tafsir can be used, but as I said, it should be used with caution.

TG12345 wrote: I asked you what proof is there that Ibn Abbas was drawing from this hadith. Zawadi says the hadith is weak. Does he or do you have proof Ibn Abbas drew from it?

 

No one said that Ibn Abbas used this narration.  But, since the tafsir does say that Noah's three sons were the ancestors of all the world's nations, it is completely plausible that he was basing this on the narration in question, or another related narration. 

The major point is that this narration is weak.  It is not an authentic narration and therefore is not admissible as evidence that all nations are descended from Noah's three sons.

TG12345 wrote: You are telling me what Muslim sources I can and cannot use, by discounting the evidence I presented from the tafsir which state clearly that the flood was global and affected every human being on the planet by saying it isn't proof and then posting Zawadi's article who claims it is the tafsirs are not a "reliable source".

First, as a Muslim, I am fully within my right to tell you what sources are reliable and what are not.  If you want to prove anything to a Muslim, you need to use the Quran and Sunnah.  Anything else is not scripture and therefore cannot be considered error-proof.

Second, show me one Islamic scholar who says that the tafsirs are completely reliable and that Muslims can blindly trust everything that is in them.  I can tell you now that you will not be able to find such scholars.  That is why I said that you are overstepping your boundaries.  You are trying to tell Muslims what sources they can and cannot use, and you are doing this on your own authority. 

Third, even if the tafsirs are taken into account, there is no evidence in them that the flood was global.  Just because they said that all nations are descended from Noah's three sons does not necessarily mean that the flood was global, since it is possible that Noah's people were the only ones on the earth prior to the flood, although as I said before, that depends on how long ago we are talking about.  In fact, the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas states in the commentary on 21:77 that:

"(And delivered him from the people who denied Our revelations) who disbelieved in Our Scripture and Messenger Noah. (Lo! they were folk of evil) in their state of disbelief, (therefore did We drown them all) by the flood." [1]

Here, it is stated clearly that the flood destroyed Noah's people.  No mention is made of it being a global flood.  The same is stated in the commentary on 29:14:

"(And verily We sent Noah (as Our messenger) unto his folk, and he continued with them for a thousand years save fifty years) calling them to profess Allah's divine Oneness but they did not respond to him; (and
the flood engulfed them) and Allah destroyed them by the flood, (for they were wrong-doers) they were disbelievers." [2]

In addition, whenever the Quran refers to God's punishment on previous nations, it always refers to those nations only being punished, and not the whole earth.  Why would the flood be any different?  As it states in the commentary on 9:70:

"(Hath not the fame) the news (of those before them reached them) how We destroyed them (the folk of Noah) We destroyed them by drowning, ('Aad) the people of Hud, We destroyed them by the wind, (Thamud) the people of Salih, We destroyed them by means of the earthquake, (the folk of Abraham) We destroyed them by razing them down, (the dwellers of Midian) the people of Shu'ayb, We destroyed them by the earthquake (and the disasters) the deniers who were swallowed up by the earth, i.e. the people of Lot who were destroyed by being swallowed up by the earth and also by a rain of stones? (Their messengers (from Allah) came unto them with proofs) with commands and prohibitions as well as signs, but they refused to believe in them and Allah destroyed them. (So Allah surely wronged them not) by destroying them, (but they did wrong themselves) through disbelief and giving the lie to the prophets." [3]

TG12345 wrote: Use whatever sources you want. I just think it's interesting you are telling me which sources I should and should not use.

Why not?  You are trying to issue "fatwas" on what Muslims should believe!  And you are doing it using sources that no Muslims would regard as error-proof.  So, yes, I am telling you what Muslim sources you can and cannot use to tell Muslims what they should believe.

TG12345 wrote: Is this incident mentioned in the hadith? Is the story of Muhammad apologizing to Ibn Umm Maktum found in an authentic hadith?

It is stated in "Malik's Muwatta":

"Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said that Abasa (Sura 80) was sent down about Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum. He came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and began to say, "O Muhammad, show me a place near you (where I can sit)," whilst one of the leading men of the idol worshippers was in audience with the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, began to turn away from him and give his attention to the other man, and he said to him, "Father of so-and-so, do you see any harm in what I am saying?" and he said, "No, by the blood (of our sacrifices) I see no harm in what you are saying." And Abasa - "He frowned and turned away when the blind man came" - was sent down." [4]

TG12345 wrote: Your reasons don't show evidence that the tafsir can be trusted, since we don't know which parts of it are 'authentic' and which are based on Jewish sources.

I already stated that whatever can be corroborated with the Quran and authentic hadiths is to be accepted.  Everything else is questionable.  So, if any one wanted to prove that the flood was global, they would need to provide evidence from the Quran or authentic hadiths, neither one of which states clearly that the flood was global.  In fact, the Quran always states that the flood was sent to specifically punish Noah's people.  Therefore, unless Noah's people had spread throughout the earth (which is next to impossible), or they were the only people on earth at the time (which would then negate the necessity of a global flood) it is highly improbable that the flood was global.

TG12345 wrote: Are you saying it's impossible to find sheep in other parts of the planet?

Did you read my response?  I said that there are different species and breeds of the same animals!  One specific species or breed may be found in only one particular region.  There have been numerous breeds of sheep, some of which are found in particular areas of the world.  An Africana breed is different from a Damara breed.

TG12345 wrote: That's funny, because you have no problem assuming that "every nation" or "there was never a people..." means literally every nation when mentioned in the Quran or hadith, yet when Ibn Jalalayn writes all human beings you ask if this includes the Chinese...

 

Except that the tafsir "Al-Jalalayn" (not ibn Jalalayn) did not refer to every nation.  They would have been fully aware of the Chinese, yet the tafsir never mentioned them.  From the context, by no stretch of the imagination can one claim that the tafsir was referring to all people of the world.  In fact, it only mentions the Arabs, Persians, Byzantines, Africans, Turks, Khazars and the people of Gog and Magog (whoever they are).  As you can see, this only covers most of Asia and Africa and some parts of Europe.  That's it. 

In addition, I showed the context of 16:36 as referring to the entire world.  I also showed another verse which clearly refers to messengers being sent to all nations of the earth and backed it further with an authentic hadith. 

TG12345 wrote: Being consistent goes a long way.

It most certainly does, and so far, the only one being inconsistent is you, given that you have not provided any evidence from the Quran and Sunnah for any of your assertions.

TG12345 wrote: Because both the Quran and Bible say He had Noah build one and that He saved those who believed in Him (Noah and his family). Both the Quran and Bible say Noah took two of every kinds of animal on the Ark with him. They don't say that there was no Ark.

What I am saying is that if you think that all the animals of the world would have been miraculously fitted in an ark, and that is one of the "proofs" that the flood was global, then why would there have been a need for an ark in the first place?  If God can do anything, which He can, then an ark would have been unnecessary.  Moreover, if size did not matter, then why did God (according to the Bible) give specific instructions to Noah (pbuh) on the exact size and dimensions of this ark?

"So make yourself an ark of cypressc]">[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. ¹⁵ This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high." (Genesis 6:14-16)

If you say that God could fit the millions of species which would have been brought on board (which He could), then technically Noah (pbuh) could have built an ark so small that he could step on it, and yet God could still miraculously fit everyone and everything inside.  The very fact that Noah (pbuh) was given specific dimensions implies that the ark was to built so as to have enough room.  Therefore, to claim that every single species was to be brought on board makes very little sense.  There would not have been enough room, plain and simple.

TG12345 wrote: Who knows, why not?

Because there is no evidence.  People did not begin exploring the world until only about 1000 years ago. 

TG12345 wrote: Weren't there ten generations between Noah and Adam in Islam?

A generation in that time period could have meant as much as 10,000 years.  Noah (pbuh) lived to the age of 950, so one generation was not necessarily only 100 years or so.  Also, there are no authentic hadiths that I know of that say that there were 10 generations between Adam and Noah.

TG12345 wrote: You listed South America as a possible part of the world where there were unique species of sheep. However, many birds that live there are migratory and travel across whole continents every year. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/MigratoryBirds/Fact_Sheets/default.cfm?fxsht=9 The same is true of some birds that live in Egypt. http://ezinearticles.com/?Migratory-Animals-of-Africa:-Egyptian-Geese&id=6377896 And of some birds in East Asia. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/index.html If only a region was flooded, it couldn't have been in East Asia, Egypt or South America, since many of the animals who live there are migratory and wouldn't have needed to be taken on the Ark in pairs of two.

The first source clearly states what I already mentioned:

"Migration distances vary greatly between species and between individual birds of the same species."

So, not all birds migrate long distances.

The second source only refers to Egyptian geese. 

None of your sources provide any evidence that all animals and birds are capable of migrating, let alone for long distances.  

Regarding sheep, I didn't say that there was a "possibility" that there were other breeds, I stated so clearly.  Different breeds of sheep have existed throughout the world for thousands of years.  This also applies to other farm animals as well. 

TG12345 wrote: Most livestock can be inbred, so that wouldn't have been a problem.

What are you basing this on?  According to the University of Missouri:

"Development of highly productive inbred lines of domestic livestock is possible. To date, however, such attempts have met with little apparent success. Although occasional high performance animals are produced, inbreeding generally results in an overall reduction in performance. This reduction is manifested in many ways. The most obvious effects of inbreeding are poorer reproductive efficiency including higher mortality rates, lower growth rates and a higher frequency of hereditary abnormalities. This has been shown by numerous studies with cattle, horses, sheep, swine and laboratory animals." [5]

In any case, none of this changes the fact that there exist different breeds of the same animals in different parts of the world. 

TG12345 wrote: Also, what would have been the point in taking two of every pair of domestic animal? If they were used for food, it could have taken a year before they bred with each other. Wouldn't have they been eaten by then?

The same question can be asked as to how the other pairs of animals were being fed.  We don't know the answer.  Perhaps God provided food for Noah (pbuh) and his followers as well as for the animals. 

TG12345 wrote: Also, the verse says "two of every species" Are animals that are not livestock not species?

 

Again, you are assuming that "every species" meant every species on the face of the earth, but if only Noah's people were affected, which the Quran makes clear, then Noah (pbuh) would have known that God was talking about every species in his homeland.  It makes no sense to tell Noah (pbuh) to go get two polar bears from the Arctic and bring them to his homeland.  It seems pretty clear that God was referring to two pairs in the region, not from across the world.  It could also mean that God was only referring to Noah's animals only.  You are interpreting the verse to say something that it is not necessarily saying.  The context of the verse makes the claim that every single species on earth was supposed to be collected almost impossible to sustain.

TG12345 wrote: Also, how would you interpret 69:11,12? Sahih International Indeed, when the water overflowed, We carried your ancestors in the sailing ship That We might make it for you a reminder and [that] a conscious ear would be conscious of it. http://quran.com/69 Why are the people on Noah's Ark referred to as the "ancestors" of the people chapter 69 is addressed to (since you believe the Quran is addressed to everyone does that not mean also me and you)? I know you'll discount Ibn Abbas' commentary, but he wrote: (Lo! when the waters rose) at the time of Noah, (We carried you) O community of Muhammad (pbuh) as well as all created beings in the loins of your fathers (upon the ship) in the ship of Noah. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=11&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 ow were the people on Noah's Ark yours and mine ancestors? Other translations use the word "you". How were "you" on the ship? Interestingly, the author of Islam QA uses this translation of 69:11 : Verily! When the water rose beyond its limits [Nuh�s Flood], We carried you [mankind] in the floating (ship that was constructed by Nuh). http://www.islamqa.info/en/ref/1485/noah

There appears to be consensus among the scholars that the word "you" actually means "your ancestors".  But, there is disagreement as to who "you" refers to.  This can be seen in the fact that the tafsirs which you so enthusiastically quoted before are not in total agreement:

"Truly when the waters rose high, [when] they rose above all things including mountains and otherwise at the time of the Flood, We carried you, meaning, your forefathers, you being in their loins, in the sailing vessel, the ark which Noah built and by which he and those with him were saved while all the others drowned," (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Notice that this tafsir does not even mention who the "you" is.  On the other hand, Ibn Kathir states that this verse meant that all mankind is descended from "Nuh and his progeny" along with  

The fact is that the verse does not specify who the "you" is, nor does it specifically mention all of mankind.  It could be referring to the Arabs or it could be referring to all of mankind.  If it is the latter, that still does not prove that the flood was global.  It just means that mankind is descended from Noah's sons. 

The context of the verse shows that the flood affected Noah's people only.  The previous verses mention other nations that were destroyed for their sins such as the 'Ad and Thamud.  None of these disasters were global, so why would Noah's flood be any different?  It is possible that all of mankind is descended from Noah's sons, but that does not imply that the flood was global.

TG12345 wrote: Both the Bible, tafsirs and Quran were written by men. Only difference is the Bible's authors were inspired by God.

Yet despite this "inspiration", the Bible contains inconsistencies and has been edited on several occasions.  Therefore, it cannot be "inspired" by God. 

TG12345 wrote: And you can tell me to not use them?

I never said you can't use them.  I said you can't tell Muslims which parts to accept and which parts to reject.  You have no authority to tell us that.

TG12345 wrote: Is the incident of Muhammad apologizing to Ibn Umm Maktum found in either Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim?

It is is mentioned in Malik's Muwatta, which is considered to be reliable. 

TG12345 wrote: Thanks for your honesty. Interestingly, we have three tafsir writers who claim that the flood was global, and we have zero tafsir writers or scholars who claim it was regional.

Not at all.  Only Ibn Kathir (and possibly the Tafsir al-Jalalayn) explicitly states that the flood was global (in his commentary on 69:11).  They all say that Noah's sons were the ancestors of all mankind (although all of them refer to only certain nations of the earth), but that does not mean that the flood was global. 

For example, consider the following verse:

"And Noah, said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on earth!" (71:26)

Yusuf Ali translated the word "ard" as "earth", which is technically correct.  However, the word can also mean "land", and so does not necessarily mean the whole earth.  In the commentary on this verse, the Tafsir of Ibn Abbas states:

"(And Noah said) after Allah told him that none of his people will believe in him, apart from those who had already believed: (My Lord!) O my Lord! (Leave not one of the disbelievers in the land." [6]

There is no indication here that the imminent flood would be global.  It certainly makes no sense since the context shows that only Noah's people are mentioned and not the whole world.  The Tafsir al-Jalalayn disagrees and appears to state that the flood was global:

"And Noah said, �My Lord, do not leave from among the disbelievers a single dweller upon the earth (dayyār means �one who inhabits a dwelling [dār]�), in other words, not one." [7]

Therefore, as I said before, there is no definitive evidence that the flood was global.  The context of the verses which mention it makes a global flood unlikely as only Noah's people were the targets.  Since it is highly unlikely that Noah's people had managed to spread throughout the entire world, a global flood makes little sense.

TG12345 wrote: Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Answering-Islam has some good defence of Christian theology, but is full of errors about what Islam teaches. I don't use it as my source. Although I look at the website sometimes, whatever they have to say about Islam I do a lot of my own research on before even considering whether to think about using it.

You shouldn't use it at all as a source on Islam.  That would be like me using a mechanic as a source on medicine!

islamispeace wrote: In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Blessed be His name.

TG12345 wrote: 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?

islamispeace wrote: You need to read what I wrote carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.  When did I say that the tafsirs are entirely based on Israliyyat?  What I said was that the tafsir authors relied on Israliyyat to fill-in certain details in the Quranic narrative.  That does not mean that every single thing written in a tafsir was taken from Jewish sources.  Do you think that the tafsir authors would have used Jewish sources to explain verses which dealt with events in the lives of Muhammad (pbuh) or his companions?  Do you think, for example, that information on the Battle of Badr (which is mentioned in the Quran) would have been based on Jewish sources?  Obviously, the answer is no.

How do you decide what is based on the Israeliyat and what isn't? What assurance do you have that if the tafsir writers listened to the Jewish interpretation of events that happened during the time of Noah, they didn't listen to Jewish intepretation of events that happened at the battle of Badr?

islamispeace wrote: The point is that in some instances, the tafsir authors relied on Jewish stories to give more details about certain stories, most of which had to do with events that occurred hundreds or thousands of years before the coming of Muhammad (pbuh).  That does not mean that the tafsirs are completely based on Israliyyat traditions.  That was an assumption you made.

In your words they should be "read with caution" and are "not completely reliable". How do you know which parts are and are not based on Jewish religious traditions or on the accounts of ex-Jews?

TG12345 wrote: Perhaps the authors believed the Chinese originated from the races named already?

 

islamispeace wrote: Do you have proof for this?  No, this is just speculation.

If the author claimed "all human beings are descended from Noah", this would either imply that the Chinese originated from one of these races, or that he did not believe they were part of the human race. I would assume the first possibility.

TG12345 wrote: 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?

islamispeace wrote: See above.]/Quote] Nothing you have written so far shows they can be trusted. Do you have a list of reliable and unreliable tafsir? TG12345 wrote: 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) islamispeace wrote: If you had kept reading, you would have answered your own question.  Zawadi wrote: "However, the chain of narration is weak. See Sheikh Albany's Jaami' Al Tirmidhi commentary on hadith no. 3230 & 3931. Also see Sheikh Al Albany's Salseelatil Ahaadeeth Al Da'eefa, Hadith no. 3683 for his detailed critique of the narration." This is not an authentic hadith.  I pointed out before that there are no hadiths in the authentic compilations that speak of the sons of Noah (pbuh) as being the ancestors of all nations. I asked you what proof is there that Ibn Abbas was drawing from this hadith. Zawadi says the hadith is weak. Does he or do you have proof Ibn Abbas drew from it? TG12345 wrote: 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. islamispeace wrote: Except that I don't question what sources Christians you may use.  You are overstepping your boundaries by telling Muslims what they can and cannot use.  The tafsirs are supplementary material.  They are not considered to be scripture.  We are perfectly within our right to read the tafsirs with caution.  If there is material in the tafsirs which is not based on the Quran or Sunnah, then we have every right to reject it.  Therefore, issues like whether the flood was global or not or whether Noah's sons were the ancestors of all mankind (both of which the Quran does not deal with in detail), should be left alone.  The tafsirs which state that the flood was global were not basing it on authentic material.  I should point out that this does not necessarily mean that those stories are wrong.  It just means that we cannot blindly accept them.   You are telling me what Muslim sources I can and cannot use, by discounting the evidence I presented from the tafsir which state clearly that the flood was global and affected every human being on the planet by saying it isn't proof and then posting Zawadi's article who claims it is the tafsirs are not a "reliable source". TG12345 wrote: 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. islamispeace wrote: Again, your opinion is not binding on Muslims.  You, being a Christian, have no say in what sources we can and cannot rely on.  Use whatever sources you want. I just think it's interesting you are telling me which sources I should and should not use. islamispeace wrote: As I explained above, the tafsirs can be useful in explaining the context of Quranic verses which dealt with events and issues in the lifetime of the Prophet, especially if they are supported by authentic narrations.  Here is an example.  The Quran states in Surah Abasa: "(The Prophet) frowned and turned away, Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).  But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-  Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?" (80:1-4) Those not familiar with the Prophet's life would probably not understand the context of these verses.  But as the tafsirs explain, these verses were sent down with regard to a specific incident: "because the blind man came to him: �Abd Allāh son of Umm Maktūm, who interrupted him while he was busy with those notables of Quryash whose submission [to God] he was very eager for. The blind man was not aware that he was busy with these and so he called out to him, �Teach me of what God has taught you�. However, the Prophet (s) went off to his house. He was then reproached for this with what was revealed in this sūra. Afterwards, whenever he came to him, the Prophet would say to him, �Greetings to him on whose account God reproached me!�, and would lay down his cloak for him." (Tafsir al-Jalalayn) "(Because the blind man came unto him) when 'Abdullah Ibn Umm Maktum came to him. His real name is 'Abdullah Ibn Shurayh. Umm Maktum was his father's mother. What happened is that the Prophet (pbuh) was sitting with a group of men among the nobles of Quraysh, among whom were his uncle al-'Abbas Ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib, Umayyah Ibn Khalaf al-Jumahi and Safwan Ibn Umayyah, who were at that time disbelievers. The Prophet (pbuh) was admonishing and inviting them to Islam when Ibn Maktum came to him and said: �O Messenger of Allah! Teach me of that which Allah has taught you�. The Prophet (pbuh) turned his face from him because he was busy with these people. When this happened Allah revealed: he frowned and turned away because the blind man came unto him." (Tafsir Ibn Abbas) "More than one of the scholars of Tafsir mentioned that one day the Messenger of Allah was addressing one of the great leaders of the Quraysh while hoping that he would accept Islam. While he was speaking in direct conversation with him, Ibn Umm Maktum came to him, and he was of those who had accepted Islam in its earliest days. He (Ibn Umm Maktum) then began asking the Messenger of Allah about something, urgently beseeching him. The Prophet hoped that the man would be guided, so he asked Ibn Umm Maktum to wait for a moment so he could complete his conversation. He frowned in the face of Ibn Umm Maktum and turned away from him in order to face the other man." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)  This is why tafsirs are still useful. Is this incident mentioned in the hadith? TG12345 wrote: 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). islamispeace wrote: You can point it out, but it will be ignored, because you are not in a position to offer your own fatwas!  TG12345 wrote: Why would that need to be the case? Is everything that Ibn Abbas said that is not recorded in the hadith false? islamispeace wrote: As I said, Muslims rely on the Quran and the authentic hadiths.  Everything else has to be checked against these two sources.  If something is not mentioned in either one, that does not necessarily mean it is wrong.  It just means that we have no authentic information about it.  In that case, we have to refrain from making judgments. Is the story of Muhammad apologizing to Ibn Umm Maktum found in an authentic hadith?   TG12345 wrote: 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. 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. islamispeace wrote: It is not up to you to determine what should be "dismissed".  I have already shown the reasons. Your reasons don't show evidence that the tafsir can be trusted, since we don't know which parts of it are 'authentic' and which are based on Jewish sources. TG12345 wrote: 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! islamispeace wrote: Are you sure?  There are such things as different species or breeds of the same animals.  For example, there are different breeds of sheep, ranging from the "Africana" (which are found in South America) and "Damara" (which were found in East Asia and Egypt) [1]. It is perfectly plausible that Noah's animals were only found in a certain region.  Are you saying it's impossible to find sheep in other parts of the planet? TG12345 wrote: 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: You know, sarcasm is only funny when the person doing it knows what he is talking about!  If you read the verse carefully and note the context, you would see what it is saying: "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." This is talking about every nation on the earth.  Moreover, there are other verses in the Quran which clearly state that prophets were sent to all nations: "Verily We have sent thee in truth, as a bearer of glad tidings, and as a warner: and there never was a people, without a warner having lived among them (in the past). And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Books of dark prophecies, and the Book of Enlightenment." (35:24-25)    Further still, the hadiths also state that prophets were sent to all nations: "Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Allah's Apostle said, 'Nations were displayed before me; one or two prophets would pass by along with a few followers. A prophet would pass by accompanied by nobody. Then a big crowd of people passed in front of me and I asked, Who are they Are they my followers?" It was said, 'No. It is Moses and his followers It was said to me, 'Look at the horizon.'' Behold! There was a multitude of people filling the horizon. Then it was said to me, 'Look there and there about the stretching sky! Behold! There was a multitude filling the horizon,' It was said to me, 'This is your nation out of whom seventy thousand shall enter Paradise without reckoning.' [...]" (Sahih Bukhari, Book 71, Number 606)   Notice that this hadith was narrated by Ibn Abbas!  This is an authentic narration and was not based on the Israliyyat.  That's funny, because you have no problem assuming that "every nation" or "there was never a people..." means literally every nation when mentioned in the Quran or hadith, yet when Ibn Jalalayn writes all human beings you ask if this includes the Chinese... Being consistent goes a long way. TG12345 wrote: Why would it have been impossible for God to fit them in? islamispeace wrote: If that is your best argument for a global flood, then an equally valid question is why didn't God just miraculously save the believers and the animals without the need for a wooden ark?  Was that impossible? Because both the Quran and Bible say He had Noah build one and that He saved those who believed in Him (Noah and his family). Both the Quran and Bible say Noah took two of every kinds of animal on the Ark with him. They don't say that there was no Ark. TG12345 wrote: Or there is another possibility... that only Noah's people were on the earth at that time, and there were no various nations yet. islamispeace wrote: Then a global flood would definitely not make any sense.  What would be the point of destroying the whole world when only Noah's people were inhabiting it?  Why would there be a need to destroy uninhabited lands?  Or are you assuming that Noah's people were so numerous that they inhabited the entire planet, including North and South America and Australia? Who knows, why not? TG12345 wrote: 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? islamispeace wrote: You ignored that Zawadi also pointed out that if Noah's people were the only ones on earth, then a global flood makes no sense, as I also pointed out.  I think it is unlikely that Noah's people were the only ones inhabiting the earth.  It all depends on how long ago we are talking about.  Neither the Quran nor the Hadiths state how many years have passed since the flood.  Therefore, it would be nothing but speculation.  There is evidence of various civilizations in different places on the earth from thousands of years ago.  Weren't there ten generations between Noah and Adam in Islam? TG12345 wrote: 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.   islamispeace wrote: Not all birds are migratory and some birds are only capable of migrating short-distances [2].  The same applies to animals.  And like I said, some animals are adapted to their environment.  Migration would mean that they may have to move to a different environment, one which is not suited for them. You listed South America as a possible part of the world where there were unique species of sheep. However, many birds that live there are migratory and travel across whole continents every year. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/MigratoryBirds/Fact_Sheets/default.cfm?fxsht=9 The same is true of some birds that live in Egypt. http://ezinearticles.com/?Migratory-Animals-of-Africa:-Egyptian-Geese&id=6377896 And of some birds in East Asia. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/index.html If only a region was flooded, it couldn't have been in East Asia, Egypt or South America, since many of the animals who live there are migratory and wouldn't have needed to be taken on the Ark in pairs of two. TG12345 wrote: 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. islamispeace wrote: Yes, but they may be different species or breeds, as I pointed out above. Most livestock can be inbred, so that wouldn't have been a problem. Also, what would have been the point in taking two of every pair of domestic animal? If they were used for food, it could have taken a year before they bred with each other. Wouldn't have they been eaten by then? Also, the verse says "two of every species" Are animals that are not livestock not species? Also, how would you interpret 69:11,12? Sahih International Indeed, when the water overflowed, We carried your ancestors in the sailing ship That We might make it for you a reminder and [that] a conscious ear would be conscious of it. http://quran.com/69 Why are the people on Noah's Ark referred to as the "ancestors" of the people chapter 69 is addressed to (since you believe the Quran is addressed to everyone does that not mean also me and you)? I know you'll discount Ibn Abbas' commentary, but he wrote: (Lo! when the waters rose) at the time of Noah, (We carried you) O community of Muhammad (pbuh) as well as all created beings in the loins of your fathers (upon the ship) in the ship of Noah. http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=11&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2 How were the people on Noah's Ark yours and mine ancestors? Other translations use the word "you". How were "you" on the ship? Interestingly, the author of Islam QA uses this translation of 69:11 : Verily! When the water rose beyond its limits [Nuh�s Flood], We carried you [mankind] in the floating (ship that was constructed by Nuh). http://www.islamqa.info/en/ref/1485/noah TG12345 wrote: 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. islamispeace wrote: They are only as inaccurate as any works of men, including the Bible. Both the Bible, tafsirs and Quran were written by men. Only difference is the Bible's authors were inspired by God. islamispeace wrote:   You have no basis to tell me not to use the tafsirs, as they are still useful in explaining the context of certain events that occurred in the life of the Prophet and his companions. And you can tell me to not use them? islamispeace wrote: What is most important is that the explanations in the tafsirs be supported by authentic narrations, such as those found in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Is the incident of Muhammad apologizing to Ibn Umm Maktum found in either Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim? TG12345 wrote: 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? islamispeace wrote: I don't know of any.  Regardless, since the Quran and Sunnah do not explain the nature of the flood and the verses technically can be interpreted to go both ways, the best we can say is that the flood destroyed Noah's people only. Thanks for your honesty. Interestingly, we have three tafsir writers who claim that the flood was global, and we have zero tafsir writers or scholars who claim it was regional. TG12345 wrote: t'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. [QUOTE=islamispeace]I encourage people not to use "Answering-Islam" as a source on Islam.  I could care less if they use it for some other purpose.  The website I referred to is a Muslim website.  I used it to refer to a Muslim view on the flood.  That is not the same as using a Christian polemical website like "Answering-Islam" to "learn" about Islam.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. Answering-Islam has some good defence of Christian theology, but is full of errors about what Islam teaches. I don't use it as my source. Although I look at the website sometimes, whatever they have to say about Islam I do a lot of my own research on before even considering whether to think about using it.


Edited by TG12345 - 29 December 2012 at 6:46am