FLOOD OF NOAH DIDN�T COVER WORLD IN KORAN

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

Holy is the Lord

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?

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Fair enough, you made your point.

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?

  

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Fair enough, thanks for stating.

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.

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

Why would he have to name all the humans? What else can "all human beings are descended from Noah" possibly mean? Does the Quran list every single nation and people group on the planet?

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

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Sorry for misunderstanding your approach. If what is written in the tafsirs are also in the Quran or hadith, it is authentic according to Islam, correct? if not, it is up for debate?
 

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Fair enough.

Out of curiousity, can you tell me how do you know which hadith are authentic and which are not?

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?

 

islamispeace wrote: 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.

The hadith narration is weak, and if the author of tafsir Ibn Abbas got it from a weak hadith you would be right. If Ibn Abbas however heard this from Muhammad and wrote it down, it would be a different story.

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".

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Fair enough. As a small aside, perhaps I will start doing the same with Christian sources, and tell you which ones you are and are not allowed to use.

islamispeace wrote: 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.

I didn't argue they were completely reliable and can be blindly trusted.

islamispeace wrote: 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]

Fair enough, you can argue that the tafsirs do not argue there was a global flood. However, they do argue that it drowned all of humanity with the exception of the people who were on the Ark with Noah.

islamispeace wrote: 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]

You are correct, however there is one major difference. The Quran does not call the survivors of the people of Hud or Aad or Thamud or Salih or Lot or ShuAyb our ancestors or refer them to us as "you".

I am also unaware of any scholars believing that all of humanity except the people of Lot, Hud, ShuAyb, Thamud, Salih, Aad perished, or the survivors being referred to as our ancestors.

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.

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Fair enough.

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

islamispeace wrote: 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]

Thank you for showing me.

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.

islamispeace wrote: 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.

I think there is evidence from the Quran that the flood drowned all humanity except those on the Ark, and there are scholars who are Muslim who also believe this. I also think the fact that two of every kind of animal were gathered on the ship implies the flood was global according to even the Quran. However, I think that it is less certain than that all of humanity except Noah and his family were drowned.

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

islamispeace wrote: 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.

You are correct on that. I think that if "two of every species" was a reference to only livestock you could be correct. However, I don't see why the Quran's author would not write simply "your livestock" if he meant it only applied to farm animals.

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...

 

islamispeace wrote: 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.

Perhaps he believed all humanity descended from these groups. The phrase all human beings means exactly that, unless you can prove otherwise.

His tafsir of 69:11 says the forefathers of the people reading the verse were in the loins of Noah's people.

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,

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=69&tAyahNo=11&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

Clearly, we are their descendants!

islamispeace wrote: 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. islamispeace wrote: 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. You are also being inconsistent, by claiming that when the Quran or hadith talk about humanity they mean all humanity but when Ibn Jalalayn does so you believe he only meant certain people groups because like the Quran and hadiths, he did not mention them all. 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. islamispeace wrote: 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. Of course God could have made the Ark any size He wanted. He could have made it much smaller than described in Genesis, He could have also made it much bigger. Yet miraculously He made all the animals fit in. Also, it is possible there were less species of animals in existence then. TG12345 wrote: Who knows, why not? islamispeace wrote: Because there is no evidence.  People did not begin exploring the world until only about 1000 years ago.  That's simply not true. http://www.eduplace.com/kids/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/imaps/AC_02_047_migration/AC_02_047_migration.html Even if we discount the belief that the earth is millions of years old (I don't personally hold an opinion on that as I haven't done enough research on the topic), it is clear that people have been moving around the earth for thousands of years. TG12345 wrote: Weren't there ten generations between Noah and Adam in Islam? islamispeace wrote: 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. Interesting. I also couldn't any hadith in Bukhari or Muslim (and I don't have access to any of the other ones). "Islamreligion" claims there is a hadith in Bukhari saying there were 10 generations between Adam and Noah but I couldn't find that. Prophet Muhammad informed us that there were ten generations between Prophets Adam and Noah.[2] http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/1199/ 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. islamispeace wrote: 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. Yes, but some of them do. With nesting grounds as far north as land extends and wintering sites on the opposite end of the earth, arctic terns cover 22,000 miles (35,400 km) annually. Given that the sun never sets while these terns are nesting, nor during the time they spend near the South Pole, arctic terns enjoy more hours of daylight than any other species. http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/MigratoryBirds/Fact_Sheets/default.cfm?fxsht=9 They would not have been included in the Ark, so claiming that all species of animals from that region went on the Ark wouldn't make sense. islamispeace wrote: 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.   No, but in all these regions there are some who easily can. If the flood was only regional, they wouldn't have been taken on the Ark, therefore not all species from either of the regions you mentioned would have needed to go on Noah's boat. islamispeace wrote: 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.  True. TG12345 wrote: Most livestock can be inbred, so that wouldn't have been a problem. islamispeace wrote: 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] As your source says it is possible to do so. Often and usually in fact this is unsuccessful but there have been times when the result was high performance of animals. Is it illogical to assume that God could make them interbreed successfully, if humans have been sometimes able to achieve this? islamispeace wrote: In any case, none of this changes the fact that there exist different breeds of the same animals in different parts of the world.  No, it doesn't. It also doesn't change the fact that inbreeding is a possibility. And that humans have occasionally been able to do it. I don't see why God would not be able to. 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? islamispeace wrote: 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.  I believe He did as well. I also believe He took two of every kinds of animal on the Ark... as both the Quran and Bible say. TG12345 wrote: Also, the verse says "two of every species" Are animals that are not livestock not species?   islamispeace wrote: 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. If 2 of every species in his homeland is what the passage means, then it is illogical because in every part of the world we examined so far there are species of animals that can migrate long distances. islamispeace wrote: 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 would if there was a global flood. islamispeace wrote:   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. I think if God wanted to say livestock, He would have said just that. Can you find me Muslim scholars who claim that "two of every species" refers to his livestock only? 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 islamispeace wrote: 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.  Is chapter 69 addressed only to Arabs, or to everyone reading the Quran? I thought it was a universal book.  If mankind descended from Noah's sons, then that means that no one on earth except for Noah and the people on the boat survived, wouldn't you agree? Given that Al Jalalayn believes that Noah prayed for God to destroy all of the disbelievers on the entire earth, it is I think safe to say that he believed all humanity is descended from Noah and his family. islamispeace wrote: 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. I think a major difference is that there is no talk of either of these prophets praying for all disbelievers on earth to be destroyed, or of them taking two of every species onto a boat, or the word "ancestors" being used to describe them. TG12345 wrote: Both the Bible, tafsirs and Quran were written by men. Only difference is the Bible's authors were inspired by God. islamispeace wrote: Yet despite this "inspiration", the Bible contains inconsistencies and has been edited on several occasions.  Therefore, it cannot be "inspired" by God. Not as inconsistent as the Quran and hadiths.   TG12345 wrote: And you can tell me to not use them? islamispeace wrote: 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. Fair enough. TG12345 wrote: Is the incident of Muhammad apologizing to Ibn Umm Maktum found in either Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim? islamispeace wrote: It is is mentioned in Malik's Muwatta, which is considered to be reliable. Thanks. That was a good example.  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. islamispeace wrote: 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.  True. Ibn Abbas also states that Noah's sons were our ancestors. islamispeace wrote: 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. So there is disagreement between the tafsir scholars on whether the flood was global or not. All of them seem to agree that "we" (as long as chapter 69 is addressed to us and not only Arabs) are descendants of Noah and his family. Also, it is interesting if we continue to examine tafsir Al Jalalayn of 71:28, especially how it ends. Ibn Jalalayn prayed for all the disbelievers on the earth to be destroyed in 71:26 and in 71:28 according to Al Jalalayn God granted this request. He destroyed all the disbelievers on the earth, which Al Jalalayn states is 'inhabiting a dwelling'. My Lord, forgive me and my parents � both of whom were believers � and whoever enters my house, my dwelling or my place of worship, as a believer, and believing men and believing women, to the Day of Resurrection, and do not increase the evildoers except in ruin�, in destruction � and thus they were destroyed. We can conclude that both Ibn Jalalayn and Ibn Kathir believed God killed all the disbelievers on the earth, and I would argue this indicates the flood was global. I also found a fatwa which I posted in this thread (look on previous page, it just passed the review lol) which states that the flood was global. So we do have Muslim scholars who agree it was a global flood. Can you find me scholars who argue that it was not, and that it did not wipe out all of humanity? 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. [QUOTE=islamispeace]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!

I once tried that. It didn't work for me either. Kidding!


Edited by TG12345 - 03 January 2013 at 6:25am

nospam001 wrote: 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.

Got what sorted out?

I believe the flood was global and that it drowned all of humanity except the people on Noah's Ark. Islamispeace says it could have been either way but seems to more believe it was regional, and that it drowned only his people.

I have presented the interpretations of 3 tafsir scholars and a fatwa that claims all of humanity was drowned, as well as an article from islamQA which states that mankind was on the Ark with Noah. The fatwa as well as at least one of the scholars argue also explicitly that the whole world was flooded. The sources I cited that don't say this explicitly allude to it and they all claim mankind was on the Ark with Noah and that everyone else drowned.

Islamispeace presented his arguments defending his belief that only a region of the world was flooded and only a certain group of people were affected, without alluding to any fatwas or tafsirs or hadiths to back up his statement.

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?


Edited by TG12345 - 05 January 2013 at 5:48pm