Noah ,the ark and location
-
i want you to remind that god send Mose to Pharao to release the Hebrews from the on going miserable Task the egyptains put on them.
Pharao was the athourity who could Change that,thats why.
But did Noah went to the King to bring him the Message which result is worse then the Plaques of Pharao?
Because,there was no King over there .
Can you prove me wrong that there was no sumerian KIng or one Ruler at all, in the land of Noah?
peace
-
-
These are some stories from the past that we reveal to you. Neither you, nor your people knew them before this. So be patient. The future belongs to the pious.
The story in the Quran of a Flood in the middle east wasnt known to the Prophet or his people. The Quran was the first to proclaim it.This means the Flood in Mesopotamia didnt happend and the arabs didnt heard of it because it happend somewhere else.Or the Flood in Sumer happend but it wasnt so big to be told through nations as it goes on In 2537 it says that it is a sign for mankind.
This seem to me another evidence that it happend not in the middle east
-
as per archeology earliest known civilisations originated from continent AFRICA
-
to add my thoughts About the ark i guess it wasnt as big as it is decribed in the bible thats a false passage,falsly claiming that the boat was 500 feet Long and 50 feet tall.
God said take from the animals two pairs this means the animals in the Region ,the AT define it to be seven pairs of the animals and it says some of clean aniimals and some of the unclean animals ,dont know what sort of animals but from the area and from other parts of the world.
You Need a bunch of Workers for a 500 feet boat and that hight and it would take years.And it would be the biggest woodboat ever ,such a big boat would stay in mind of the People if it lands somewhere,but it didnt.
-
Sheikh Wiki says
"A still earlier version is found in the history of the Umayyad conquest of Hispania by Tariq ibn Ziyad, written around AD 750 by Abulcasim Tarif Abentarique. It holds that Japheth's son Tubal or (Sem Tofail) divided Iberia among his 3 sons ? leaving his eldest Tarraho the northeast section (called Tarrahon, later Aragon); to his second son, Sem Tofail the younger, he left the west, along the ocean (later called Set?bal); and to his youngest, Iber, he left the eastern part, along the Mediterranean, called Iberia. Tubal then built for himself a city he called Morar (today M?rida, Spain) ? where Abentarique claimed to have seen a large stone above the main city gate inscribed with these details, which he translated into Arabic. " -
The legend is the conquest. There was no conquest at all. The oldest documentary hint of such a thing is two hundred years yunger than the purported conquest. It was wholly made up for political purposes.
Of course some of the documents of later centuries enjoyed very much posing that their ancestors conquered something, but it is pure fantasy.
However it has served very well the imperial designs of the Roman church to expel anything but it from the territories it wanted, which were all territories, of course.
Just as it did with the crusades.Salaam
-
so they immigrated to europe like today lived there peacefully together till one day they had to go because of their Religion or what?
The oldest documentary hint of such a thing is two hundred years yunger than the purported conquest. It was wholly made up for political purposes.
i would appreciate a source of that documentOf course some of the documents of later centuries enjoyed very much posing that their ancestors conquered something, but it is pure fantasy.
Again, so the muslims in spain did not conquer they were invited to live there and the islamichistorian made it conquer of it?
-
To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Secondly christianity was not a monolith, Higher gothic estament was roman church, but many, many people of lower classes were arrians and persecuted. There had been civil strife and the arrians were beaten and forbidden. Only roman church was legal. The arrival of a new creed skinner to arrianism was welcomed by people.
It is in those cirumstances where later church people invented the conquest and some muslims followed because bragging seems to have been a weakness of some of them back then too.
As to the first document, I can't remember exactly but it was a mention somewhere. Of course later on many things were added, but completely unhistorical But don't worry. It is so. Conventions demands that we carry on believing in the conquest, but amongst knowledgeable people it is common knowledge. On the other hand even medieval popular literature gave hints about it.
Salaam
-
quote]To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Spain in Northafrica?Who was the king of that Kingdom.
The Arab had to fight there way through northafrica
quote]To start with at the time tht "conquest" os suposed to have happenned, Spain was not Europe, Spain under the name it had was on both sides of the straight. It wa the same kingdom what is now Morokko and Spain. No border. And therefore people of any ancestry were spread on both sides and Arabs and other could travel unhindered. Why not?
Spain in Northafrica?Who was the king of that Kingdom.
The Arab had to fight they way through Northafrica.
Secondly christianity was not a monolith, Higher gothic estament was roman church, but many, many people of lower classes were arrians and persecuted. There had been civil strife and the arrians were beaten and forbidden. Only roman church was legal. The arrival of a new creed skinner to arrianism was welcomed by people.
It is in those cirumstances where later church people invented the conquest and some muslims followed because bragging seems to have been a weakness of some of them back then too.i agree there were social-religious unrest and that parts of people welcomed them especially the jew who suffered under the visigots the most.There was a change in the rulership after fighting roderic, the Moors takeover and they moved till the Gots are gone.
In my view historically a conquest by fighting against one party who is in control and beeing in power is a conquest.
As to the first document, I can't remember exactly but it was a mention somewhere. Of course later on many things were added, but completely unhistorical But don't worry. It is so. Conventions demands that we carry on believing in the conquest, but amongst knowledgeable people it is common knowledge. On the other hand even medieval popular literature gave hints about it.
Without any source it is just a hypothesis from someone without credibility.
salam
-
Are you serious?
That I do not remember what it was does not mean that I have invented it. It is in too many books. At any rate if you vouch for the "conquest" two centuries before the earliest mention, obvioulsy it is you who should bring proof of that. Not that I ask you for it. Merely a question of logic.
If you care to know you will find out.
Salaam
-
Anyway when this historian Abentarique claimed to have seen a large stone above the main city gate inscribed with mentioning Noahs son it wouldnt in the interest of the arab to bring the Story in to the West.
If the Arabs as decendens from Sem they would leave the Story to be an in East
-
Didn?t know that Noah was abondend from his wife when he told her about a Flood is coming
6610
"Allah presents an example of those who disbelieved the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of Our righteous servants but betrayed them, so those prophets did not avail them from Allah at all, and it was said, "Enter the Fire with those who enter."Maybe he wasnt seen as a Prophet by his wife
-
i was mistakenly to belive that Noah was on the Ark with his Family but i found Nothing.He only had followers from the lower class and on one Occasion he saw his son ouside when the Flood started but this could also be meant nonfamiliar like priest say to younger men my son.
But if it is meant to be his own son the god goes to say that he his not his son because he did not listen to the warnings
So,there are no sons of Noah ,no decendens from the blessed ones or the cursed one like the bible says only later after the Flood Noah had a Family from whom decended "David, Solomon, Job, Joseph ,Mose and Harun"684
-
What doe s the word "aHbitou" in sura 1148 mean ;get down
Dr. Ghali
It was said, "O Nuh, (Noah) get down in Peace from Us, and blessings upon you and upon nations from (among) the ones with you. And (to other) nations We will soon give enjoyment, thereafter painful torment from Us will touch them." (i.e., befall them)In which Connection is get down meant is it the boat?Why not get on the boat?What sort of a boat is this?