Noah ,the ark and location

si_di

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.

si_di

so lets go on though it is monologue.

For the heavy rain in the Story and its Long Duration there are three place where such storms can occure.
-Antlantic ocean
-Pacific ocean
-indian sea

choose one

si_di

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. "

huruf

Plenty of legends there, not the least of which is the Umayyad conquest of Spain.

Salaam

si_di

thats historical fact that umayyads lived in spain or what do you mean with legend i dont get your point

si_di

or do you mean the arab ummayads made it a legend to legitimze the conquest as they are from Noahs son Sem of origin.

If thats so you have missed that it is Jafeth decendens the legend is reffering to.

huruf

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

si_di

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 document

Of 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?

huruf

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

si_di

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

huruf

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

si_di

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

si_di

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

si_di

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

si_di

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?

good_logic

Peace si di.
But when the boat reached its destination Noah was told to "Ahbitou" from it.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

si_di

@goodlogic

thanks,my arabic is not so good i thought in this ayat it is meant to embark the ship whereas it is Arrival Scene

well this ayat is also to be worth to ponder on is god indicating that other nations will follow Noahs ex-People?

And (to other) nations We will soon give enjoyment, thereafter painful torment from Us will touch them." (i.e., befall them)

Maybe AD and Thamud?

good_logic

I suppose it means all the "Ummam" including us.

Some humans are good and some are not. The human summary(All the generations!) is in that aya.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

si_di

I suppose it means all the "Ummam" including us.

Some humans are good and some are not. The human summary(All the generations!) is in that aya.
GOD bless you.
Peace.

That is a possibility

Maybe you can help me to a previous thought i have about the boat because it was ayat before that "aHbitou""to go of"the ship .

wa-qla rkab fh bi-smi llhi majrh wa-mursh inna rabb la-ghafrun ramun
Translation
He said, ?Board it In the Name of Allah it shall set sail and cast anchor. Indeed my Lord is all-forgiving, all-merciful.?

What do arabs say when they go on ship/Horse/bicyle verb+pr?positon ?

Do they say something with fi?I thought ?la is the proper Pr?position?

good_logic

It depends on what you are boarding.If it is a camel you say. "Irkabu Alaihi"( On it)

If it is a car or a boat you say"Irkabu Fiha". My understanding of the difference is the latter you are really going inside it (Fiha).
GOD bless you.
Peace.