Before we look at this section about Noah, lets recollect the setting in which this material was delivered: the Quraish were no strangers to the stories of Biblical characters such as those found in the books of Genesis and Exodus. If they hadnt read Genesis and Exodus personally, at least they had heard the stories from Jews -- probably with rabbinical embellishments. The Meccans also knew stories about preachers who had taught in other areas. So the basic gist of the stories that Muhammad presents in this surah wasnt anything new to many of his listeners.
But something /was/ new: the details in the conversations which Muhammad claimed that the old-time prophets had with their opponents. It did not take a great deal of effort for the Meccans to realize that Muhammad, as he retold the stories, was putting his own words in the mouths of the old-time prophets, while putting the words of Muhammads opponents in the mouths of the opponents of the old-time prophets. Nor does it take much effort for modern-day readers to observe this. Furthermore, it is plain to see that Muhammad /changed the stories,/ sometimes in ways that cause contradictions with the Biblical accounts, in order to make the prophets words and situations more closely resemble his own. (Some embellishments are just strange, too, such as the statement about Noah in 29:14 that he stayed among his people for 950 years before the Flood.)
In verses 25-26 (cf. 7:59), Noah is depicted warning people with the same basic appeal used by Muhammad. And Noahs preaching -- surprise! -- is rejected with the same retorts that the Meccans used against Muhammad. If one adheres to the Biblical report that only Noahs wife, three sons, and their three wives joined him in the ark, its quite inexplicable why anyone would tell Noah that they considered those who followed him to be the lowest class of people, who followed him mindlessly, rather than tell him that only his close family-members were following him. This description, however, was an accurate summary of the opinion of the men of Mecca about Muhammads followers; indeed that is what it really was.
Noahs words in v. 28 are Muhammads words to the Meccans; notice how Noah asks, Shall we compel you to accept it when you have a strong hatred for it? The whole dialog between Noah and his opponents is essentially a presentation of the discussions between Muhammad and the Meccans with the characters re-named. The compel-or-not question alluded to in v. 28 was on Muhammads mind in 10:99. The demand to drive away his poor followers (something which Noah was never challenged to do) was faced by Muhammad; cf. 6:52. Likewise v. 31 (Noahs words) is remarkably similar to 6:50 (Muhammads words). In v. 32, the people who opposed Noah challenge him to bring the promised disaster; this too was something which the Meccans said to Muhammad -- and verses 33-34 show how Muhammad responded.
In v. 35, in the Hilali-Khan translation makes it seem as if the narrative about Noah is momentarily abandoned. Other translators have treated the text in similar ways. However, I think Wherrys observations are correct: the intended subject is still the people of Noahs time; they are presented as if they are commenting on the revelation that was given to Noah. But their comment is presented in terms so appropriate to Muhammads situation, and so inappropriate to Noahs situation, that translators have resorted to the addition of italicized or parenthetical phrases, which results in the disruption of the flow of the story about Noah. When one removed the parenthetical phrases which the translators inserted in the English Hilali-Khan translation, it is much more evident that this was intended to be understood as something which the Antediluvians said about what Noah was telling them.
The narrative in verses 36-39 continues to indicate the sort of dialog which went on between Muhammad and his Meccan detractors. When Muhammad told the story of Noah in Surah 71, the detail that Muhammads opponents covered themselves up with their garments (as in 11:5) is assigned to Noahs opponents (in 71:7).
Verse 40 embellishes the Biblical account by having waters gush forth from the oven before Noah and his family and the animals enter the ark. What is the oven? Good question. The oven was probably the name of a hot spring mentioned in a rabbinical version of the story (possibly based on part of the Book of Enoch) which someone told to Muhammad; the idea is that Noah realized the Flood was coming when the hot spring overflowed. The most natural understanding of the word tannur here is that it is a feature on the surface of the earth (not a man-made oven).
Although the Biblical account says nothing about waves like mountains, the Quran does, in 11:42. The text here seems to picture waves like mountains around the ark; yet Noah, on board, is able to appeal to one of his sons, who is not on board, to get on board. The sound of the waves and storm doesnt seem to have been a problem. Verses 43-45, in which the sad tale of the death of Noahs son is told (a tale completely absent from the Biblical account), parallel Muhammads situation, in which some of his own relatives rejected his message. Abu Talib was among those who stuck with polytheism.
The protest made by Noah in v. 45, and the answer given to Noah in v. 46, match the protest which Muhammad felt, and the answer which he felt he must receive, regarding the fate of his unbelieving relatives: if they are not believers, they are not really family-members. (This passage helps establish the precedent for Muslims repudiation and rejection of (and in some cases violent hostility toward) family-members who turn from Islam.)
In v. 44, Mount Judi is said to be the mountain on which Noahs ark landed.
Finally verse 48 finishes the story of Noah, briefly mentioning the command to disembark from the ark. One would expect the text to say Blessings on you and your family, but instead it says Blessings on you and on the people who are with you, which suggests that Muhammad thought that people besides Noah and his wife and their three sons and their three wives were aboard the ark. Again, the non-Biblical detail reflects Muhammads situation.
Verse 49 commends the preceding story as something which Muhammad and his people had never known before Muhammad delivered it to them. This note of self-recommendation probably did not help persuade the Meccan men who recognized that many of the new patches in Noahs story-quilt were made of the same fabric that Muhammad was wearing, so to speak.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
But something /was/ new: the details in the conversations which Muhammad claimed that the old-time prophets had with their opponents. It did not take a great deal of effort for the Meccans to realize that Muhammad, as he retold the stories, was putting his own words in the mouths of the old-time prophets, while putting the words of Muhammads opponents in the mouths of the opponents of the old-time prophets. Nor does it take much effort for modern-day readers to observe this. Furthermore, it is plain to see that Muhammad /changed the stories,/ sometimes in ways that cause contradictions with the Biblical accounts, in order to make the prophets words and situations more closely resemble his own. (Some embellishments are just strange, too, such as the statement about Noah in 29:14 that he stayed among his people for 950 years before the Flood.)
In verses 25-26 (cf. 7:59), Noah is depicted warning people with the same basic appeal used by Muhammad. And Noahs preaching -- surprise! -- is rejected with the same retorts that the Meccans used against Muhammad. If one adheres to the Biblical report that only Noahs wife, three sons, and their three wives joined him in the ark, its quite inexplicable why anyone would tell Noah that they considered those who followed him to be the lowest class of people, who followed him mindlessly, rather than tell him that only his close family-members were following him. This description, however, was an accurate summary of the opinion of the men of Mecca about Muhammads followers; indeed that is what it really was.
Noahs words in v. 28 are Muhammads words to the Meccans; notice how Noah asks, Shall we compel you to accept it when you have a strong hatred for it? The whole dialog between Noah and his opponents is essentially a presentation of the discussions between Muhammad and the Meccans with the characters re-named. The compel-or-not question alluded to in v. 28 was on Muhammads mind in 10:99. The demand to drive away his poor followers (something which Noah was never challenged to do) was faced by Muhammad; cf. 6:52. Likewise v. 31 (Noahs words) is remarkably similar to 6:50 (Muhammads words). In v. 32, the people who opposed Noah challenge him to bring the promised disaster; this too was something which the Meccans said to Muhammad -- and verses 33-34 show how Muhammad responded.
In v. 35, in the Hilali-Khan translation makes it seem as if the narrative about Noah is momentarily abandoned. Other translators have treated the text in similar ways. However, I think Wherrys observations are correct: the intended subject is still the people of Noahs time; they are presented as if they are commenting on the revelation that was given to Noah. But their comment is presented in terms so appropriate to Muhammads situation, and so inappropriate to Noahs situation, that translators have resorted to the addition of italicized or parenthetical phrases, which results in the disruption of the flow of the story about Noah. When one removed the parenthetical phrases which the translators inserted in the English Hilali-Khan translation, it is much more evident that this was intended to be understood as something which the Antediluvians said about what Noah was telling them.
The narrative in verses 36-39 continues to indicate the sort of dialog which went on between Muhammad and his Meccan detractors. When Muhammad told the story of Noah in Surah 71, the detail that Muhammads opponents covered themselves up with their garments (as in 11:5) is assigned to Noahs opponents (in 71:7).
Verse 40 embellishes the Biblical account by having waters gush forth from the oven before Noah and his family and the animals enter the ark. What is the oven? Good question. The oven was probably the name of a hot spring mentioned in a rabbinical version of the story (possibly based on part of the Book of Enoch) which someone told to Muhammad; the idea is that Noah realized the Flood was coming when the hot spring overflowed. The most natural understanding of the word tannur here is that it is a feature on the surface of the earth (not a man-made oven).
Although the Biblical account says nothing about waves like mountains, the Quran does, in 11:42. The text here seems to picture waves like mountains around the ark; yet Noah, on board, is able to appeal to one of his sons, who is not on board, to get on board. The sound of the waves and storm doesnt seem to have been a problem. Verses 43-45, in which the sad tale of the death of Noahs son is told (a tale completely absent from the Biblical account), parallel Muhammads situation, in which some of his own relatives rejected his message. Abu Talib was among those who stuck with polytheism.
The protest made by Noah in v. 45, and the answer given to Noah in v. 46, match the protest which Muhammad felt, and the answer which he felt he must receive, regarding the fate of his unbelieving relatives: if they are not believers, they are not really family-members. (This passage helps establish the precedent for Muslims repudiation and rejection of (and in some cases violent hostility toward) family-members who turn from Islam.)
In v. 44, Mount Judi is said to be the mountain on which Noahs ark landed.
Finally verse 48 finishes the story of Noah, briefly mentioning the command to disembark from the ark. One would expect the text to say Blessings on you and your family, but instead it says Blessings on you and on the people who are with you, which suggests that Muhammad thought that people besides Noah and his wife and their three sons and their three wives were aboard the ark. Again, the non-Biblical detail reflects Muhammads situation.
Verse 49 commends the preceding story as something which Muhammad and his people had never known before Muhammad delivered it to them. This note of self-recommendation probably did not help persuade the Meccan men who recognized that many of the new patches in Noahs story-quilt were made of the same fabric that Muhammad was wearing, so to speak.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
