Noah and the Flood in the Bible and the Qur’an: A Comparative Analysis

Originally Published: January 15, 2014

Updated: June 10, 2024

Read as PDF

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

 “Because of their sins they were drowned and put into the Fire, and they found not for themselves besides Allah [any] helpers.”

– The Qur’an, Surah Nuh, 71:25

            One of the most famous and enduring stories of the Bible is undoubtedly the story of Noah (Nuh in Arabic), the flood and the ark. As with many other stories found in the Bible, this story is also found in the Qur’an, and as with the other stories, the Biblical and Qur’anic versions of Noah and the flood have some similarities as well as some major differences. In this article, I will discuss these differences and why they are significant enough to put the Qur’an and the Bible at odds with each other. After summarizing the Biblical story, I will analyze it to discuss the irreconcilable problems that plague it. Next, I will summarize the Islamic version of Noah and the flood and compare it to the Biblical one. This comparison will illustrate that the Biblical story cannot be accepted as the true version of the epic story of Noah and that the Qur’anic story, by lacking any of the difficulties found in the former, is deserves acceptance and far more credibility.

The Biblical Story

            In the Bible, the story of Noah is found in several chapters of the Book of Genesis. For the purposes of this article, we will summarize the parts dealing with the events preceding the flood, the flood itself, and some elements of the post-flood story. As such, I will deal specifically with Genesis 6-8, though in the analysis of the story, other parts of Genesis will be discussed as well.

            As the story goes, it had been several centuries since Adam and Eve had fallen to earth and great wickedness had spread therein. In fact, humans had become so evil that God:

“…And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart..”^[1]

Among the wicked acts that angered God were the sexual perversions between the “daughters of men” and mysterious beings known as the “sons of God”. The result of these sexual encounters was a race of giants known as the “Nephilim”.^[2]

            For this wickedness, God decided to destroy the entire world. The only exception made was regarding a righteous man named Noah, who had “…found favor in the eyes of the Lord”,^[3] since he did not share in the sin that was prevalent in the world. God commanded him to build an ark with exact specifications and instructed him to take his family and two of every animal on board with him.^[4]

            Once the ark was built, the cataclysmic flood arrived and destroyed all people and animals who were not on the ark. This occurred when Noah was 600 years old.^[5] After a while, the water finally started to recede,^[6] and Noah sent out a raven and dove to see if they could find dry land; when the dove did not return after a third mission, Noah realized that the waters had “subsided from the earth”.^[7] By the time he was 601 years old, Noah was instructed to come out of the ark, which had come to rest on the Ararat mountain range.^[8] The survivors, both human (totaling eight people) and animal, then repopulated the earth. It was through Noah’s sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) that humanity survived the flood and spread throughout the earth once more.^[9]

Analysis of the Biblical Story

            In the brief summary above, we can see that the whole world had become sinful and was beyond salvation. In other words, God sent the flood upon an unsuspecting world without warning. As we will see later, this element of the Biblical story differs greatly with the Qur’anic version.

            Upon scrutinizing the Biblical claims, it is obvious that there are irreconcilable problems. One of the biggest problems surfaces as a result of the chronology of the flood. While Genesis does not provide a specific date for the flood, we can come to a reasonable estimate using the genealogies that are found in the Bible. Based on this approach, the website “Answers in Genesis” states (as of 2012) that:

“…the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year…2348 BC.”^[10]

The late skeptic C. Dennis McKinsey estimated the same date:

“The flood allegedly occurred around 2348 B.C.”^[11]

Hence, we can approximate the date of the flood to around 2350 BCE. This being the case, any reasonable person should immediately see the problem: the Bible is obviously wrong about either the flood being global or the exact date of the flood or both.

            If we assume that the Biblical chronology is correct, then the flood could not have covered the whole earth. If the flood occurred sometime around 2348 BCE, then there should be no records of surviving civilizations from that time. Yet, this is exactly what we have in the historical record. As McKinsey noted:

“[a]uthentic Egyptian history does not mention a flood even though uninterrupted records were kept from the pharaoh Menes in 3400 B.C. to Darius Ochus in 340 B.C.”^[12]

While there was a flood story in Egyptian mythology, it was not a flood of destruction, so McKinsey was correct.^[13] The point is that if a global flood had indeed occurred, then there would have been a gap in ancient Egyptian records. Yet, this is not what historians have found. Therefore, since there is indisputable archaeological evidence of thriving civilizations during the time the flood allegedly occurred, we either must admit that the flood was not global or that it occurred at another earlier time. Since Egyptian records go back uninterrupted to 3400 BCE, the flood would have had to have happened some time before that (if it was global). Hence, the Bible’s chronology is off by at least 1100 years and possibly even more.

            Both scenarios present a problem for the Biblical version. Since a global flood would have surely destroyed the great civilization of Egypt at the time it allegedly occurred, the Biblical claim that the flood covered the entire world is impossible to defend. On the other hand, if there was a global flood, then the Genesis account is chronologically flawed, since it places the flood in the wrong time period.

            Besides the archaeological and geological problems, the Biblical story has other problems as well. According to Genesis 6:6-7, God came to “regret” that he had created mankind. While most apologists would dismiss such language as merely anthropomorphic descriptions in “the language of man”,^[14] or the “manner of men”,^[15] this explanation falls short as Yahweh is depicted as engaging in what Neal Walls calls a sort of “trial-and-error or experimental process” throughout the book of Genesis.^[16] As Walls observes:

“Genesis 2-11 depict Yahweh engaged in a trial-and-error or experimental process in the organization of the world. Examples include the creation of animals as unsuitable companions to the first human (Gen. [2]:18-20), the necessary expulsion of humans from Eden (Gen. 3:22-24), the need to wipe out creation and begin again after the flood, and additional alterations to God’s created order (Gen. 9, 11). In these chapters God ‘regrets’ or ‘repents of’ his actions in a fully anthropomorphic manner on occasion…Such statements show the influence of a polytheistic literary context on the Genesis narratives even as they describe a single divine actor.”^[17]

            That Yahweh’s “regret” is a reflection of the influence of polytheistic mythology is also explained by Francesca Stavrokopoulou in her book God: An Anatomy:

“Like his divine elders [in the pantheon of gods], the God of the Bible experienced much of his emotional life as a sensory, physical transformation within his torso.”^[18]

Elsewhere, she also explains that a “change of heart” in the “divine realm” could have “devastating consequences” as in Genesis 6:7, where Yahweh literally states that he “regretted” creating not just humans but also animals.^[19]

            Other examples of Yahweh’s seeming lack of omniscience and foresight can be seen in Genesis 18:20-21 and Exodus 3:7-9. In each case, Yahweh has to “go down” or “come down” to see if the sins of the people of Sodom and Gamorrah are “as bad as the outcry that has reached me” or the suffering of the Israelites under the Egyptians is as bad as their cries would indicate, respectively. With such clear lack of foreknowledge and omniscience, which is unbecoming of the All-Mighty and Omniscient God, Yahweh’s “regret” is not simply “the language of man” being used to describe his displeasure with humanity. As a matter of fact, it is showing a deity who is not omniscient at all, but rather who is learning by experience as time goes by. This could perhaps explain why Yahweh promised never to send another flood to wipe out all living things (Genesis 8:21), as he seemed to have come to a realization that humanity will always have evil inclinations and sending a flood again would not solve the problem.^[20] Needless to say, such a depiction of God is anathema to Muslims and should be to Jews and Christians as well.

            Another interesting problem with the Biblical story of Noah are the apparent parallels with ancient Egyptian mythology, especially pertaining to his family. According to author Gary Greenberg, in the Egyptian creation story known as the “Hermopolitan Creation myth”, four males and four females (the “Ogdoad” or “group of eight”) “emerged from the primeval flood and crawled onto the first land.”^[21] He notes that the four male deities were Nun, Huh, Kuk, and Amen. Of these, Nun “signified the primeval flood” and was usually depicted “standing waist-high in the primeval waters and holding aloft the solar boat that carried other deities” (see Figure 2).^[22]

Figure 2 – A depiction of the “Ogdoad” deities. Nun supports the boat carrying the other deities (Source: Allen Austin, The Middle of the Earth: Genesis in Egypt [USA: Xulon Press, 2011], p. 30).^[23]

The interesting parallel with the Biblical story is that there were eight people in the ark, four males (Noah and his three sons) and four females (their wives):

“And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives entered the ark to escape the waters of the flood.”^[24]

            There are also parallels between the Biblical story and other ancient Near Eastern (ANE) accounts of a global flood sent by the gods against the people on Earth. One such parallel is the sending of birds to look for dry land. According to John H. Walton:

“[w]hether the Bible is related to the ancient Near Eastern material through exchange of literary or oral traditions, the similarities make it difficult to dissociate them. Most telling is the fact that both include the episode of sending out the birds to determine when it was safe to leave the ark.”^[25]

            Another parallel is that the flood was sent upon an unsuspecting world, though for different reasons.^[26] The only person who was warned of the flood was the hero of the story. In the Gilgamesh Epic, the hero Utnapishtim was warned by the god Ea in a dream. Along with Utnapishtim, “representatives of all living things, beasts, several families, craftsmen, and technicians” were saved. The rest of the world was not so lucky.^[27] The same thing happened in the Biblical story.

            As for the names of Noah’s three sons, Greenberg notes some interesting parallels with the Egyptian myth as well. First, he notes that the word “Shem” (the eldest son) literally means “name” in Hebrew (so one of Noah’s sons was literally called “Name”, which doesn’t make much sense).^[28] In another astounding parallel, “shem” forms the root of the word “shemoneh”, which literally means “eight” in Hebrew, which in Greenberg’s view, “[refers] to the eight Hermopolitan deities that emerged out of the primeval flood”.^[29]

            The name of the second son, Ham (“Chem” in Hebrew), who happened to be the ancestor of the Egyptians and the other African nations in the Bible (Genesis 10:6), “derives from the Egyptian word ‘Keme,’ an ancient name for Egypt.” Not only this, but the word “Keme” literally means “the black land”.^[30] Ephraim Isaac, in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, states that the name is:

“…either etymologically related to the word ḥm, “warm,” “hot” (from ḥmm, “to become warm, hot”), or derived from the Egyptian Keme, “the black land” (a name for ancient Egypt).”^[31]

            Finally, the name of the third son Japheth corresponds to the “linguistic equivalent of the name ‘God-Ptah’”.^[32] Greenberg comes to this conclusion by observing that the name in Hebrew consists of the consonants “J-Ph-Th”, which can be written as “J-Pt”. It just so happens that “Pt” consists of the same letters in the name of the Egyptian deity Ptah.^[33]

            To be fair, the etymologies of the names “Ham” and “Japheth” are a matter of debate among scholars. The fact is that the etymologies are of uncertain origin. While certainly possible, the etymologies suggested by Greenberg and others are only theories.

            Interestingly, the case that Greenberg makes for Noah’s name having its origins in Egyptian myth is not strong. Greenberg notes that the Hebrew name “Noach” only contains two letters (“Nun” and “Ched”).^[34] As already mentioned, in the Egyptian myth, “Nun” represented the deity associated with the “primeval flood”. The other coincidence that Greenberg notes is that the “Ogdoad” deities in the Hermopolitan myth were depicted as serpents, and in “[i]n early Hebrew writing, the letter Nun evolved from the image of a serpent”.^[35] While certainly an interesting parallel, it could just be a coincidence.

            Finally, though it was not mentioned in the summary above, there is an inconsistency in the post-flood narrative concerning the mysterious “Canaan”, who is introduced suddenly in Genesis 9 after the family disembarks from the ark. After planting a vineyard, Noah got drunk and lay naked in his tent. The second son, Ham, told his brothers about it, and Shem and Japheth then proceeded to cover the nakedness of their father. For some reason, after waking up from his drunken stupor, Noah cursed the mysterious Canaan, who is described as the “youngest son”:

“When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.’”^[36]

There is an inconsistency in this story:

1. Ham is described as the “father of Canaan” in Genesis 9:22.
2. Ham was the one who discovered his father lying naked in the tent, and told his brothers, yet when Noah woke up, he cursed Canaan, the “youngest son”.
3. The “youngest” son of Noah would have been Japheth. As Greenberg notes:

“…on all occasions when the Bible mentions Noah’s three sons together, Ham’s name appears in the second place. This would have been a literary formula intended to convey to the reader that Ham was the middle son, not the youngest.”^[37]

Other scholars have noted this contradiction as well. Naomi Koltun-Fromm observes:

“Ham was the middle son, not the youngest; Canaan must have perpetrated the humiliation, not his father, though it was Ham who told his brothers.”^[38]

Even early Christian scholars described Ham as the middle son. For example, Augustine wrote in The City of God:

“Scripture first mentions that of the youngest son, who is called Japheth: he had eight sons, and by two of these sons seven grandchildren, three by one son, four by the other; in all, fifteen descendants. Ham, Noah’s middle son, had four sons, and by one of them five grandsons, and by one of these two great-grandsons; in all, eleven.”^[39]

However, elsewhere, the Bible seems to describe Japheth as the older brother of Shem, which means Japheth was the eldest son of Noah (Genesis 10:21). But the New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible has a footnote to Genesis 10:21, which states that the verse could also be rendered as (emphasis mine):

“Sons were also born to Shem, the older brother of Japheth.”^[40]

            So what is going on here? Who was Canaan? Was he the son of Ham…or of Noah? Greenberg offers a solution to these questions, albeit one that Jews and Christians will not like. He notes that in the Hermopolitan Creation myth, the Ogdoad deities collectively gave birth to a child, the god Re (Ra). Re would become the creator deity in the myth and the sun god of Egyptian mythology.^[41] In Greenberg’s view, the “Hebrew priests” had to “diminish the influence of the Egyptian Re on the beliefs of early Hebrew refugees from Egypt.”^[42] In other words, the confusion around the parentage of Canaan in the Biblical story originated from the Hermopolitan myth, which was one of the main sources of the Biblical story. Greenberg notes that there seems to be a deliberate attempt by an editor to “repeatedly stress that Ham was the father” of Canaan. We can clearly see this in the way Canaan is suddenly introduced in Genesis 9:18. In the ESV, the first mention of Canaan is placed in parentheses:

“The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)”

The relationship between Ham and Canaan is again restated in verse 22:

“And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside.”

There is a deliberate emphasis on Ham being the father of Canaan, even though later (verse 24), it is written that Noah cursed Canaan after he “found out what his youngest son had done to him”, which implies that Canaan was the youngest son. This confusion, according to Greenberg, seems to be due to the story’s heavy reliance on the well-known Hermopolitan myth.

            In his commentary on the story, Robert Alter admits that Ham “is mysteriously displaced in the curse by his son Canaan…”^[43] He also admits that “no one has ever figured out exactly what it is that Ham does not Noah,” though the purpose of the story seems clear: to justify the “subject status of the Canaanites in relation to the descendants of Shem, the Israelites.”^[44]

            The problems discussed above cast serious doubts on the Biblical story. In the next section, I will discuss the Qur’anic version of the story and show that the problems in the Biblical story are not found in the Qur’anic story.

The Qur’anic Story

            The story of Nuh (peace be upon him) and the flood is mentioned throughout the Qur’an, sometimes as long, continuous narratives and sometimes as brief accounts just a few verses long. Nuh (peace be upon him) was the first messenger sent by God.^[45] His people had strayed from the true faith of their father Adam (peace be upon him) and worshiped idols. Despite Nuh’s repeated warnings and preaching, they refused to reject these false gods and told their people:

“Do not abandon your idols—especially Wadd, Suwâ’, Yaghûth, Ya’ûq, and Nasr.”^[46]

After spending most of his life preaching in vain to his people,^[47] and when it became clear that they would not believe in his message (besides the few people who had already believed), Nuh (peace be upon him) was commanded by Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to build an ark:

“And it was revealed to Noah, ‘None of your people will believe except those who already have. So do not be distressed by what they have been doing. And build the Ark under Our ˹watchful˺ Eyes and directions, and do not plead with Me for those who have done wrong, for they will surely be drowned.’”^[48]

Once the ark was built and the flood was imminent, Nuh (peace be upon him) was commanded to bring the believers and two of every animal on board the ark. While most of his family had believed in him, his wife and one of his unnamed sons had remained loyal to the pagan religion of their people, and were among the condemned:

“Allah sets forth an example for the disbelievers: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. Each was married to one of Our righteous servants, yet betrayed them. So their husbands were of no benefit to them against Allah whatsoever. Both were told, ‘Enter the Fire, along with the others!’”^[49]

“He [the son] replied, ‘I will take refuge on a mountain, which will protect me from the water.’ Noah cried, ‘Today no one is protected from Allah’s decree except those to whom He shows mercy!’ And the waves came between them, and his son was among the drowned.”^[50]

The flood destroyed the people of Nuh (peace be upon him), leaving only the blessed messenger, his remaining sons and some others who were on the ark, as well as the animals. Once the flood waters receded, the ark came to rest on a mountain called “Judi” and the believers once again set foot on dry land:

“And it was said, ‘O earth! Swallow up your water. And O sky! Withhold ˹your rain˺.’ The floodwater receded and the decree was carried out. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and it was said, ‘Away with the wrongdoing people!’”^[51]

Analysis of the Qur’anic Story

            When reading the Qur’anic story of Nuh (peace be upon him), some major differences with the Biblical version become apparent. First, unlike the Biblical account which claims that God sent the flood on an unsuspecting and sinful world, the Qur’an states that the flood was sent upon Nuh’s people only after they had consistently rejected his warnings and refused to stop worshiping their idols and worship Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) alone. It is a consistent message in the Qur;an that even if people are living in sin, God will not punish them until He has given them a chance to repent and sent a messenger to warn them.^[52] If they do not, then and only then, will He punish them.

            Second, regarding the alleged global nature of the flood, the context of the Qur’anic story suggests that the flood was in fact a local one, or at most, affected the region in which Nuh (peace be upon him) and his people lived. It also affected only the people of Nuh (peace be upon him). Some people have argued that the Qur’an states that the flood waters covered the earth, appealing to such verses as the following:

وَقَالَ نُوحٌ رَّبِّ لَا تَذَرْ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ مِنَ الْكَافِرِينَ دَيَّارًا

“Noah had prayed, ‘My Lord! Do not leave a single disbeliever on earth.’”^[53]

In this verse, the Arabic word translated as “the earth” is “الْأَرْضِ” (al-ard), which with the definite article “الْ”(-al) means the planet “Earth” but can also mean “the ground” (see the Figure 3 below; if there is no “al”, then it can mean land or country).^[54]

Thus, Nuh (peace be upon him) prayed to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) to destroy all disbelievers in the entire world, which would suggest a global flood. As The Study Qur’an commentary notes:

“V. 26 is the only verse in the many verses pertaining to the story of Noah to imply that the flood was a universal event…All other Qur’anic discussions of the flood imply that it is specific and localized.”^[55]

However, the context of the verse shows that he was referring to his own people:

“˹Eventually,˺ Noah cried, ‘My Lord! They have certainly persisted in disobeying me, and followed ˹instead˺ those ˹elite˺ whose ˹abundant˺ wealth and children only increase them in loss…’”^[56]

How could Nuh (peace be upon him) have been referring to people in other parts of the world whom he had never met and was never sent to? How could they have “disobeyed” him if they had not even heard him preaching? Clearly, he was praying that all the disbelievers among his people, who had stubbornly refused to listen to him, would be destroyed. It does not necessitate a global flood, since he was sent to his own people and was praying for their destruction after spending most of his life trying to teach them. Some Muslim apologists, such as Bassam Zawadi,^[57] suggest that in Nuh’s time, his people were the only ones in the entire world. If this was true, then it only serves to further deny the possibility of a global flood, since a localized flood would have done the job. A global flood would have been unnecessary.

            Furthermore, if we consider Surah Hud, 11:44, we can see that a localized flood better fits the narrative:

وَقِيلَ يَا أَرْضُ ابْلَعِي مَاءَكِ وَيَا سَمَاءُ أَقْلِعِي وَغِيضَ الْمَاءُ وَقُضِيَ الْأَمْرُ وَاسْتَوَتْ عَلَ الْجُودِيِّ ۖ وَقِيلَ بُعْدًا لِّلْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ

“And it was said, ‘O earth! Swallow up your water. And O sky! Withhold ˹your rain˺.’ The floodwater receded and the decree was carried out. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and it was said, ‘Away with the wrongdoing people!’”

In this verse, the word for “earth” is simply “أَرْضُ”, without the definite article “الْ” (al-), which means that Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) commanded the “land” to “swallow up your water”. The command was not to the entire Earth. This strongly suggests a localized flood.^[58]

            Another objection raised to the local flood theory is that some early Qur’anic commentators believed that the flood was indeed global. Yet this argument is also weak since it was common for Qur’anic commentators to rely on Jewish and Christian traditions when discussing the stories of the prophets. This was especially true when both the Qur’an and the authentic ahadith were silent on an issue or did not provide additional details. Since there is nothing concrete in the Qur’an or ahadith to suggest that the flood was global, the opinions of the exegetes cannot be considered authoritative.

            In addition to the alleged global reach of the flood, we can also question Nuh (peace be upon him) had exactly three surviving sons (as the Bible claims). This is a reasonable question to ask because there is nothing in the Qur’an or authentic ahadith to indicate how many sons he had or what their names were. Some people may object to this view and point to some ahadith from Jami At-Tirmidhi which clearly state that the names of the three sons were Ham, Sam, and Yafith.^[59] However, there are some issues with these ahadith:

1. All three ahadith are weak.
2. Two of the ahadith simply state that each son was the ancestor of a specific group of people (Sam/Shem was the father of the Arabs, Ham was the father of the Ethiopians, and Yafith was the father of the Romans). The ahadith do not state that they were also the ancestors of other groups, such as the Turks, even though they are mentioned elsewhere in the ahadith literature.^[60]

Thus, the appeal to these ahadith does not prove that the flood affected the entire world.

            Critics may also point to some narrations from the commentary of Ibn Kathir that seem to indicate that only Nuh (peace be upon him) and his family survived the flood, and thus the flood must have been a global disaster. In his commentary on Surah As-Saffat, 37:77 (“…and made his descendants the sole survivors”), Ibn Kathir mentioned the following:

“Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) ‘There was no one left apart from the offspring of Nuh, (peace be upon him).’’ Sa`id bin Abi `Arubah said, narrating from Qatadah…‘All people descended from the offspring of Nuh, (peace be upon him) .’”^[61]

He then mentioned the weak ahadith from Tirmidhi. As for the narration from Ali and Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), there is nothing that shows that Nuh’s family were the only survivors in the entire world. It could mean that no one from Nuh’s people was left except his family. Therefore, this narration does not prove that the flood affected the entire world. Regarding the narration from Sa`id bin Abi `Arubah from Qatadah, there is no evidence that this hadith goes back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Moreover, if it is authentic, it still does not necessitate a global flood. Therefore, it is very weak evidence. The fact that there are no authentic statements going back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) which state definitively that the flood was global or that all people in the world are descended from Nuh’s sons demonstrates the weakness of these views.^[62] Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best.

            Finally, another verse that is often used to argue for a global flood is Surah Al-Isra, 17:3:

“˹O˺ descendants of those We carried with Noah ˹in the Ark˺! He was indeed a grateful servant.”

It is argued that the verse is referring to all mankind (“O descendants of those we carried…”), but the context of the verse suggests that it is actually referring to the Children of Israel. Verse 2 mentions the Prophet Musa (peace be upon him), who was a “guide to the Children of Israel”, and verse 3 also refers to the Children of Israel. On this basis, The Study Qur’an commentary explains that verse 2 is a description of the Children of Israel.^[63] In addition, Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani noted in his commentary on verse 2 regarding the Children of Israel that:

“[b]y addressing them in this manner, Allah reminds them [Bani Isra’il] that they are from those who were saved from being drowned in the flood. […] Therefore the Bani Isra’il should emulate their forefather in this respect and express their gratitude to Him by carrying out His commands and following the final Prophet.”^[64]

Similarly, Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi stated in his commentary that:

“[v]erses 2 and 3…exhorted the Bani Isra’il to follow and obey the Divine Law. The verses that follow warn and admonish them on their disobedience.”^[65]

Hence, this verse does not prove that all people are descended from Noah’s progeny.

            Since no direct evidence exists for a global flood, we must consider what the available evidence shows. Referring to the Qur’anic narratives about Nuh (peace be upon him), Islamic scholar M.A.S. Abdel Haleem states that:

“…when one looks at the Qur’anic text itself (in this account and in those of suras 7, 11 and 23), it is only al-mala, the prominent people in the society, who kept demanding that he drive away the ‘worst kind of people’ amongst his followers, and those they have led astray (Q. 71:24-7), who will be punished, not everybody and everything.”^[66]

Later, he states the following:

“It has already been observed that in the Qur’anic accounts only al-mala’ and their followers were drowned. This view of the ‘universal’ flood, which is actually depicted in the Qur’an as being specific and localised, has no basis in the Qur’an and is clearly inspired by other versions of the Noah story, such as those related in the Bible and popular religious legend.”^[67]

            Finally, Islamic scholar Suzanne Haneef notes that there was a difference of opinion even among the early scholars about the nature of the flood. She states that:

“[t]he Qur’an and ahadith are silent concerning the locus and extent of the Flood, and the early Islamic traditionists also differed concerning it.”^[68]

This was also noted by Mufti Muhammad Madani in his commentary. After citing the ahadith about Nuh’s sons from Tirmidhi and Sa’id Bin Al-Musayyib (see notes #54 and 55) as evidence that is usually presented for a global flood, Mufti Madani stated that:

“[o]n the other hand, many commentators are of the opinion that the flood did not spread beyond the boundaries of the region to which Sayyidina Nuh was sent as a Prophet. They say that the flood destroyed only the disbelievers who lived in Sayyidina Nuh’s region. They say that he could not have been sent as a Prophet to the entire human race because this privilege is reserved for Sayyidina Muhammad. Therefore, the progenies of the people living in other regions could well have prospered into the people we see today.

They add that the verse ‘We made his progeny the only survivors’ means that Sayyidina Nuh’s progeny were the only survivors from those who boarded the ark. Of these people, only his progeny lived on.”^[69]

So, while many commentators believed the flood was a global one, others did not, and there is no religious obligation for anyone to believe one way or the other. There is no proof that the Qur’anic story describes a global flood. In fact, the context strongly suggests a local flood. Since there is far more evidence for a local flood and there is no indication as to when it even occurred, the Qur’anic account does not suffer from the same inconsistencies and difficulties found in the Biblical account.^[70] Therefore, the Qur’anic account is far more credible than the Biblical account.

            In addition, since the Qur’an and the authentic ahadith do not mention the sons of Nuh (peace be upon him) at all (and indicate that Nuh’s wife was among the people who drowned), there are no parallels between the Islamic sources and the Hermopolitan myth. Nor does the Qur’an denigrate the omniscience and omnipotence of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He), as the Bible does with Yahweh. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) does not have “regrets” and He is All-Knowing. Thus, in a stunning “coincidence”, it just so happens that the problems that exist in the Bible are not reproduced in the Qur’an.

Conclusion

            In this article, we compared the Biblical and Qur’anic versions of the story of Noah and the flood. While similar in some ways, the two stories are worlds apart in other ways. While the Biblical account of God sending a global flood without warning contradicts archaeological and historical facts, the Qur’anic account suffers from no such difficulties. This is because the latter does not clearly endorse the theory of a global flood, despite claims to the contrary, and instead only mentions the flood story in the context of Noah’s preaching to his own people. Therefore, the claim of a global flood is not tenable, and we should instead endorse the belief that the flood was probably local, affecting only the sinful people of Noah’s nation. The Qur’an also does not suffer from the Biblical parallels to polytheistic creation myths such as the Egyptian Hermopolitan myth. Unlike the Qur’an, the Bible seems to have been influenced by pagan mythology. Given the totality of the evidence, the Qur’anic story is much more credible and should be given preference over the Biblical story. Therefore, Christians should reject the Bible and accept the Qur’an as the logical and reasonable alternative.

And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!

---

^[1] Genesis 6:6. Unless otherwise stated, all translations of the Bible are from the English Standard Version (ESV).

See the Analysis section for a discussion of Yahweh’s “regret”.

^[2] Genesis 6:1-4. The identity of the “sons of God” has been a matter of controversy among some modern Christians. However, both Jewish and early Christian sources indicate that they were fallen angels. For a detailed discussion of this issue, see the following:

https://Qur’anandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/16/genesis-6-and-the-sons-of-god/

https://Qur’anandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/11/15/1-enoch-and-the-sons-of-god/

^[3] Genesis 6:8.

^[4] Genesis 6:14-22; however, in Genesis 8, Noah is instructed to take seven pairs of “clean” animals and one pair of “unclean” animals.

^[5] Genesis 7:6.

^[6] Genesis 8:3-5.

^[7] Genesis 8:6-12.

^[8] Genesis 8:4, 13.

^[9] See the “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10).

^[10] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012/03/09/feedback-timeline-for-the-flood

^[11] C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 220.

^[12] McKinsey, op. cit., p. 220.

As a side note, McKinsey’s use of the term “pharaoh” to refer to Menes is anachronistic as the term was not used to refer to Egyptian kings until the New Kingdom period. This is a common mistake which even the Bible makes on numerous occasions. For more on this, see the following article: https://Qur’anandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/10/04/the-pharaoh-in-genesis-how-the-Qur’an-and-ahadith-correct-the-bible/

^[13] For a summary of several flood myths from ancient civilizations, including Egypt, see the following: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-10-17/#feature.

There is also another myth in Egyptian mythology, known as the Hermopolitan myth, that may have served as the model for the Biblical version of the flood, as will be seen.

The prevalence of flood myths in almost every culture in the world, such as the Mesopotamian flood myth in the Epic of Gilgamesh, has led skeptics to think that the Noah story was simply adapted from the earlier Sumerian myth. However, as Lorence G. Collins (California State University Northridge) notes:

“Because these stories all describe an ancient huge flood in Mesopotamia, it is extremely likely that a huge flood could have occurred” (“Yes, Noah’s Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth”, Reports of the National Center for Science Education, 29, no. 5 (2009): 38, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299484008_Yes_Noah’s_Flood_may_have_happened_but_not_over_the_whole_earth).

Collins also provides geological evidence for a local flood in Mesopotamia, and also notes the complete absence of evidence for a global one.

^[14] Moses Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedlander (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), p. 72.

^[15] See Benson’s commentary: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/genesis/18.htm.

^[16] Neal Walls, “The Gods of Israel in Comparative Ancient Near Eastern Context”, in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Ancient Israel, ed. Susan Niditch (United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2016), p. 273.

^[17] Ibid. There is a typo in the original source. Walls was referring to Genesis 2:18-20 when referring to animals being unsuitable companions for Adam, but the text says “Genesis 3:18-20”. The quote above has the correct chapter.

The text of Genesis 2 clearly shows that God first attempted to find a “helper” for Adam from among the animals. When this did not work, God decided to create Eve:

“The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

^[18] Francesa Stavrokoupoulou, God: An Anatomy [London, United Kingdom: Picador, 2021], p. 193.

^[19] Ibid., p. 197.

^[20] Walls, op. cit., p. 273.

^[21] Gary Greenberg, 101 Myths of the Bible (Naperville, Illinois: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2000), p. 73.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] According to Austin, the body of Atum (represented by the scarab beetle in the picture) has a parallel with the extra-Biblical tale that Adam’s body was carried in the ark during the flood. This story is also found in some Islamic sources, but not in the Qur’an and authentic ahadith.

^[24] Genesis 7:7. This parallel does not exist in the Qur’anic story because Noah’s wife was an unbeliever and thus one of the people left behind in the flood (see Surah At-Tahrim, 66:10). Thus, the minimum number of people in the ark, assuming Noah had 3 sons, would have been seven.

^[25] John H. Walton, “Genesis,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (Old Testament) Volume 1: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (electronic edition), ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009), 48.

Despite the similarity, the sequence of birds is different. In the Bible, Noah sends a raven once and then a dove thrice. In the ANE version, the sequence is a dove, swallow, and a raven (Ibid.).

^[26] As seen above, the Biblical version indicates that humans had become so evil as to be unredeemable. But in the pagan version, the gods sent the flood because humans had become too noisy (Ibid.).

^[27] Ibid.

^[28] Greenberg, op. cit. p. 74.

^[29] Ibid.

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] Ephraim Isaac, “Ham (Person),” in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (electronic edition), ed. D. N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 3:31).

^[32] Greenberg, op. cit., p. 75.

^[33] Ibid.

^[34] Ibid., p. 74.

^[35] Ibid.

^[36] Genesis 9:24-25.

^[37] Greenberg, op. cit., p. 77.

While it is probable that Shem was indeed the eldest son, Greenberg’s claim of a “literary formula” is clearly not the rule in the Bible. For example, in Genesis 10:6, the sons of Ham are listed as “Cush, Egypt, Put and Canaan”, which would mean that Cush was the eldest son (according to the “literary formula”). However, since Canaan is the only son mentioned in Genesis 9, then he must have been the “eldest” of Ham. Of course, this would only be true IF Canaan was actually the son of Ham, and not of Noah. See the discussion above for why it is probable that Canaan was actually the son of Noah.

^[38] Naomi Koltun-Fromm, “Aphrahat and The Rabbis on Noah’s Righteousness in Light of the Jewish-Christian Polemic”, in The Book of Genesis in Jewish and Oriental Christian Interpretation: A Collection of Essays, eds. Judith Frishman and Lucan Van Rompay (Belgium: Traditio Exegetica Graeca), p. 67.

               

^[39] Augustine, The City of God, Book 16, Chapter 3, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120116.htm.

In the same chapter, Augustine said that the Shem was the elder son.

^[40] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+10&version=NIV

See also John F. MacArthur, The MacArthur Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), p. 27.

MacArthur states that the verse is “better translated as ‘the elder brother of Japheth’ which would make Shem the oldest of Noah’s three sons.”

The website Mechon-Mamre, which provides the English translation of the Masoretic text, renders the verse as follows:

“And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, to him also were children born” (https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0110.htm).

There definitely was significant confusion about the correct meaning of the verse. The Jewish commentator Rashi admitted:

“I do not know [from the wording of the verse] whether Japheth is the elder of Shem” (https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8174/showrashi/true).

So, instead of going by the verse itself, Rashi instead appealed to Genesis 11:10, which states that Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood, and since Noah was 500 years old when he first had children (Genesis 5:32), that means that Japheth must have been the eldest son. Even if this interpretation was accurate, it only creates a contradiction because the text of Genesis 10:21 should be translated to show that Shem was the eldest son. This contradiction would have been due to the editing process that Genesis, like all books of the Bible, undoubtedly went through.

However, it is not necessarily true that Shem had to be younger than Japheth as per Genesis 11:10. Genesis 5:32 merely states that “after Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth” (NIV). (The translation from Mechon-Mamre makes it even more confusing and seems to suggest that all three sons were born when Noah was 500 years old [“And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”]) In other words, it is not necessary that his first son was born when Noah was 500 years old. From the chronology presented in Genesis 11:10, if Shem was the eldest son, he would have been born when Noah was 503 years old, since according to Genesis 8:13, the flood ended when Noah was 601 years old. Therefore, when Noah was 603 years old, Shem would have been 100 years old. Neither Genesis 5:32 or 11:10 proves that Japheth was older than Shem.          

^[41] Greenberg, op. cit., p. 76.

^[42] Ibid., p. 77.

^[43] Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: Volume 1 – The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2019) p. 34.

^[44] Ibid.

^[45] Sahih Bukhari, 60:15, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/15.

^[46] Surah Nuh, 71:23. All translations of the Qur’an are from Dr. Mustafa Khattab’s The Clear Qur’an.

^[47] He preached to them for 950 years. See Surah Al-Ankaboot, 29:14.

^[48] Surah Hud, 11:36-37.

^[49] Surah At-Tahrim, 66:10.

^[50] Surah Hud, 11:43.

Some detractors of the Qur’an may ask how Nuh (peace be upon him) and the unnamed son were able to talk to each other during the chaos of the flood. However, this is an unnecessary assumption. It could just be that the conversation took place as Nuh and his family were boarding the ark. When the unnamed son refused to join them as the flood began, he eventually drowned.

As for the name of this son, neither the Qur’an or authentic ahadith mention it. The commentaries mention names like “Yam” (see Ibn Kathir’s commentary) or “Canaan” (the same as the “Canaan” in the Genesis story of Noah’s curse), but there is no evidence to confirm either of these names.

^[51] Surah Hud, 11:44.

^[52] For example, see Surah al-Isra, 17:15.

^[53] Surah Nuh, 71:26.

^[54] See Lane’s Lexicon: http://www.tyndalearchive.com/TABS/Lane//.

^[55] The Study Qur’an: A New Translation and Commentary, ed. Seyyed Hossein Nasr (New York: HarperOne, 2015), p. 1425.

^[56] Surah Nuh, 71:21.

^[57] https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__does_the_Qur’an_teach_a_local_flood__

^[58] Some people may claim that since the ark came to rest on Mt. Judi, then it could only mean that there was a massive, global flood that carried the ark to such a tall mountain. Mt. Judi in present-day Turkey is over 7,000 feet high (https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/mount-judi), but it has also been claimed that it was a mountain near Mosul in present-day Iraq (The Study Qur’an, op. cit., p. 574). Some people may assume that the ark must have come to rest at the top of Mt. Judi or at some other high point. But the verse simply states that the ark rested on Judi, without saying at what height. For all we know, it could have rested at a very low height. There is no reason to think that it must have been at a very high altitude. As with other verses typically used in favor of a global flood, this verse also presents no actual proof for a global flood.

^[59] Jami At-Tirmidhi, 5:44:3231, https://sunnah.com/urn/742640; 1:46:3931, https://sunnah.com/urn/738240; 5:44:3230, https://sunnah.com/urn/742630.

^[60] Sahih Muslim, 54:79, https://sunnah.com/muslim/54/79.

Al-Tabari mentioned in his History the following:

“Noah begat three, each one of whom begat three: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Shem begat the Arabs, Persians, and Byzantines, in all of whom there is good. Japheth begat the Turks, Slavs, Gog and Magog, in none of whom there is good. Ham begat the Copts, Sudanese, and Berbers” (The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. 2: Prophets and Patriarchs, trans. William M. Brinner [New York: State University of New York Press, 1987], p. 21).

However, this narration does not originate from Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In the narration, Yahya bin Sa’id narrated from Sa’id bin al-Musayyib (may Allah have mercy on him), who was a prominent scholar from the Tabieen, the generation after the Sahabah (https://fiqh.islamonline.net/en/said-ibn-al-musayyib/). Though Sa’id bin al-Musayyib was a highly regarded scholar, there is a still a notable lack of definitive narrations going back to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his Companions that can prove that the flood affected the entire world or that Noah’s sons were the ancestors of all the nations of the world. If Sa’id bin al-Musayyab had narrated that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said this, then it would be authoritative, even though Sa’id never met the Prophet and the hadith would be “mursal” (i.e., a hadith in which a Tabi’i narrated from the Prophet without mentioning the Sahabi (companion) from whom he heard the narration is known). Normally, this would raise questions about the authenticity of the hadith, but in the case of Sa’id bin al-Musayyab, such ahadith are acceptable (https://hadithanswers.com/the-status-of-the-marasil-of-said-ibn-musayyab-rahimahullah/).

But since the hadith was not attributed to the Prophet by Sa’id, then the point is moot. Though Sa’id bin al-Musayyib was a highly regarded scholar, there is a still a notable lack of definitive narrations going back to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that can prove that the flood affected the entire world or that Noah’s sons were the ancestors of “all” the nations of the world. If Sa’id bin al-Musayyab had narrated that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had said this, then it would be authoritative, even though Sa’id never met the Prophet.

^[61] http://m.qtafsir.com/Surah-As-Saaffat/Nuh-and-His-People

^[62] That all people are descended from Noah’s sons could still be possible. As we have seen, there is no authentic statement that indicates how many sons Noah had. What if he had several surviving sons? If he had several sons, and his people were the only ones who existed on the Earth at the time, then it could still be possible that his sons became the ancestors of all future nations and tribes. It is also possible that he only had 3 surviving sons, and all the nations of the Earth descended from them. But this would only have been possible if Noah’s people were the only ones on Earth at the time. Regardless, if Noah’s sons were the ancestors of all nations, that still does not necessitate a global flood. Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best.

Ibn Kathir mentioned that there were different views as to how many people were in the ark during the flood. Some said as many as 80, while others said as low as 10 (https://en.islamway.net/article/20963/the-story-of-nuh-noah-ibn-kathir). Al-Tabari also mentioned some views that the number of people in the ark was as low as 7 and as high as 80 (The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. 1: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, trans. Franz Rosenthal [New York: State University of New York Press, 1989], p. 364-366). In one narration. Al-Tabari related from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that there were 80 people in the ark, including Noah, his 3 sons and their wives, and 73 “sons of Seth” (The History of Al-Tabari, Vol. 1: General Introduction and From the Creation to the Flood, trans. Franz Rosenthal [New York: State University of New York Press, 1989], p. 365). However, the chain Al-Tabari related this narration from included Hisham–his father–Abu Salih. Citing the scholar Al-Suyuti, Waqar Akbar Cheema refers to the chain Abu Salih– Muhammad bin Sa’ib al-Kalbi (Hisham’s father) as “the notorious link…which falls in the ‘chain of lies’” (https://icraa.org/the-age-of-khadija-at-the-time-of-her-marriage-with-the-prophet/). So, this narration, even though it allegedly went back to Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), is not authentic. Other narrations also originating from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) only state that there were 80 people, without providing any more details. Perhaps among these 80 people were several other sons of Prophet Nuh (peace be upon him)? Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best.

^[63] The Study Qur’an, op. cit., p. 695.

^[64] Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani, Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Qur’an: Tafsir Anwarul Bayan, Vol. 3 (Karachi, Pakistan: Darul-Ishaat, 2005), p. 254.

^[65] Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Ma’ariful Qur’an: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Holy Qur’an, Vol. 5, trans. Muhammad Shamim (Karachi, Pakistan: Maktaba-e-Darul-‘Uloom, 2010), p. 463.

^[66] M.A.S Abdel Haleem, “The Qur’anic Employment of the Story of Noah,” Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 8, no. 1 (2006): 48.

^[67] Ibid.

^[68] Suzanne Haneef, A History of the Prophets of Islam: Derived from the Qur’an, Ahadith and Commentaries, Vol. 1 (Chicago, IL: Kazi Publications, Inc., 2002) p. 171.

^[69] Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani, Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Qur’an: Tafsir Anwarul Bayan, Vol. 4 (Karachi, Pakistan: Darul-Ishaat, 2005) p. 351.

^[70] It should also be noted that the Qur’an and authentic ahadith do not provide any genealogies, unlike the Bible, that would allow us to date the flood to a particular time period. For all we know, the flood could have occurred tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years ago. Some reports indicate that there were ten “centuries” between Adam and Nuh and between Nuh and Ibrahim (Abraham) (peace be upon them all), which would mean that the flood occurred only a few thousand years ago. However, there is a difference of opinion on the meaning of the Arabic word “qarn”. Some scholars said it meant “century”, while others said it meant “generation”. If “qarn” meant “generation”, then the natural question to ask would be how long was each “generation”, which is not known with certainty (https://islamqa.info/en/answers/20907/how-many-years-were-there-between-adam-and-muhammad-peace-be-upon-them-both).

According to Abed El-Rahman Tayyara (Cleveland State University), in the Qur’an, the word “qarn” had “the general meaning of a ‘nation,’ ‘people,; or ‘generation’”, but he also admits that “there is no discussion…of the number of years that qarn [was] meant to represent” (Abed El-Rahman Tayyara, “The Evolution of the Term qarn in Early Islamic Sources,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 72, no. 1 [2013]. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1111&context=clmlang_facpub).

Tayyara also cites the early Muslim exegete Ibrahim b. Muhammad al -Zajjaj (d. 311 AH/923 CE), who said that “qarn” most likely meant “people of a certain age, regardless of the number of years, in which a prophet or a class…of [knowledgeable] scholars live” (Ibid.).

However, scholars like Ibn al-Jawzi and al-Razi cited reports from some companions such as Ibn Abbas and Ali b. Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with them) that a “qarn” was around 70 or 80 years (Ibid.). It seems that the word can have different meanings and there was no agreed upon definition.

In contrast, the Biblical genealogies leave no room for doubt as to when the Biblical flood should have occurred, and this proves that the Biblical account is false.