返回总目录
Muhammad's name on a piece of wood from Noah's ark?
Muhammad's name on a piece of wood from Noah's ark?
From Marat Shafigullin
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Noah's Ark
Date: Wed Dec 11 00:43:21 EST 1996
Message-Id: <58lhlp$jf1@shellx.best.com>
Here is the message that one of my friends sent to me. It claims
that sometimes in 1950s some Russian scientists found Noah's Ark
with the encryption containing name of Muhammed on it.
In my opinion, this whole story is made up, but it would be nice
if somebody proved it wrong or right (just imagine the implications).
I request that people who have access to newspapers listed at the
bottom check what those had to say about this wierd story (UK residents
would have more access than anyone else).
Waiting for your replies.
Marat Shafigullin.
P.S. I am from Russia and the names listed below are not even Russian,
which takes away even more credibility from the whole story.
_________________________________________________________
Prophet Noah (PBUH) invokes Allah with Blessed Names
In July 1951, while a group of Soviet archaeologists were digging in an
area in the valley of "KIEV", they discovered a scattered pieces of
ancient wood, touched by the woodworm. This great discorvery made them to
dig deeper and deeper, till they discovered another group of stony
ancient wood that were further deep in the earth. A block of wood in the
shape of a square 14 knots long and 10 knots wide. What made those
archaeologists puzzeled most, was the unchangable shape, the ineffectual
of woodworm and it did not scatter like the other pieces of wood.
In later 1952, the investigation regarding the archeological group of
ancient wood, had completed. They had concluded that the above-mentioned
blook of wood was part of Prophet's Noah ark. They'd observed some
letters engraved which goes back to the most ancient language that ever
evolved on the surface of the earth.
In 1953 the digging operations had finished and the Russian government
had formed a committe of seven scientists (archeologist, linguistic),
some of which are:
1. Sawlot Naoev, professor at Moscow University.
2. Tanmova Kourov, professor of Linguistics at Kevenzo College.
3. De Racon, professor of Archeology at Lenin institute.
4. Mr. Taumol Goru, Teacher, Cafezud College
5. Major Cottor, Stalin College.
6. Mr. M. Ahmed Colad, Zitcomen Research Association
7. Prof. Ifa Han Kheeno, Lu Lu Han College China
and others
After eight months of research and study of that block of wood and the
letters engraved upon it, they agreed that this block of wood was made of
the same material which prophet Noah's ark was made of and that Prophet
Noah (PBUH) had placed this block of wood in his ark for blessings and
protection during his journey with his companions and family during the
Flood. The lettere engraved upon the block of wood were in the Semitic
Language which was translated into English by the British scientist; Aief
Max, professor of ancient tongue at Manchester University, England. The
letters states the following:
"Oh my God, my Helper, in Your mercy and generosity help me, and for
the sake of these holy souls: Muhammed, Elia, Shoppar, Shappair,
Fatimah who are all great and blessed. The Universe is there for them,
help me for their names. Only you can quide us to the straight path".
It's obvious dear reader that Elia, Shoppar, Shappair are names in the
Semitic language and their Arabic rendering is: Ali, Hassan, Husayn.
The mysterious and ambiguous thing which the committee couldn't explain
or understand were, that it did not scatter or turn out stoney like
others, despite the fact that thousands of years had passed upon it.
Dear Reader: at the "Museum of Archeology", in Moscow, Russia this can be
seen and observed. So many people have witnesed the piece of wood. If you
happen to visit or travel to Russia, pay a visit to that place to see by
your own eyes the greatness of these names. And to know that the
Prophet of Islam was mentioned in the Torah and the Bible thousands of
years ago.
The translation was documented in the following newspapers:
1. Weekly-Mirror: UK, 28/12/53
2. Star of Britain: London, 1/54
3. Manchester Sunlight: Manchester, 23/1/54
4. London Weekly Mirror: 1/2/54
5. Bathrah Najaf: Iraq, 2/2/54
6. Al-Huda: Cairo, 31/3/54
Source: Al-Zahra Magaazine
I claim this article is a collection of incredibilities. But as somebody
said: It is easier for most people to believe a big lie than a small one.
Some problems with the report:
In July 1951, while a group of Soviet archaeologists were digging
in an area in the valley of "KIEV", ...
Both, Bible and Qur'an say that the Ark of Noah landed in Turkey, naming
the place as "the mountains of Ararat" (wider area) according to the Bible
or as "Mount Judi" (specific mountain in the Ararat area) according to the
Qur'an. One might want to ask, how this piece of wood traveled several
thousand kilometers to be deposited in the valley of Kiev ...
... especially given its size (but even if it were of reasonable size)
... they discovered a scattered pieces of
ancient wood, touched by the woodworm. This great discorvery made them to
dig deeper and deeper, till they discovered another group of stony
ancient wood that were further deep in the earth. A block of wood in the
shape of a square 14 knots long and 10 knots wide. What made those
archaeologists puzzeled most, was the unchangable shape, the ineffectual
of woodworm and it did not scatter like the other pieces of wood.
Side remark: What is "unchangable shape" supposed to mean? Does the author
of this article really claim the archeologists tried to but were unable to
break off a piece of it [that would have changed the shape ever so slightly].
How come they discover "a group of stony ancient wood" but then
this group is suddenly in the next sentence only "a (i.e. one) block of
wood"? Not "and a block" or "among which was a block". No, the rules of
language demand to interpret that "a group" and "a block" are the same
thing. These observations are trivial, but they show how careless this
article was written. Now to the substantial problems.
According to Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English
Language, 1989, a "knot" is is a unit of 47 feet and 3 inches = 14.4 meters.
Apart from the fact that 14 x 10 is surely not in the shape of a
square, and a "block" always has 3 dimensions (lenght, width and height),
not only two, this means we are talking about a piece of wood here that
is claimed to be of the size (14 x 14.4) m x (10 x 14.4) m =
202 meters x 140 meters. I can very much sympathize and understand
that those archeologists were extremely puzzled. Even if nothing
is inscribed on this piece of wood, one might wonder what kind of tree
this block was cut from ...
Also, according to the Torah (Bible), the Ark was (about) 134 meters long,
22 meters wide and 13 meters high (Genesis 6:15). I do wonder which piece
of the Ark could be over 200 meters long then.
It is also claimed that it is now placed in a museum (of enormous size):
Dear Reader: at the "Museum of Archeology", in Moscow, Russia this can be
seen and observed. So many people have witnesed the piece of wood. If you
happen to visit or travel to Russia, pay a visit to that place to see by
your own eyes the greatness of these names. And to know that the
Prophet of Islam was mentioned in the Torah and the Bible thousands of
years ago.
The claim that "many have seen it" is a nice try to give more credibility
to the these outrageous inventions, but note: The writer does not
say that he himself has seen it! Why do we have no eyewitness report on
this fantastic piece of wood?
Even if this piece of wood were to exist, and such names were to be found
on it, whether Muhammad's name is in the Torah has nothing to do with it.
And Muhammad's name is surely not in the Torah - no Muslim has
been able to show that to me so far. Please give a reference.
Also, the Torah is part of the Bible and the expression "Torah
and Bible" shows the ignorance of even this elementary fact.
Given the accuracy of the report so far, I would not be surprised to
find that there is not even any "Museum of Archeology" in Moscow.
In later 1952, the investigation regarding the archeological group of
ancient wood, had completed. They had concluded that the above-mentioned
blook of wood was part of Prophet's Noah ark. They'd observed some
letters engraved which goes back to the most ancient language that ever
evolved on the surface of the earth.
...
After eight months of research and study of that block of wood and the
letters engraved upon it, they agreed that this block of wood was made of
the same material which prophet Noah's ark was made of and that Prophet
Noah (PBUH) had placed this block of wood in his ark for blessings and
protection during his journey with his companions and family during the
Flood.
Although, there are repeatedly rumors that Noah's Ark has been found,
the latest (?)
of those rumors dating at least March 1995 (Why have we not heard more
since then? It is nearly two years now. IF there were something to it,
I am convinced there would be more news about it!) there is certainly no
research on the material on the Ark available even today much less
in 1952. If then, it is not known what material the Ark consisted of, since
the Ark had not been discovered yet, howsame material which Noah's ark
was made of ... and also, how these archeologists imagined Noah "placing"
this neat little tablet anywhere, especially inside an ark of much
smaller size. Furthermore, Noah certainly wasn't given to superstition,
but instead placing his faith in God and not in amulets for protection.
It is also quite a riddle how the most ancient language on the surface
of the earth could have been evolved ... since if it has evolved
from something, then this something for sure is older than what it evolved
into. Also, neither the Bible nor the Qur'an supports the atheistic notion
of evolution. And whether believer or unbeliever, no serious scientist
would ever dare say that something, whether artefact or language, is the
oldest in absolute terms as claimed above.
Sorry for tearing apart this 'nice story'. But even if there is a true
kernel behind it, it is not well researched. Maybe the size of the piece
of wood was wrongly stated? Maybe "centimeter" instead of "knot" was
intended? Let us assume it has a reasonable size.
I nevertheless would believe this story to be completely made up,
but if you want me or anybody to believe this story, then please give
the address of the museum that shows this piece of wood and also a
reference to this in an archeology journal. I think that is a reasonable
requirement, and if it is true, this should not pose any difficulty.
This critique created a response.
Here comes Part 2 trying to save the story.
Noah's Ark site links
Overview on the hoaxes
Answering Islam Home Page