Talk:Noah in Islam

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Haryana / Geography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Haryana (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Added viewpoints of liberal and secular historians to maintain NPOV, as well as features distinguishing the Islamic and Biblical accounts of Noah. --Zeeshanhasan 20:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You have this some "liberal movements in Islam" inserted almost everywhere in these articles, regardless of the topic. In most cases it seems this some "liberal movements in Islam" consists only you and your web site. Here you made the claim that some "liberal movements in Islam" believe that the Quran borrows the flood story from Sumerian mythology. I defy you to find me proof of this claim (other than your own web site). Which "liberal movement in Islam" has said that? Until you post the proof, I would remove that claim. You are inserting you own oneliner beliefs everywhere in all these articles by preceding the beliefs with 'some "liberal movements in Islam,"' it seems. Nice. OneGuy 11:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have written a book titled "Noah Compared Genesis and Quran" that will soon be online as an e-book by goldenaer.com. I have studied Islamic mysticism for 25 years including a 6 month residential intensive course with a Sufi Sheikh, and God has given we some insights, So I feel I can contribute a lot to this discussion.Kildwyke (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard that the prophet that this article is referring to (Nuh) can also be spelt Nua but on your site there is no reference to it. I would like to know why a qualified Re teacher would set a child homework that can not be found if nua is not a way of saying Nuh. As i know that this is a respectable and reliable site for infomation i want to know whether Nua is a true form of saying Nuh or whether the Re teacher was incorrect and has set homework with incorrect information to be researched. Thankyou for your time User:Cool chick needs Info

i propose we merge this into "Noah" for the following reasons:

1) it's the same person, whose name is only pronounced differently in different languages.

2) the biblical and quranic accounts of noah provide many similar facts which would best be seen in the context of "compare and contrast."

Any thoughts? Ungtss 16:00, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BE BOLD !! DO IT !! (I'd do it myself, but you'd probably do a better job) 4.250.198.63 16:40, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

thanks:). doing it:). Ungtss 16:44, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No! Noah and Nuh are best dealt with via two distinct articles. Merecat 08:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; Two separate articles are less confusing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that two different articles are better, but i dont support the notion of "<Arabic name>" is somehow a good name for the "Islamic view of x". "Nuh" is also the Arabic Jewish and Arabic Christian names for the same person, Muslims dont own the name. The correct tittle for this article is Islamic view of Noah, both articles reffer to the same historical person, only difference being that this article is focusing on the Islamic view. There are no solid arguements for naming this article after the Arabic version of the name. --Striver 07:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 month and no objections? then ill go ahead. --Striver 09:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Noah article has a section on Nuh which is practically identical with this article in terms of content. PiCo (talk) 05:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both verses of the Holy Qur'an that is used in the article, neither of them mention a '950' year period of preaching but rather is found in 29:14. --WittyMan1986 (talk) 04:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the purpose behind that section of the article??? Can someone add some text to clarify why it's there? Thanks. Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A template is prepared for prominent prophets .

This will help at a glance view link between them. Hope this is also of prime importance in this article. If there is no further suggestion on this, we may include this in this article. --Md iet (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)--Md iet (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no further suggestion for the template. Hope this seems OK for inclusion.--Md iet (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at Talk:Islamic view of Moses. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template improved further and included in this article as discussed on page Talk: Islamic view of Moses please.--Md iet (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view of Noah → Nuh – The article i want to move to Nuh is Islamic view of Noah. As Islamic view of Noah depicting the Prophet Nuh in Islam so i believe the name of the page should also be depicting the way it is spelled and understood in Islam. While the Islamic view of Noah would be treated as a redirect to the page Nuh. As the Prophet "Nuh" is a prominent figure in Islam so i believe the primary topic should be Islamic view of Noah as it was earlier. Please provide your opinion regarding the move with justification whether positive or negative Ibrahim ebi (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close; I'm consolidating these requests on Ibrahim's behalf. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Abraham in Islam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is suggestion that redirect move for this page to be discussed here only. If anybody have objection for creating a redirect for this page by ‘Nuh’ the Islamic name of Prophet Noah, may please suggest further, as this is name by which prophet is known in Islam which has majority of English reader. --Md iet (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this to happen, then you need to propose a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves. You need to propose a new name for the disambiguation page at Nuh, The move discussion should be at Talk:Nuh. If you want Nuh to be a redirect, then you need to provide evidence concerning the primary topic on Nuh, as was explained to you at Talk:Abraham in Islam#Requested Redirects, related to above.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the infobox as there is point of view in it and was more inclined towards how He is perceived in Christianity. Also the infobox i have used is similar to the one displayed at Abraham in Islam and Moses in Islam. --Bestonewins (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the current text states that "there is little in the Qur'an to support" the view that "only certain parts of the world were submerged under water". However, the last statement is that "According to Islam...the flood was local, around the Dead Sea area..." This is an apparent contradiction which must be resolved by referencing extra-Qur'anic literature, popular interpretation, etc.

137.111.13.46 (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite confusing. And part of this section is attributed to "Submitters International", a group that only themselves would accept as speaking for "Islam" as they are outside the fold according to the rest of Muslims.

dk4 (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a book titled "Noah Compared Genesis and Quran" that will soon be online as an e-book by goldenaer.com. I have studied Islamic mysticism for 25 years including a 6 month residential intensive course with a Sufi Sheikh, and God has given we some insights, So I feel I can contribute a lot to this discussion.Kildwyke (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic scholars agree that Noah had four sons whose names were Ham, Shem, Yam and Japheth."

I removed because the Quran does not mention any of his sons and nor is there an agreement among Islamic scholars that those were their names. Not to mention the source used is "thetorah" which is not an Islamic, but a Jewish reference. Akmal94 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review the article and decide if the maintenance template could be removed? 2016-11-23 23:00 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.99.115 (talk)

It should not be removed, most sources simply pick verses of a Quran translation. Many others quote from Blogs. Sections, which are more relevant for an encyclopedia, such as the culture section (I created now), are just too short and needs more expansion (and more sources from an academic point of view).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know the answer 197.237.224.143 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu languages 2409:4052:E1F:CA6F:0:0:298B:B013 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]