The questions raised in regard to the plate with Muhammad's name did provoke response. Here are further versions of the story. My questions and finally the proof that this is a hoax will be at the end of this page.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 01:22:25 -0800 From: Navali email@example.com Subject: AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION IS IN ORDER: AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION IS IN ORDER: Thanks for bringing my attention to the above. It is now clear that the author of 'Prophet Noah (PBUH) invokes Allah with Blessed Names' from which you have quoted your data, has certainly made a slight but inadvertent mistake in his facts. The original source - a pamphlet namely, *ELIA* - "Moarife Islam" [not in English] - published in December 1961, by Hakeem Syed Mahmood Gilani, the then professor at Osmania University, India, - speaks about 2 different findings therein including: 1. Krishna's prayer to God through Ahli - [Ali], as per an Hindu magazine - 1931. 2. His findings from some Hebrew sources re: one of the Psalms of David which clearly mentioned Aillee [Ali], his epithet Hadar [sic] - Lion, and the Kaaba. This, we are told was in the custody of the Bishop of Damascus. [These words are my transliteration from the original]. 3. And the Song of Solomon - which refers mainly to Muhammad, etc. This is now common knowledge as you know. In fact, I can share something with you in this regard or direct you to a source or two on the intenet re: the same. He also speaks about a 'Silver Plate of Solomon' pp. 9-17 - which was found by an army unit under the command of Major A. N. Grandel in 1916, with almost identical inscription as well as the plaque under question. On page 18 of this pamphlet he asserts, 'They also found a long RECTANGULAR [not square as mentioned by the other source], wooden plate. The experts were surprised to observe that this particular plate admeasuring __14" x 10"__ [CLEARLY MARKED IN INCHES NOT knots], was in far better condition........' The other details seem to be okay. By the way, in 1993, whilst in Karachi, Pakistan for the first time ever, I met with a personal friend [and translator of 'Elia - Moarife Islam' into Urdu] of the said writer and he apparently convinced me of these findings. I first learnt about the matter under discussion from a different source altogether a couple of years before that. Meaning; this was/is common knowledge in India and Pakistan. Regards, Navali
Even though the above gives a better version on the size of the plate, the above is mainly adding further claims instead of giving any evidence for the claim put forward on the supposed tablet of Noah's Ark. But adding other fantastic claims each of which has no evidence to show for its veracity does nothing to strengthen the case. In the contrary. It only shows that this was only one among many incredible claims and that the source of this becomes even more dubious.
Even though we are presented with a number of further independent claims, for the time being, let us stick to the wooden plate with the name of Muhammad and supposedly originating from Noah's Ark. The truth of this claim is independent from all the other claims.
For all of these claims I would like to see some evidence before they become credible for me. Evidence means:
Does this above pamphlet give any reference for its claims? If not, even if better written and thought out, it does not have much credibility. Is it a more clever rumor than the other version, or is there factual evidence for it?
And Navali again: "I have just e-mailed you Boom's posting for verification purposes. So that makes 2 independent sources in this case."
Whether they are independent is another question.
Date: 1996/11/11 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org (Net News Admin) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lawson.ripco.com Organization: Ripco, Chicago's Oldest Online Information Service X-Ident-Sender: boom Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam THE SACRED WOODEN PLATE The Sacred wooden plate was hanging in Noah's (A.S.) ark. It contains the five Vicegerent; Mohammed, Ali, Fatima, Hassan, Hussain, (A.S.). Noah pleaded to them for help during the great flood. It is written in the ancient sasmaani language. It is read from right to left. DOCUMENTARY ON THE WOODEN PLATE FOUND IN NOAH'S ARCH During the month of July, 1951 a team of Russian experts, were surveying the Valley of Kaat. Perhaps they were busy in finding out a new mine. They noticed a few pieces of rotten woods at a place. The group officer started diggin the place. To his surprise he found heaps of woods pressed there under the earth. Experts by observing a few layers speculated that these woods are extraordinary and possess obscure mystery. They excavated the place with deep interest. They found quite a good amount of woods and many other things. They also found a long rectangular wooden plate. The experts were surprised to observe that this particular place admeasuring 14" x 10", was in far better condition among other woods which were on the verge of decomposition, due to aging. After investigation at the end of 1952, experts came to the conclusion that this particular place belonged to the Noah Arch which had rested on the peak of Mount Calff (Judy). And the plate on which a few words of some ancient language were inscribed, was fixed on the Arch. After it was proved that the woods found in the excavation are that of the Noah's Arch, the curiosity as to what is written on the wooden plate was aroused. A board of experts was appointed by the Russian Goverment under its Research Department to investigate the language of the wooden plate. The Board started its work from the 27the February, 1953. Following were the members of this board: 1. Prof. Solonon Mascow University 2. Prof. Ifa Han Kheeno, Lu Lu Han College China/ 3. Mr. Mishaou Lu Farug, Officer I/c fossils. 4. Mr. Taumol Goru, Teacher, Cafezud College. 5. Prof. De Paka, Lenin Institute. 6. Mr. M. Ahmad Colad, Zitcomen Research Association 7. Major cottor, Stalin College. So these seven experts after eight months of research came to the conclusion that this plate was of the woods used in making Noah Arch and that the Prophet Noah (pbuh) had put this plate on his Arch for the safety of the Arch and for receiving favor of Allah (SWT). In the center of the plate, there is a drawing of palm shape on which some words of ancient Saamaani language are written. Mr. N.F. Max, Expert, Ancient Languages, Britain (Manchester), has translated the words written on the wooden plate, in English as follows: "O My God, my helper Keep my hand with mercy, and with your Holy Bodies. Mohamed, Alia, Shabbar, Shabbir, Fatma They are the Biggests and Honourable. The world Established for them Help me by their names You can return to Right." People were surprised to learn these writing. They were surprised as to how this particular plate after centuries of exposition to nature did not decompose and maintained its form. The plate is still preserved at the Centre of Fossils Research, Moscow, Russia. If you ever have a chance to visit the Soviet Union, you would be able to see the actual plate, and it will increase your faith in Ahel-al-Biet. The translation was documented in the following newspapers: 1. Weekly - Mirror: U.K., Dec. 28, 1953 2. Star of Britain: London, Jan., 1954 3. Manchester Sunlight: Manchester, Jan 23, 1954 4. London Weekly Mirror: Feb. 1, 1954 5. Bathrah Najaf: Iraq, Feb. 2, 1954 6. Al-Huda: Cairo, March 31, 1954 NOTE: This document was originally written by Dr. Alamdar H. Bader D.D.S. Taken from the book: Ellia - light, knowledge, and truth; by Sheikh Ghayas Uddin - honorary editor, Lahore, 10/7/69 and by Hakeen Sayed Mahmood Gailaini.
Now, these two version about the same story do have quite a number of inconsistencies. Here my list:
Notable differences in the stories: Version 1 Version 2 Valley of Kiev Valley of Kaat (without explanation where that is supposed to be). Soviet archeologists are digging Russian "experts" (what sort of experts?) supposedly looking for a new MINE [i.e. metals or minerals, certainly not the same as archeological interest.] scattered pieces of ANCIENT wood few pieces of rotten wood - certainly no reason to start digging. One can find pieces of rotting wood just about everywhere finding a group of stony (petrified) heaps of woods (no mention of petrified) woods [a group = some, but not large amounts in my language] Finding: a BLOCK a LONG rectangular PLATE 14 knots x 10 knots (202 m x 140 m) 14" x 10" (36 cm x 25 cm) absolutely impossible measurements certainly not "long" for a wooden plate. Somehow in both stories the "experts" come to the conlusion that the plate/block came from Noah's Ark, but none gives any reason on HOW they came to this conclusion. I am surely interested in the process of reasoning of this conclusion. After all, it doesn't say they found the name Noah on it or another sort of signature. This is for sure the most crucial question in the whole issue. Should the plate date from 900 A.D. then the whole miracle evaporates into nothing. This story takes into account that the ark was supposed to have landed on Mount Judi - but I am still interested in the distance between Mount Judi and valley Kaaf. words in THE oldest language SOME ancient language The lists of the seven members of the research committee differ Taumol Goru Taumol Goru Major Cottor Major Cottor M. Ahmad Colad M. Ahmad Colad Ifa Han Kheeno, Lu Lu Han Ifa Han Kheeno College China are the four names in common but three of the names are different even though the reports agree to both list seven names. Given the political situation at the time it also is rather unlikely that Russia will enlist a Chinese scholar for investigating a potentially such spectacular find. The names that are different: Sawlot Naoev, professor at Prof. Solonon, Moscow University Moscow University. same institute, different name Tanmova Kourov, professor of Mr. Mishaou Lu Farug, Officer Linguistics at Kevenzo College. I/c fossils. (whatever that means) also: Mishaou Lu sounds Chines, but Farug definitely is not. Very strange. De Racon, professor of Archeology Prof. De Paka, Lenin Institute at Lenin institute. 'P' in Roman letters looks like the Russian 'R' which could explain the change in name, but also suggests incompetence or at least carelessness of the writer. Agreement on 8 month of research and the conclusion that it was from Noah's ark [still no reason given for this conclusion] text engraved text written on it no palm shaped drawing mentioned palm shaped drawing Semitic language Saamaani language (never heard of this language before) (and why would this be the language ) (of Noah?? ) Translator: Aief Max N. F. Max (Aief: certainly a strange name!) Shoppar and Shappair Shabbar and Shabbir = Hassan & Husayn no claim on equivalence to the certainly not obvious, especially Shia Saints. since they are already in a semitic language. One would not expect such strong differences. Especially since "Muhammed" seems to be the same. Supposed place where it can be seen: "Museum of Archeology", Centre of Fossils Research in Moscow, Russia, Moscow, Russia similar, but certainly not the same name. (Museum or research center?) (archeology - which is about things up to maybe 10,000 years ago, dealing with traces of human history etc. ) (fossils are things of pre-history, and much much older.)
But again, the most basic question is this: If it were a true story, this is for sure an incredible find, which surely would have been documented in a scholarly archeology journal. Why are there NO references which can be checked out in this regard?
And why are all reports without a mention that the writer actually knows anybody who has seen the plate? This is very suspicious. My invitation to bring true evidence stands. And the Qur'an says it well: "Bring your proof if you are truthful." Nothing of the proof department has been brought forward so far.
The version 2 is in general far better written, it looks more thorough and hence more "credible". The author is more competent than the one who wrote version 1, but the lack of hard evidence is the same in both. It clearly is based on the same source though - and not 'independent evidence'.
Now finally let us look at the hard evidence in regard to this hoax.
Facts on the newspapers which are supposedly "documenting" this case. Friends living in Manchester found out ...
There is no record of the "Manchester Sunlight" ever existing, according to the Central Reference Library and according to the Manchester Evening News (the major Manchester newspaper) which takes care of reference 3.
Furthermore, there was no "Professor N.F. Max at the University of Manchester" at the time of the early 50ies. (the other version claimed this). Just the claim about N.F. Max in Manchester (outside the univerisity) is very hard to verify without any further information. The duty for evidence is on those who make these claims. Please give a citation of at least one paper written by this "specialist" to establish even so much as his existence.
And news from London: I think another hoax may have just been "cracked". I went to the Colindale HQ of the British Library Newspapers Collection. You remember those newspapers which were listed at the bottom of the "original" Noah article - Weekly Mirror, Star of Britain, Manchester Sunlight, (London) Weekly Mirror (the same as the first) and Bathrah Najaf (Iraq) and Al-Huda (Cairo)? Well, I checked in the "Newspaper Press Directory" for the years mentioned - 1953-4 - a very thick book produced annually and listing every newspaper published in the UK and almost all others in the world - and NOT ONE of the papers was listed - i.e. they were all non-existent!!!!
Then I checked the British Library newspaper catalogue, and just one - the (London) Weekly Mirror was listed, so I requested to be shown the 1953 - 1954 editions. Guess what. The dates did not correspond - it was published on December 26 (not 28) 1953 and 6 February (not 1) 1954. But that's not the best. It was a "ghost" newspaper, never actually distributed! What I mean is - the title "Weekly Mirror" (London) was the title of a long-since defunct paper which for copyright reasons and to prevent anyone else taking over the title the publishers, Mirror Group, produced once a week, a single page with the title "Weekly Mirror", date and a couple of paragraphs of rubbish just to keep the title in their possession. So almost certainly all those references are bogus.
There is a remote chance that the others were newsletters, never widely circulated or registered with the British Library, but if so, why did the article appear in such spurious sources, which it would be impossible in 1997 to verify or authenticate? Why did it never reach a more "mainstream" paper? And the fact that one paper, Weekly Mirror did exist but the references were bogus makes me very suspicious that the others have any integrity at all.
I think we have done all that is possible from our side to find if these reports are true. Anyone who continues to claim the truths of these stories has first to show something about the existence and whereabouts of these fictional papers. Or, better, to produce the plate (address of the Museum, number of the exhibition item, photograph of the plate...).
Original version of the story
More newsgroup postings on this issue
Rumors and hoaxes
Answering Islam Home Page