In a separate discussion on Free-Minds forum, Wakas mentions that he did not factor in nuh in the analysis of the passage because he is only mentioned ‘in passing’. He says:
I discuss Moses, but not Nuh as he is mentioned in passing.
As we have seen in the previous parts, the discussion of musa was simply to remove him from being the 3abd in 17/1. The actual content of aya 17/2 was not discussed at all. Sadly for nuh, he wasn’t even mentioned because he is mentioned ‘in passing’.
How is it possible that a comprehensive and Quranic analysis fail to mention an element because he is mentioned in passing. If we believe that every element in a passage is crucial, then nuh must be extrapolated fully in order to understand his significance to be placed here. Ironically, Wakas himself shows us how nuh factors in. He wrote:
Interestingly, the context for 17:7 is established by the dual mention of “masjid” in 17:1, and it just so happens to mention “enter al maSJD just as they entered it the first time”, implying a minimum of two “masjid” are of relevance – coincidence? If so, what is it referring to? As stated in part 2 of this series on SuJuD, the most prominently known “AL maSJD” in AQ is AMAH, thus in terms of probability, would likely refer to that.
The only times the words “enter/dKhl” and “maSJD” occur side-by-side are in 17:5 “enter al maSJD” and 48:27 “enter AMAH” – and it just so happens that in 48:27 it states “…God has confirmed the vision (al ru’ya) of His messenger with truth/reality, surely you will enter AMAH…” giving us a link to a vision/dream – coincidence? Perhaps, but later in chapter 17, in 17:60 it says:
Notice here Wakas mentions entering masjid al-haram. He then cleverly links it with 48/27 (which we will show will answer several more of his masjid al-haram questions later). It is at this point that Wakas would benefit from including nuh in his analysis even though he mentioned in passing. Let see the ayas in question: