Refute Hijab in this text:

''Skeptics often criticize the Quran’s narrative of Noah’s Ark, questioning the feasibility of fitting all the earth’s species, both male and female, onto a single vessel with limited space. In response to this critique, Mohammad Hijab examines the Arabic word “kulin,” found in Chapter 11, verse 40 of the Quran, which describes the assortment of creatures that Noah was instructed to bring aboard the Ark.

Hijab disputes the interpretation that “kulin” implies “every single thing.” Instead, he maintains that the term can also signify “many things,” as demonstrated in Chapter 46 of the Quran, where the word is employed to depict a wind that destroyed “many things” but not everything.

To fortify his interpretation, Hijab refers to the work of Islamic scholar Sulti, who has reportedly explored the various nuances of the word “kul.” According to Hijab, the Quran’s use of “kul” should not be regarded as a literal directive to bring every species onto the Ark. Rather, it is meant to convey the notion that Noah was instructed to gather a representative sample of different creatures on the ship.

Hijab also highlights the differences between the Quran’s rendition of the Noah’s Ark story and the biblical account, emphasizing that Muslims are not required to believe that the entire world was flooded and that all animal species needed salvation. Instead, the narrative serves as a moral lesson, illustrating the consequences of defying God’s commands and underscoring the importance of repentance and faith.''




And use this text below as reference point. Do not repeat the text above, just rewrite the entire text below in detail. Mention everything, even Quran verses and Hadithes. Also add some more good arguments based on quran and Hadith and logic to counter the Author Hijab's arguments. Be very critical and do not try to defend the Quran in this case, just refute Hijabs arguments:


''Mohammad Hijab, posits that the Arabic word ‘kul’ conveys the meaning of many things instead of everything. Commonly, and in the context of the Quran, ‘kul’ typically means everything. Using Hijab’s argument that ‘kul’ refers to many things, the passage would imply that Noah gathered many types of animals in pairs rather than one pair of every species.

Regardless of the interpretation of ‘kul,’ the assumption that Noah managed to gather so many different animal pairs, including prey and predators, onto the Ark, stretches the limits of plausibility. Further casting doubt on this event is the absence of any reliable historical documentation from civilizations coexisting during the time of Noah.

If as you stipulate it was not a world wide flood, why the necessity to put animals on it at all. Surely, enoughs species in the rest of the world?

I agree that "Kull" may not mean every single thing. However, the narrative of the story as a whole alludes at "every single thing". Why would Noah's mean of survival be to build a ship, he simply could walk away from the area to be flooded. Why worry about other creatures nearby? In other stories other creatures were not taken along with the prophets. Why Noah's descendants were reported to be the only survivors of mankind? Also the water sources of the flood were mentioned in clear exaggeration to illustrate the huge amount.

Hijab didn’t make a conclusion, you left it too open for interpretation. You made it clear that the word “kol” has multiple meanings, multiple degrees, but you didn’t tie it all together for an expert opinion on it. We look to you for knowledge, not only the tool for how to find the answer which was the explanation of “kol”. Please explain how that completely disputes the claim against Noah’s ark!''