The grammar of the Arabic language is largely founded on the Qur'an and was not put
down in writing until well over a hundred years after the Qur'an was revealed. The
Classical Arabic language became a language we can talk about as having a fixed
grammar largely because of the Qur'an. (1) Dictionaries and grammar books were first
written to preserve the language of the Qur'an and the hadiths from the changes to the
Arabic language that were happening as a result of the sudden growth of the Islamic
Caliphate into new populations stretching from (what is now) Pakistan to Portugal. Many
pocket grammar books use quotes from the Qur'an as proofs for most of its 500
grammar rules.
Nevertheless, the points raised will be explained:
Muslims claim the Qur'an not just to be a human literary masterpiece, but a divine literary
miracle. But this claim does not square with the facts. For the Qur'an which we have in
our hands contains obvious grammatical errors which is plain to see for all who know
Arabic.
The First Error
In 5:69 "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the
Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no
fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)
"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana
bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-
zanuun."
There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi'uuna has been
declined wrongly. In two other verses, the same word, in exactly the same grammatical
setting was declined correctly.
2:62 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi'iina ..."
22:17 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaaraa ..."
You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:
62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word
inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in
cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word
Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of
nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.
This change in case is similar to changes number and person and tense. All these are
used in the Qur’an for rhetorical purposes in their contexts. This is a feature called
iltifaat.(2) Of which there are countless examples in Arabic. As for how these rhetorical
measures are used in the Qur’an - they have been covered comprehensively in the
largest book on Qur’anic sciences called Al-Burhan by Zarkashi. (3)
The Second Error
In 4:162
"But those of them that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in
what has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform the
prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day - them We
shall surely give a mighty wage." (Arberry)
"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila
'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata
wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."
The word muqiimiin should be muqiimuun. The word should be declined by the "raf'a
sign" like the other nouns in the sentence. Indeed the two nouns before it (Raasi-khuun
and Mu'-minuun), and the noun after it (mu'-tuun) are declined correctly. Some have
argued that this word was declined as such to distinguish and praise the act of praying,
but the scholar Ibn al-Khatib says that this is a sick reasoning. (al-Furqan by
Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib, Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.43). Such
reasoning defies logic. Why would one distinguish prayer which is a branch of religion,
and not faith which is the fundamental and root of religion? Besides can this logic apply
to the error of declension in the previous verse? Do we conclude that the Saabi'iin are
more distinguished than those who believe, and the People of the Book? And why do
they get distinguished in one verse and not the other as we have seen? God is much
higher than this sick logic. This again is an obvious grammatical error.
This is the same feature which is covered by the answer to the first alleged error.
The Third Error
In 20:63
"They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)
"Qaaluuu in haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
The word saahiraan should be saahirayn. The word saahiraan was declined incorrectly
because the word in in the beginning of the nominal sentence causes a form of
declension called "nasb" to the nominative and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". This is the
third grammatical error.
This is another rhetorical feature and has been exhaustively dealt with by Arab linguists.
For example T Hasan in his book Al-lugha Al-’arabiyyah....
The Fourth Error
In 2:177
"It is not piety, that you turn your faces to the East and to the West. True piety is this: to
believe in God, and the Last Day ... to give of one's substance ... and to ransom the
slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the alms. And they who fulfil their covenant ... and
endure with fortitude." (Arberry)
"Laysal-birra 'an-tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal-Mashriqi wal-Maghrib wa laakinnal-birra
man 'aamana billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Akhiri wal-malaaa-'ikati wal-Kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin: wa
'aatal-maala 'alaa hubbihii zawilqurbaa wal-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili was-
saaa-'iliina wa fir-riqaab: wa'aqaamas-Salaata wa 'aataz-Zakaata; wal-muufuuna
bi'ahdihim 'izaa 'aahaduu was-Saabiriina fil-ba'-saaa'i wazzarraaa-'i ..."
In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them the wrong tense was
used, as the sentence begins in the present tense with the verb tuwalluu, while the other
four verbs were written in the past tense:
'aaman should be tu'minuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu;
'aqaama should be tuqimuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu.
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "It is not
righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteousness is he
who believed in Allah and the Last day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets;
and gave his wealth, ... and performed prayer and paid the alms." But the English
translators have observed the tense, and the verbs "believed", "gave", "performed", and
"paid" were corrected and written in the present tense. (For example see Arberry,
Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Rodwell's translations).
The fifth error is the wrong declension of the word saabiriina. It should be declined
saabiruuna like the preceeding word muufuuna.
The first instance must be in present tense (like following the word ‘to’ in English - "I am
going to eat" not " I am going to will eat or "I have gone to ate". This is uncontentious as
a rule of English grammar. Similar but different rules apply to Arabic grammar. If English
were literally translated including the tenses into Arabic it would be gramatically
completely incorrect. This alledged error is a basic misunderstanding of Arabic grammar.
As for saabiuuna - see the response to the first alledged error.
The Fifth Error
In 3:59
"the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust,
then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was." (Arberry)
"Inna massala 'Isaa 'indal-laahi ka-masali 'Adam; khalaqahuu min-turaabin-sum-ma
qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun."
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "The
likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He
said to him 'Be,' and he is." The above is Pickthall's translation. Please note that he
translated yakuun (is) as it appears in Arabic, i.e. in the present tense.
The word yakuun ("is" in English) should be kana ("was") to be consistent with the past
tense of the previous verb "said" as it was corrected by Arberry, Rodwell and Yusuf Ali in
their translations of that verse. This is the fifth error.
This a grammatical concept with an identifiable name in Arabic "Al-Hikaya" where you
take a block and present it as it is without changing any part of it just as you don’t
change any part of an idiom to suit the different gender or number or tense. For
example, when I presume to teach my school teacher some mathematics he may reply
"don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs". He is not a grandmother and no eggs are
being sucked. Is this a grammatical error on his part? No - you couldn’t even change the
idiom to "...suck an egg".
The Sixth Error
In 21:3
"The evildoers whisper one to another ..."
"Laahiyatan - quluubuhum. Wa 'asarrun-najwallaziin zalamuu..."
The word 'asarru should be 'asarra. The above is a verbal sentence, and the rule for
such a sentence, where the verb comes before the (masculine) subject, is that the verb
must be in the third (masculine) singular form, if the active subject of the verbal sentence
is stated in the sentence. (The same rule holds for substituting the two mentionings of
"masculine" by "feminine".) But the verb in the above Qur'anic verse came in the plural
form. See how the above rule was observed in the following Qur'anic verses: 3:52, 10:2,
16:27, 16:35, 3:42, 49:14.
There are equally valid answers to this:
1, You can take "allaziin zalamuu" as ‘in apposition’ to the plural pronoun to condemn
them for their wickedness and declare that it was their wickedness that led them to the
act.
2, This is a recognised acceptable dialectical variation in classical Arabic, known in all
grammar texts as ‘lughat akaluni al-baraghith’ where we have the plural pronoun (not
singular) followed by the subject as in the verse above. Perfectly acceptable usage of
classical Arabic.
The Seventh Error
In 22:19
"These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord." (Arberry)
"haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..."
In Arabic, like English words are declined or conjugated with respect to number. In
English there are two numbers: singular and plural. So in English two men are treated as
plural. But in Arabic there are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. So in Arabic the
verbs and nouns are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The verb
in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two. But the verse speaks
only of two. So the rules of the dual should be followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should
be 'ikhtasamaa. So this is yet another error.
The dual refers to the two entities - the believers and the unbelievers and then the plural
is refering to the plurality of the numerous individuals in each camp. In English we might
say " It is german government who wants to ban British beef which they say they is
dangerous." Government is both single and hence "it wants" and plural because the
government has many people in it hence "they say".
The Eighth Error
In 49:9
"If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them." (Arberry)
"wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu baynahumaa."
This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is dual but the verb
was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatalata.
This is exactly the same as the previous alleged error.
The Nineth Error
In 63:10
"O my Lord, if only Thou wouldst defer me unto a near term, so that I may make freewill
offering, and so I may become one of the righteous." (Arberry)
"... Rabbi law laaa 'akhartaniii 'ilaaa 'ajalin-qariibin-fa-'assaddaqa wa 'akum-minas-
salihiin."
The verb 'akun was incorrectly conjugated. It should be 'akuuna, i.e. the last consonant
must have the vowel "a", instead of being vowelless, because the verb 'akun, is in the
subjunctive. Indeed the previous verb ('assaddaqa) has been correctly conjugated and is
in the subjunctive. The reason is that in Arabic the present tense is placed in the
subjunctive mood if it is preceeded by certain words (huruf nasebah). One of such words
is the "causative fa".
Firstly there is a valid reading (one of the standard seven readings) in which this is
"‘akuuna".
The explanation of this reading is that it is in conjunction with the mahall of 'assaddaqa
which is jazm in the sense "if you delay me, I will give in charity and be of the righteous".
‘atf ‘ala al-mahall is a well known feature of Arabic grammar.
The Tenth Error
In 91:5
"By the heaven and that which built it." (Arberry)
"was-samaaa-'i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma in the Arabic language is used for the impersonal. But the subject of the
above verse is God. So the word which should be used is the Arabic word man (meaning
"him who"). Arberry translated that verse as follows: "By the heaven and that which built
it" meaning God. Pickthall however corrected the impersonal (ma, that which) and
translated the verse as follows: "By the heaven and Him Who built it."
Indeed Pickthall also corrected the two verses that follow:
And the earth and Him Who spread it. Q. 91:6.
And a soul and Him Who perfected it. Q. 91:7.
Yusuf Ali, to get out of the problem, translated the above verse as follows: "By the
firmament and its wonderful structure". So the subject 'God' does not appear at all in his
translation of that verse. He gives his reason for his translation in a footnote saying: The
ma masdariya in Arabic, in this and the subsequent clauses, is best translated in English
by nouns." But the word bana in banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense as
translated correctly by Arberry and Pickthall. The word ma should have been man
(meaning "who") and in that context it should have been "Who" with a capital W.
"ma" in this verse is not a relative pronoun refering to God but "masdariyya" meaning
"the building of it" not he who built it. Yusuf Ali having been brought up on the madrasa
tradition knows better Arabic than either Arberry or Pickthal.
The Eleventh Error
In 41:11
"Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth,
'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said, 'we come willingly.'"
"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna ta'e'een."
Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said" is
accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing" at the end of the verse
is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at variance with the rule that the adjectives
should match their nouns in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural,
should be ta'e'atain which is used for feminine dual.
There are several Heavens and serveral Earths. In classical Arabic they can be refered
to as masculin or feminine. What you are talking about is a change that has occured in
modern Arabic. You will be surprised for instance to know that in classical Arabic it is
correct to say "qaala al-nisa’ and qaalat ar-rijal" both of which sound incorrect in modern
Arabic. See also the response to the 7th alledged error.
The Twelfth Error
In 7:56
"The mercy of God is near."
"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate should match the
subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is
the predicate of rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each other in
gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and so
the word qaribun (which is masculine) should instead be qaribah (its feminine form).
This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example, in 9:40 we read:
"Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya." Here both Kalemat and heya are feminine. To say
instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la" would never be correct. That would be just as
wrong as saying: "... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min ..."
Such structure well known in classical Arabic and qaribun serves as an adverb rather
than an adjective. This is another simplification of modern Arabic. Using modern Arabic
grammar as your standard is like criticising Shakespeare because of his grammar differs
from modern English!
Error 13
In 7:160
"We divided them into twelve tribes."
"wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
Instead of asbatan it should read sebtan.
In the Arabic it literally say "twelve tribes". That is correct in English but not correct in
Arabic. In Arabic it should say twelve tribe because the noun that is counted by a
number above ten should be singular. This rule is observed correctly for example in 7:
142, 2:60, 5:12, 9:36, 12:4.
If Allah had said "twelve tribe" he would have kept it in the singular. But He is talking
about the numerous asbat within each tribe. "asbatan" means grandsons not tribes and
these within each tribe. For further reference go to Zamakhshari’s tafsir. He mentions the
objection and answers it.
References
(1) Please see http://www.theinimitablequran.com/GrammaticalErrorsInTheQuran.html
Even the Arab Grammarians themselves have been used as a source of Classical
Arabic Grammar “The Arab grammarians were excellent linguists in both the realm of
phonetics and in that of grammar and syntax. Jonathan Owens' The Foundation of
Grammar (1988) as well as a new book just completed by him on medieval Arabic
grammar have convincingly demonstrated that, in many ways, the Arab grammarians
were way ahead of their time.”
[Review of Grammaire Fonctionnelle de l'arabe du Coran (Bahmani Nedger) by Alan S
Kaye, 1990, The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, Volume 35(4), The Canadian
Linguistic Association, p. 381.]
(2) Iltifât means to 'turn/turn one's face to'. It is an important part of balâgha (Arabic
rhetoric) where there is a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person
spoken about. Muslim literary critics over the centuries have greatly admired this
technique. Iltifât has been called by rhetoricians shajâ'at al-'arabiyya as it shows, in their
opinion, the daring nature of the Arabic language. If any 'daring' is to be attached to it, it
should above all be the daring of the language of the Qur'ân since it employs this
feature far more extensively and in more variations than does Arabic poetry. Most of the
authors who talk about iltifât use the examples from the Qur'ân. No one seems to quote
references in prose other than from the Qur'ân: and indeed a sampling of hadith
material found not a single instance.
The types of iltifât and related features are of following types:
1. Changes in person, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, which is the most common and
is usually divided into six kinds. The four important examples that are found in the Qur'ân
are:
2. Change in the number, between singular, dual and plural.
3. Change in the addressee.
4. Change in the tense of the verb.
5. Change in the case marker.
6. Using noun in the place of pronoun.
Examples from the Qur'ân of the above mentioned cases can be seen in M A S Abdel
Haleem's paper. The so-called-grammatical errors in ayahs 4:162, 5:69, 20:63 and 2:
177 are already dealt by him.
(3) Please also see http://www.theinimitablequran.
com/GrammaticalShiftInPersonNumberRhetoricalHaleem.html and http://www.
theinimitablequran.com/SuddenChangesInPersonAndNumberNealRobinson.html
down in writing until well over a hundred years after the Qur'an was revealed. The
Classical Arabic language became a language we can talk about as having a fixed
grammar largely because of the Qur'an. (1) Dictionaries and grammar books were first
written to preserve the language of the Qur'an and the hadiths from the changes to the
Arabic language that were happening as a result of the sudden growth of the Islamic
Caliphate into new populations stretching from (what is now) Pakistan to Portugal. Many
pocket grammar books use quotes from the Qur'an as proofs for most of its 500
grammar rules.
Nevertheless, the points raised will be explained:
Muslims claim the Qur'an not just to be a human literary masterpiece, but a divine literary
miracle. But this claim does not square with the facts. For the Qur'an which we have in
our hands contains obvious grammatical errors which is plain to see for all who know
Arabic.
The First Error
In 5:69 "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the
Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no
fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)
"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana
bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-
zanuun."
There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi'uuna has been
declined wrongly. In two other verses, the same word, in exactly the same grammatical
setting was declined correctly.
2:62 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi'iina ..."
22:17 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaaraa ..."
You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:
62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word
inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in
cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word
Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of
nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.
This change in case is similar to changes number and person and tense. All these are
used in the Qur’an for rhetorical purposes in their contexts. This is a feature called
iltifaat.(2) Of which there are countless examples in Arabic. As for how these rhetorical
measures are used in the Qur’an - they have been covered comprehensively in the
largest book on Qur’anic sciences called Al-Burhan by Zarkashi. (3)
The Second Error
In 4:162
"But those of them that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in
what has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform the
prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day - them We
shall surely give a mighty wage." (Arberry)
"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila
'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata
wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."
The word muqiimiin should be muqiimuun. The word should be declined by the "raf'a
sign" like the other nouns in the sentence. Indeed the two nouns before it (Raasi-khuun
and Mu'-minuun), and the noun after it (mu'-tuun) are declined correctly. Some have
argued that this word was declined as such to distinguish and praise the act of praying,
but the scholar Ibn al-Khatib says that this is a sick reasoning. (al-Furqan by
Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib, Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.43). Such
reasoning defies logic. Why would one distinguish prayer which is a branch of religion,
and not faith which is the fundamental and root of religion? Besides can this logic apply
to the error of declension in the previous verse? Do we conclude that the Saabi'iin are
more distinguished than those who believe, and the People of the Book? And why do
they get distinguished in one verse and not the other as we have seen? God is much
higher than this sick logic. This again is an obvious grammatical error.
This is the same feature which is covered by the answer to the first alleged error.
The Third Error
In 20:63
"They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)
"Qaaluuu in haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
The word saahiraan should be saahirayn. The word saahiraan was declined incorrectly
because the word in in the beginning of the nominal sentence causes a form of
declension called "nasb" to the nominative and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". This is the
third grammatical error.
This is another rhetorical feature and has been exhaustively dealt with by Arab linguists.
For example T Hasan in his book Al-lugha Al-’arabiyyah....
The Fourth Error
In 2:177
"It is not piety, that you turn your faces to the East and to the West. True piety is this: to
believe in God, and the Last Day ... to give of one's substance ... and to ransom the
slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the alms. And they who fulfil their covenant ... and
endure with fortitude." (Arberry)
"Laysal-birra 'an-tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal-Mashriqi wal-Maghrib wa laakinnal-birra
man 'aamana billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Akhiri wal-malaaa-'ikati wal-Kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin: wa
'aatal-maala 'alaa hubbihii zawilqurbaa wal-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili was-
saaa-'iliina wa fir-riqaab: wa'aqaamas-Salaata wa 'aataz-Zakaata; wal-muufuuna
bi'ahdihim 'izaa 'aahaduu was-Saabiriina fil-ba'-saaa'i wazzarraaa-'i ..."
In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them the wrong tense was
used, as the sentence begins in the present tense with the verb tuwalluu, while the other
four verbs were written in the past tense:
'aaman should be tu'minuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu;
'aqaama should be tuqimuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu.
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "It is not
righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteousness is he
who believed in Allah and the Last day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets;
and gave his wealth, ... and performed prayer and paid the alms." But the English
translators have observed the tense, and the verbs "believed", "gave", "performed", and
"paid" were corrected and written in the present tense. (For example see Arberry,
Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Rodwell's translations).
The fifth error is the wrong declension of the word saabiriina. It should be declined
saabiruuna like the preceeding word muufuuna.
The first instance must be in present tense (like following the word ‘to’ in English - "I am
going to eat" not " I am going to will eat or "I have gone to ate". This is uncontentious as
a rule of English grammar. Similar but different rules apply to Arabic grammar. If English
were literally translated including the tenses into Arabic it would be gramatically
completely incorrect. This alledged error is a basic misunderstanding of Arabic grammar.
As for saabiuuna - see the response to the first alledged error.
The Fifth Error
In 3:59
"the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust,
then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was." (Arberry)
"Inna massala 'Isaa 'indal-laahi ka-masali 'Adam; khalaqahuu min-turaabin-sum-ma
qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun."
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "The
likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He
said to him 'Be,' and he is." The above is Pickthall's translation. Please note that he
translated yakuun (is) as it appears in Arabic, i.e. in the present tense.
The word yakuun ("is" in English) should be kana ("was") to be consistent with the past
tense of the previous verb "said" as it was corrected by Arberry, Rodwell and Yusuf Ali in
their translations of that verse. This is the fifth error.
This a grammatical concept with an identifiable name in Arabic "Al-Hikaya" where you
take a block and present it as it is without changing any part of it just as you don’t
change any part of an idiom to suit the different gender or number or tense. For
example, when I presume to teach my school teacher some mathematics he may reply
"don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs". He is not a grandmother and no eggs are
being sucked. Is this a grammatical error on his part? No - you couldn’t even change the
idiom to "...suck an egg".
The Sixth Error
In 21:3
"The evildoers whisper one to another ..."
"Laahiyatan - quluubuhum. Wa 'asarrun-najwallaziin zalamuu..."
The word 'asarru should be 'asarra. The above is a verbal sentence, and the rule for
such a sentence, where the verb comes before the (masculine) subject, is that the verb
must be in the third (masculine) singular form, if the active subject of the verbal sentence
is stated in the sentence. (The same rule holds for substituting the two mentionings of
"masculine" by "feminine".) But the verb in the above Qur'anic verse came in the plural
form. See how the above rule was observed in the following Qur'anic verses: 3:52, 10:2,
16:27, 16:35, 3:42, 49:14.
There are equally valid answers to this:
1, You can take "allaziin zalamuu" as ‘in apposition’ to the plural pronoun to condemn
them for their wickedness and declare that it was their wickedness that led them to the
act.
2, This is a recognised acceptable dialectical variation in classical Arabic, known in all
grammar texts as ‘lughat akaluni al-baraghith’ where we have the plural pronoun (not
singular) followed by the subject as in the verse above. Perfectly acceptable usage of
classical Arabic.
The Seventh Error
In 22:19
"These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord." (Arberry)
"haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..."
In Arabic, like English words are declined or conjugated with respect to number. In
English there are two numbers: singular and plural. So in English two men are treated as
plural. But in Arabic there are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. So in Arabic the
verbs and nouns are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The verb
in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two. But the verse speaks
only of two. So the rules of the dual should be followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should
be 'ikhtasamaa. So this is yet another error.
The dual refers to the two entities - the believers and the unbelievers and then the plural
is refering to the plurality of the numerous individuals in each camp. In English we might
say " It is german government who wants to ban British beef which they say they is
dangerous." Government is both single and hence "it wants" and plural because the
government has many people in it hence "they say".
The Eighth Error
In 49:9
"If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them." (Arberry)
"wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu baynahumaa."
This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is dual but the verb
was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatalata.
This is exactly the same as the previous alleged error.
The Nineth Error
In 63:10
"O my Lord, if only Thou wouldst defer me unto a near term, so that I may make freewill
offering, and so I may become one of the righteous." (Arberry)
"... Rabbi law laaa 'akhartaniii 'ilaaa 'ajalin-qariibin-fa-'assaddaqa wa 'akum-minas-
salihiin."
The verb 'akun was incorrectly conjugated. It should be 'akuuna, i.e. the last consonant
must have the vowel "a", instead of being vowelless, because the verb 'akun, is in the
subjunctive. Indeed the previous verb ('assaddaqa) has been correctly conjugated and is
in the subjunctive. The reason is that in Arabic the present tense is placed in the
subjunctive mood if it is preceeded by certain words (huruf nasebah). One of such words
is the "causative fa".
Firstly there is a valid reading (one of the standard seven readings) in which this is
"‘akuuna".
The explanation of this reading is that it is in conjunction with the mahall of 'assaddaqa
which is jazm in the sense "if you delay me, I will give in charity and be of the righteous".
‘atf ‘ala al-mahall is a well known feature of Arabic grammar.
The Tenth Error
In 91:5
"By the heaven and that which built it." (Arberry)
"was-samaaa-'i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma in the Arabic language is used for the impersonal. But the subject of the
above verse is God. So the word which should be used is the Arabic word man (meaning
"him who"). Arberry translated that verse as follows: "By the heaven and that which built
it" meaning God. Pickthall however corrected the impersonal (ma, that which) and
translated the verse as follows: "By the heaven and Him Who built it."
Indeed Pickthall also corrected the two verses that follow:
And the earth and Him Who spread it. Q. 91:6.
And a soul and Him Who perfected it. Q. 91:7.
Yusuf Ali, to get out of the problem, translated the above verse as follows: "By the
firmament and its wonderful structure". So the subject 'God' does not appear at all in his
translation of that verse. He gives his reason for his translation in a footnote saying: The
ma masdariya in Arabic, in this and the subsequent clauses, is best translated in English
by nouns." But the word bana in banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense as
translated correctly by Arberry and Pickthall. The word ma should have been man
(meaning "who") and in that context it should have been "Who" with a capital W.
"ma" in this verse is not a relative pronoun refering to God but "masdariyya" meaning
"the building of it" not he who built it. Yusuf Ali having been brought up on the madrasa
tradition knows better Arabic than either Arberry or Pickthal.
The Eleventh Error
In 41:11
"Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth,
'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said, 'we come willingly.'"
"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna ta'e'een."
Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said" is
accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing" at the end of the verse
is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at variance with the rule that the adjectives
should match their nouns in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural,
should be ta'e'atain which is used for feminine dual.
There are several Heavens and serveral Earths. In classical Arabic they can be refered
to as masculin or feminine. What you are talking about is a change that has occured in
modern Arabic. You will be surprised for instance to know that in classical Arabic it is
correct to say "qaala al-nisa’ and qaalat ar-rijal" both of which sound incorrect in modern
Arabic. See also the response to the 7th alledged error.
The Twelfth Error
In 7:56
"The mercy of God is near."
"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate should match the
subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is
the predicate of rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each other in
gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and so
the word qaribun (which is masculine) should instead be qaribah (its feminine form).
This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example, in 9:40 we read:
"Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya." Here both Kalemat and heya are feminine. To say
instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la" would never be correct. That would be just as
wrong as saying: "... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min ..."
Such structure well known in classical Arabic and qaribun serves as an adverb rather
than an adjective. This is another simplification of modern Arabic. Using modern Arabic
grammar as your standard is like criticising Shakespeare because of his grammar differs
from modern English!
Error 13
In 7:160
"We divided them into twelve tribes."
"wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
Instead of asbatan it should read sebtan.
In the Arabic it literally say "twelve tribes". That is correct in English but not correct in
Arabic. In Arabic it should say twelve tribe because the noun that is counted by a
number above ten should be singular. This rule is observed correctly for example in 7:
142, 2:60, 5:12, 9:36, 12:4.
If Allah had said "twelve tribe" he would have kept it in the singular. But He is talking
about the numerous asbat within each tribe. "asbatan" means grandsons not tribes and
these within each tribe. For further reference go to Zamakhshari’s tafsir. He mentions the
objection and answers it.
References
(1) Please see http://www.theinimitablequran.com/GrammaticalErrorsInTheQuran.html
Even the Arab Grammarians themselves have been used as a source of Classical
Arabic Grammar “The Arab grammarians were excellent linguists in both the realm of
phonetics and in that of grammar and syntax. Jonathan Owens' The Foundation of
Grammar (1988) as well as a new book just completed by him on medieval Arabic
grammar have convincingly demonstrated that, in many ways, the Arab grammarians
were way ahead of their time.”
[Review of Grammaire Fonctionnelle de l'arabe du Coran (Bahmani Nedger) by Alan S
Kaye, 1990, The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, Volume 35(4), The Canadian
Linguistic Association, p. 381.]
(2) Iltifât means to 'turn/turn one's face to'. It is an important part of balâgha (Arabic
rhetoric) where there is a sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person
spoken about. Muslim literary critics over the centuries have greatly admired this
technique. Iltifât has been called by rhetoricians shajâ'at al-'arabiyya as it shows, in their
opinion, the daring nature of the Arabic language. If any 'daring' is to be attached to it, it
should above all be the daring of the language of the Qur'ân since it employs this
feature far more extensively and in more variations than does Arabic poetry. Most of the
authors who talk about iltifât use the examples from the Qur'ân. No one seems to quote
references in prose other than from the Qur'ân: and indeed a sampling of hadith
material found not a single instance.
The types of iltifât and related features are of following types:
1. Changes in person, between 1st, 2nd and 3rd person, which is the most common and
is usually divided into six kinds. The four important examples that are found in the Qur'ân
are:
- Transition from the 3rd to 1st person. This is the most common type. Over 140
instances can be found in the Qur'ân.
From 1st to 3rd person - nearly 100 such instances can be found in the Qur'ân.
From 3rd to 2nd person - nearly 60 instances.
From 2nd to 3rd person - under 30 instances.
2. Change in the number, between singular, dual and plural.
3. Change in the addressee.
4. Change in the tense of the verb.
5. Change in the case marker.
6. Using noun in the place of pronoun.
Examples from the Qur'ân of the above mentioned cases can be seen in M A S Abdel
Haleem's paper. The so-called-grammatical errors in ayahs 4:162, 5:69, 20:63 and 2:
177 are already dealt by him.
(3) Please also see http://www.theinimitablequran.
com/GrammaticalShiftInPersonNumberRhetoricalHaleem.html and http://www.
theinimitablequran.com/SuddenChangesInPersonAndNumberNealRobinson.html
 |
| Back to Refutations |
 |