Does the Qur’aan
really contain grammatical errors?
By:
Shahid Bin Waheed شاهد
بن وحيد
الحمدلله رب العالمين والصلوة والسلام على اشرف الانبياء
وسيدالمرسلين نبينا محمد صل ا لله عليه وعلى آله واصحابه وازواجه اجمعين - امابعد
Thanks to be Allaah, Sustainer of the Universe, and blessing and salutation to be the most distinguish of the Messengers and foremost among the Prophets, our Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allaah be on him and on his wives, children and Companions.
Anti-Islaam forces have made some very amusing claims that Glorious Qur’aan contains grammatical errors. But the irony of such absurd claim is that they have not proved how and why, besides making claims; not to mention there remained many unanswered questions. In this treatise we will discuss anti-Islaam claim while doing an autopsy of their absurdity.
Anti-Islaam
claim:
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 distinguishe 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.
Response!
First of all the gray text in the
quote above is irrelevant to the argument, thus, it is ignored. What was needed by the accuser to present the facts along
with Arabic grammatical rules and Islaamic Shariah
rules of elucidation and interpretation, but sadly both are missing.
Let us first read the Ayaah آيه 4:162 of the Glorious Qur’aan in its
original language Arabic, it was revealed,
لَّـكِنِ الرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ مِنْهُمْ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيكَ وَمَا أُنزِلَ مِن قَبْلِكَ وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلاَةَ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ أُوْلَـئِكَ سَنُؤْتِيهِمْ أَجْراً عَظِيماً
Lakini alrrasikhoona fee alAAilmi minhum waalmuminoona yuminoona bima onzila ilayka wama onzila min qablika waalmuqeemeena alssalata waalmutoona alzzakata waalmuminoona biAllahi waalyawmi alakhiri olaika sanuteehim ajran AAatheeman
But those among them who are
well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what has been sent
down to you (Muhammad SAW) and what was sent down before you, and those who
perform AsSalat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat and believe in Allah and in
the Last Day, it is they to whom We shall give a great reward.
|
مِنْهُمْ among them |
الْعِلْمِ knowledge |
فِي in |
الرَّاسِخُونَ firmly rooted |
لَّـكِنِ but |
|
إِلَيكَ to you |
أُنزِلَ has been sent down |
بِمَا in what |
يُؤْمِنُونَ believe |
وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ and the believers |
|
الصَّلاَةَ the prayers |
وَالْمُقِيمِينَ and
those who offer |
مِن قَبْلِكَ before you |
أُنزِلَ was sent down |
وَمَا and what |
|
وَالْيَوْمِ and Day |
بِاللّهِ in Allaah |
وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ and who believe |
الزَّكَاةَ Zakat |
وَالْمُؤْتُونَ and who pay |
|
عَظِيماً great |
أَجْراً reward |
سَنُؤْتِيهِمْ to whom We shall give |
أُوْلَـئِكَ it is they |
الآخِرِ (in) the Last |
Let us scrutinize the absurd
claim →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.←
Related
questions!
يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَخْرُجُواْ مِنَ النَّارِ
وَمَا هُم بِخَارِجِينَ مِنْهَا وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ مُّقِيمٌ
And for them is a torment lasting. Therefore, under what Arabic grammar rule a singular can replace the plural, while the required and implied meaning is establishers [of the prayer], which is an absolute plural and so does the word used in the Ayaah 4:162 [وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلاةَ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ] (ap-der iv (Active participle) masculine {plural})?
Had the author of absurd claims possessed some real knowledge of Arabic and/or Islaam sciences, he would have not committed the acts of self-humiliation in this fashion, but obviously his ulterior motives to deceive naïve and ignorant of Islaam and Arabic compelled him to publish such imbecilic claims.
According to the Arabic
grammar plural nouns I: Ism Jama’a إسم جمع are of two types:
A)
Unbroken/Sound Plural جمع سالم (Jama’a
Saalam)
B)
Broken جمع مكَسَّر (Jama’a
Mukassar) or جمع تكسير (Jama’a Takseer)
|
Plural جمع مُسِْلمُوْنَ مُسِْلمُينَ All (male) Muslims |
Dual مثنى مُسِْلمَانِ مُسِْلَمْينِ Two (male) Muslims |
Singular مفرد مُسِْلمٌ One (male) Muslim |
Masculine مذكر |
|
مُسِْلمَاتٌ مُسِْلمَاتٍ All (female) Muslims |
مُسِْلَمَتَانِ مُسِْلَمَتَتْينِ Two (female) Muslims |
مُسِْلمةٌ One (female) Muslim |
Feminine مؤنث |
The above form of plurals are
called unbroken/sound plurals because the original word
remains unchanged, [and just انِ OR يْنِ are added
to last letter for dual form and وْنَ OR يْنَ for the plural form] in this case
it would be the word derived from the root letters ق و
م
(مُقِيم)
that has been used in Ayaah آيه 4:162 i.e. [وَالْمُقِيمِينَ الصَّلاةَ وَالْمُؤْتُونَ
الزَّكَاةَ] Few examples of unbroken/sound for
singular, dual and plural nouns are: Ayaat آيات 2:128; 2:221; 4:34; 4:92-93; 23:1 & 34:16.
Further,
in Arabic language there are two types of i’raab إعراب
A) Evident i’raab إعراب الظاهر (Al I’raab ul Zaahir)
B) I’raab by Letters إعراب بالحروف (Al I’raab bil Huroof)
While the Evident i’raab إعراب الظاهر (Al I’raab ul Zaahir) can only be applied to the singular مفرد form of nouns for both genders. However, the last two letters of the nouns in the dual and plural forms are the i’raab, which can be one of the following:
Regarding the part of the absurd
claim that I quote: → Indeed the two
nouns before it (Raasi-khuun and Mu'-minuun), and the noun after it (mu'-tuun)
are declined correctly. ← the author also failed to
present the evidence and/or authority from the Arabic grammar. The word الرَّاسِخُونَ alrrasikhoona is an Active
participle masculine plural, whereas
the word الْمُؤْمِنُونَ is derived
from the root letters أ م ن is nominative (ap-der iv (Active
participle) masculine {plural}; therefore, in my belief and the facts cited above,
these words are not identical according to Arabic grammar.
Conclusion!
The anti-Islaam author[s] has made some highflying absurd
claims without presenting their evidence in support of his claims. The irony of
this absurd claim is that this has never been an issue for over fourteen
hundred years, and hundreds of millions of Arabs of today and during the course
of fourteen+ centuries never made such claims. Had that been true, than the
Arabs would have never accepted Islaam and neither the Jews nor Christians’
remained silent? Another fact, readers must consider that majority of the translators
of Glorious Qur’aan are non-Muslims, who have done their part to distort the
meanings, but they never dared to claim the same thing, why? Because it is not true and is
an outright misrepresentation of truth about the Glorious Qur’aan. This one
refutation must suffice to impeach the claimant’s other claims on this subject
matter.
Thursday,
November 18, 2004