Chapter Eight
Qur’anic
Language and Grammatical Mistakes
Our Muslim brethren say that the eloquence
of the Qur’an, the supremacy of its language and the beauty of
its expression are conclusive evidence that the Qur’an is the
Word of God because the inimitability of the Qur’an lies in its
beautiful style of the Arabic language. We acknowledge that the
Qur’an (in some of its parts and chapters) has been written in
an eloquent style and impressive words. This fact is beyond any
doubt and anyone who denies that does not have any taste for the
Arabic language. Yet, on the other hand, we say that there are
many clear language errors in other parts of the Qur’an
pertaining to the simplest principles of style, literary
expression and the well-known grammatical rules of the Arabic
language and its expression.
We even find in the Qur’an many words
which do not have any meaning and are not found in any language.
There is also a great deal of vocabulary which no one can
understand. Muhammad’s companions themselves have acknowledged
that, as we will see, but before we examine all these issues, I
would like to clarify two important points.
First, from a linguistic point of
view, the eloquence of any book cannot be an evidence of the
greatness of the book and proof that it was revealed by God,
because what is important to God is not to manifest His power in
the eloquence of style and the expressive forcefulness of the
classical Arabic language, but rather to embody His power in the
sublime spiritual meaning contained in that book which will lead
the people to a high spiritual level which enables them to live
together in peace and love. It helps them to enjoy an internal
profound joy and spiritual, psychological fullness—abundant
life. God does not care to teach the people of the Earth the
rules and the principles of the Arabic language. God is not a
teacher of a fading classical Arabic language, but the true
living God is our spiritual leader in life of love and joy.
Is the content of the Qur’an properly fit
to be ascribed to God? All that we intend to do here is to
determine that eloquence of style is not always an evidence that
the words uttered come from heaven or that the one who has
spoken them is a prophet. The German poet Schiller is not a
prophet, and the Iliad and the Odessa are not composed by a
prophet but rather by a Greek poet. The masterpieces of
Shakespeare’s poems and plays in English literature which are
translated and published more than the Qur’an by ten fold have
not compelled the British to say that the angel Gabriel is the
one who revealed them to Shakespeare.
The second very significant point
is that the eloquence of the Qur’an and the supremacy of the
classical Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written have
created difficulty in reading and understanding, even for the
Arabs themselves. So what would we say about the non-Arabs even
if they learn the Arabic language? The Qur’an will continue to
be a problem for them because it is not sufficient for a person
to learn the Arabic language to be able to read the Qur’an. He
also has to study the literature of the Arabic language
thoroughly. Thus, we find that the majority of Arabs themselves
do not understand the classical language of the Qur’an which
contains hundreds of words which confused Muhammad’s companions
who mastered the language but failed to explain their meanings,
along with many other words which even Muhammad’s companions
could not comprehend.
Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti composed at least
one hundred pages in part II of his famous book, "The
Itqan", to explain the difficult words included in the chapters
of the Qur’an, under the title "The Foreign words of the
Qur’an". The vocabulary of the classical Arabic language and
some of its expressions are not in use anymore among the Arabs.
The language itself was so diversified that the Shafi’i was led
to say, "No one can have a comprehensive knowledge of the
language except a prophet" (Itqan II: p 106).
The question which imposes itself on us
is: What advantage do the people of the world get out of the
Book of God if it is written in a difficult language which makes
it impossible for Arabs (even Muhammad’s companions and his
relatives) to comprehend it? Does God write a book in which
people do not comprehend the meaning of many words included in
the text, especially when the scholars insist that the Qur’an
must be read only in Arabic? In his book al-Itqan, Al Suyuti
says,
"It is utterly inadmissible for the
Qur’an to be read in languages other than Arabic, whether
the reader masters the language or not, during the prayer
time or at other times, lest the inimitability of the Qur’an
is lost. On the authority of the Qaffal (one of the most
famous scholars of jurisprudence, fundamentals and
exposition), reading the Qur’an in Persian cannot be
imagined. But it was said to him, ‘Then no one will be able
to interpret the Qur’an.’ He said, ‘It is not so, because he
will bring forth some of God’s purposes and will fail to
reveal others, but if somebody wants to read it in Persian
he will never bring forth (any) of God’s purposes."’
This is why non-Arabs repeat the Qur’anic
text without understanding it, because they utter it in Arabic.
The same words have been repeated in Dr. Shalabi’s book (p. 97),
"The History of Islamic Law". He also adds,
"If the Qur’an is translated into a
non-Arabic language, it will lose its eloquent
inimitability. The inimitability is intended for itself.
It is permissible to translate the meaning without being
literal."
The same principle is followed by those
who worked on the English authorized translation. They said
(page iii),
"The Qur’an cannot be translated—that
is the belief of traditional Sheikhs (religious leaders).
The Arabic Qur’an is an inimitable symphony, the very sounds
of which move men to tears and ecstasy."
This is true. If the Qur’an were
translated literally into English, for example, it would lose
its linguistic beauty, and could not then be compared to any
other book in English, French, or German literature. In
addition, a person might wonder how the many incomprehensible
Arabic words could be translated.
The other question which confronts us is
this, Does God belong to the Arabs only? If His book can only be
in Arabic, then it is written only to the Arabs and it should
not be read except in Arabic as the scholars claim as if God
were an Arabic God. Thus, the scholars prohibit praying to God
in any other language than Arabic in all mosques. It is also
required that the call for prayers and the confession of faith
which attests that the man is a Muslim must be uttered in Arabic
because Muhammad (the prophet of Islam) said that Arabic is the
language of paradise and the Arabs are the best nation created
among peoples.
Among the famous prophetic traditions
which Muhammad said to the Muslims is, "Love the Arabs for three
(things): Because I am an Arab, the Qur’an is in Arabic and the
language of the people of the paradise is Arabic" (refer to
al-Mustadrak by the Hakim, and Fayd al-Ghadir).
Let us now examine the failure of the
Arabic language in which the Qur’an is written, and limit
ourselves to the following points:
The Original
Qur’anic Text Was Without Diacritical Points, Vocalization, And
Some Of Its Letters Are Omitted.
We will attempt to explain this problem to
the English reader as plainly as possible. We hope he will find
it exciting and interesting. The Arabic reader knows fairly well
that the meanings of the words require the use of diacritical
points above or below the letters, otherwise it becomes very
difficult (if not impossible) to comprehend their meanings.
Vocalization also is very significant in the field of
desinential inflection, along with writing all the letters of
the word without omitting any of them. Thus, the reader of the
Arabic language cannot believe or imagine that the Qur’an was
written originally without these significant requirements, but
let us assure you that this is a historical fact, well-known and
acknowledged by all Muslim scholars without any exception.
We will also see that there is a large
number of words about which the scholars could not agree as to
their meanings. One simple example helps us to visualize the
nature of the problem. Let us take the Arabic letter "ba". By
changing the diacritical points, we get three different
letters—"ta", "ba", and "tha". So when these letters are written
without the diacritical points, it becomes difficult for the
reader to know the word that is intended.
Examine the following word. Look
thoroughly at the diacritical points (I repent), (plant),
(house), (girl) (abided). Another example (rich), (stupid), and
so on. Without these diacritical points it is very hard to
distinguish the words from each other. Thus, the meaning differs
from one word to another depending on the place of these
diacritical points. Many of the Arabic alphabets require the
presence of the diacritical point to differentiate between one
alphabet and another and hence between one word and another.
Now let us quote the Muslim scholars who
have the final word in these matters.
1) In his famous book, "The History of
Islamic Law" (p.43), Dr. Ahmad Shalabi, professor of Islamic
history and civilization remarks,
"The Qur’an was written in the Kufi
script without diacritical points, vocalization or
literary productions. No distinction was made between such
words as ‘slaves’, ‘a slave’, and ‘at’ or ‘to have’, or
between ‘to trick’ and ‘to deceive each other’, or between
‘to investigate’ or ‘to make sure’. Because of the Arab
skill in Arabic language their reading was precise. Later
when non-Arabs embraced Islam, errors began to appear in the
reading of the Qur’an when those non-Arabs and other Arabs
whose language was corrupted, read it. The incorrect reading
changed the meaning sometimes."
The same statement is made by Taha Husayn
in "Taha Husayn" (p. 143), by Anwar al-Jundi.
Then Dr. Ahmad alluded to those who
invented the vocalization and diacritical points and applied
them to the Qur’anic text many years after Muhammad’s death such
as Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali, Nasr ibn ’Asim and al-Khalil ibn
Ahmad. He also added (on the same page) that "without these
diacritical points, a man would believe that verse 3 of the
chapter, ‘The Repentance’, would mean that God is done with
the idolaters and His apostle— free from obligation to the
idolaters and His apostle—while the real meaning of the verse is
that God and His apostle are done with the idolaters—free
from further obligation to the idolaters.
Now the question we would like to ask Dr.
Ahmad and all those wise men: Why was not the Qur’an revealed to
Muhammad in a perfect Arabic language complete with the literary
indicators and the diacritical points lest a difference or
change of meaning occur? If a student of Arabic writes an essay
in Arabic without the diacritical points would the teacher give
him more than zero? The answer is known to two hundred million
Arabs.
The second question is: Did God inspire
those who added the diacritical points and the vocalization
through an angel, for example, to eliminate the different
meanings on which the scholars disagree? Who instructed Nasr ibn
’Asim, Abu al-Aswad al Du’ali and Khalil ibn Ahmad to undertake
this serious task and create the diacritical points and the
vocalization for the Qur’anic text? Was it not more appropriate
that Muhammad himself or some of his successors or companions
like ibn ’Abbas and ibn Mas’ud should accomplish this work? Yet
al-Suyuti himself tells us that ibn Mas’ud was not pleased with
that (refer to "Itqan", part 2, p. 160), nor were other leading
companions and scholars such as ibn Sirin and the Nakha’i.
2) Ibn Timiyya, Sheik of the Muslims (vol.
XII, p. 101), tells us,
"The companions of Muhammad had never
used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the
Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use
(for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or
‘you do’. The companion did not forbid one of the readings
in favor of the other, then some successor of the companions
began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the
Qur’an."
On pp. 576 and 586, he adds,
"The companions (Muhammad’s friends)
did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the
letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later
during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading
errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical
points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them.
This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the
scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it
should not be disliked because the situation necessitated
it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from
each other while vocalization explains the grammatical
inflection."
There is a candid acknowledgment from ibn
Timiyya that diacritical points are required, but did not God
and His angel Gabriel along with Muhammad and his successors
know about this problem? The simplest principles of sound Arabic
language demand that words should have diacritical points and
their letters should be written in complete form. Didn’t they
know that disagreements among Muslim scholars would take place
and that they would fight among themselves and that even death
would result from the differences in reading the Qur’anic text?
Didn’t they know also that the differences in meaning of the
Qur’anic vocabulary would be decisive in the interpretation and
judgments of Islamic law?
It is surprising that such things had not
occurred to the mind of God, Gabriel, Muhammad, and the
companions and the caliphs; then, three persons come later and
insert these changes into the Qur’anic text. Yet, what is really
more surprising is that when the companions discovered the
differences in the readings of the Qur’anic text (as Ibn Timiyya
says), they did not have any objection against any of the
different readings and they did not prohibit either one. The
justification for that was that Muhammad himself had
acknowledged the presence of seven different readings, not just
two readings as was clearly stated in the Sahih al-Bukhari,
(vol. 6, p. 227). This fact is common knowledge among all the
scholars.
3) Jalal-al-Din al-Suyuti
In his famous book, "al-Itqan Fi Ulum
al-Qur’an" ("Adjusted Qur’anic Science"), al-Suyuti reiterates
(part four, p. 160) the same words of ibn Timiyya which had been
quoted by Dr. Ahmad Shalabi about those who invented the
diacritical points and the vocalization of the words. He also
said that some of the scholars detested that, as we mentioned
before. There the Suyuti presents (part four, pp. 156,157) a
list of words which could be read differently. One of them is
the reading by which the Qur’an was written, though Muhammad
himself had accepted and acknowledged both readings.
In part one, p. 226 of "The Itqan", the
Suyuti makes an important declaration in which he says that the
difference in reading has led to differences in Islamic law.
He illustrated that by the following example: He indicated that
some scholars demanded of the worshipper that he wash himself
again (the ablution) before he prays if he shook hands with a
woman. Yet other scholars require him to do so only in case of
sexual intercourse and not just because he shook hands with her
or touched her hand.
The reason for this disagreement is
ascribed to one word found in the Chapter of Women (verse
43) and whether it has a long vowel a or not. The Jalalan (p.
70) and the Baydawi (p. 113) record for us that both ibn ’Umar
and al-Shafi’i seriously disagree with ibn ’Abbas in the way
they interpret this verse because ibn ’Abbas insisted that the
meaning intended here is actual intercourse while the former
said no, it is enough for a man to touch the skin of a woman or
her hand to require having his ablution (washing) repeated.
In four full pages (226-229), the Suyuti
stated that the many arguments and various interpretations
pertaining to the above word have brought about different
ordinances. When we read the commentary of the Jalalan or the
Baydawi, we realize that whenever they come across certain words
which could be read in more than one form they say: This word is
read in two different forms.
Before conclude this part, let me call
attention to the following everyday story: A man was asking
about the place of two verses in the Qur’an. He was told that he
could locate them in the Chapters of Resurrection and the
Hypocrites. He made every effort to find these two chapters but
in vain. Then he was told that the Chapter of Resurrection is
number 75 and the chapter of the Hypocrites is number 63. He
told them that chapter 75 is named "The Value" and chapter 63 is
named or called "The Spenders". They told him you say so because
you read them without the letter A (long vowel A) His logical
answer was: "I have read them in exactly the form in which they
were written without the long vowel A. Why should I add the long
vowel A to the words of the Qur’an which would change the
meaning?"
My dear English reader have you recognized
the purpose of the above paragraph? Is the word "reply" the same
as "replay"? There are dozens of words like that in the Qur’an,
even some of the titles of the Qur’anic chapters have been
written without the long vowel A. For example, the word
"masajid" (mosques) is written "masjid" (a mosque), and
"sadaqat" (charities) as "sadaqta" (you said the truth). The
meaning (as you see) has been completely changed, as Dr. Ahmad
Shalabi and Suyuti remarked.
Meaningless
Qur’anic words
All Muslim scholars acknowledge that the
Qur’an contains words which even Muhammad’s relatives and
companions have failed to understand. In his book, "The Itqan"
(part 2, p. 4), the Suyuti states clearly,
"Muhammad’s companions, who are
genuine Arabs, eloquent in language, in whose dialect the
Qur’an was given to them, have stopped short in front of
some words and failed to know their meanings, thus they said
nothing about them. When Abu Bakr was asked about the
Qur’anic statement ‘and fruits and fodder’ (8:31), he said,
‘What sky would cover me or what land would carry me if I
say what I do not know about the book of God?’ ’Umar ibn
al-Khattab read the same text from the rostrum, then he
said, ‘This fruit we know, but what is fodder?’ Sa’id ibn
Jubair was asked about the Qur’anic text in chapter 13 of
Mary. He said, ‘I asked ibn ’Abbas about it, but he kept
silent."’
Then the Suyuti indicated that ibn ’Abbas
said that he does not know the meanings of some of the Qur’anic
verses (like these in Chapter 69:36, 9:114 and 18:9).
I have quoted the Suyuti’s text word for
word, and stated the confession of ibn ’Abbas who is interpreter
of the Qur’an and legal jurist of the caliphs for whom Muhammad
pleaded with God to enlighten his mind to comprehend the meaning
of the Qur’an. Also, who was closer to Muhammad, my dear Muslim,
than Abu Bakr and Umar, the first two caliphs along with ibn
’Abbas? All of them failed to comprehend many of the Qur’anic
verses. Therefore, the Suyuti warns that anyone who attempts to
conceive the meanings of these words will suffer complete
failure. Then he mentions that the caliphs and ibn ’Abbas,
themselves, did not know their meanings.
Of course, he was right, because if those
great leaders had failed to know their meanings, who would?
Certainly, those intimate companions of Muhammad asked him about
the meanings of those obscure words, but it is clear enough that
Muhammad himself failed to know their meanings, otherwise he
would have explained them to his companions as he did on several
other occasions.
In addition to these ambiguous words there
are at least 14 other words or symbols which are recorded at the
introductory part of 29 Qur’anic chapter. These codes are
entirely ambiguous. Also four of these codes are titles for four
chapters; therefore, four Qur’anic chapters have meaningless
titles. These chapters are chapter Taha, ya sin, Sad, and Qaf.
When the Jalalan attempted to expound the meanings of these 14
obscure words and the titles of these chapters, they said, "God
alone knows His own intention."
I am stating these words for the benefit
of the reader as they are recorded in the authorized English
translation of the Qur’an. "Aim-Alr-Almus-Hm" means nothing
in any language! Is it a characteristic of Arabic eloquence
to have meaningless words and titles of complete chapters which
no body can comprehend?
The Qur’an
says woe to anyone who asks for the meaning!
The Qur’an acknowledges that there are
meaningless words. In chapter of Family of ’Umran: 7, it
indicates that there are allegorical verses which "no one
knoweth how to explain save God." The Qur’an does not tell us
why these words have been recorded in the Qur’an if no one knows
their meaning. In his book, "The Itqan" (part 3, p. 3), the
Suyuti refers to the above verse, then he remarks,
"The Qur’an is divided into sound,
intelligible (verses) and obscure, unintelligible (verses).
The obscure (verses) are only known to God such as the
detached alphabets at the beginning of the chapters."
On pp. 5 and 6, the Suyuti asserts that
the majority of the companions and the successors of the
companions, especially the Sunnis (among them ibn ’Abbas
himself) affirm that there are words of which no one knows the
interpretation save God only.
It is worthwhile mentioning here that
anyone who attempted to comprehend the meaning of those words or
any of the obscured verses was severely punished. On pp. 7 and 8
(part 3 of "The Itqan"), the Suyuti records for us a moving
episode about a person called Sabigh who wanted to inquire about
these same Qur’anic interpretations ’Umar Ibn al-Khattab
severely punished him on successive days until he was almost
killed due to head injuries. This is "the just ’Umar", as they
call him.
The Qur’an
Gives The Antonym (opposite) Meaning Of Words And Phrases
This fact is well-known to all scholars.
It clearly reveals that the Arabic language of the Qur’an is not
always sound as some believe. In the second part of "The Itqan",
the Suyuti speaks explicitly about things which no one expected
to find in the Qur’an. Actually, these defects are not supposed
to occur in any standard Arabic book which complies with the
rules and characteristics of the Arabic language. On page 135,
the Suyuti says,
"The word ‘after’ has been
mentioned twice in the Qur’an so as to mean ‘before’,
as in this saying, ‘We have written in the psalms (the
scripture) "after the reminder" (21:105) while He meant
"before."’ Also in this saying, ‘The earth "after" that He
has extended (79:30) while he meant "before" and not "after"
because the earth was created first "before" and not "after"
He created the heavens,’ as Abu Musa indicated."
These are the actual words of Suyuti. The
question now is: Does this linguistic defect conform to any
language in the world? Does this comply with the characteristics
of writing and the artistic, eloquent style of Arabic language?
Is it proper, in the Qur’anic style to write "after" when you
mean "before"? How can the reader know the correct meaning since
it is common knowledge that "after" and "before" are opposite
words? Is it sensible that the angel Gabriel meant to say
"before" but he instructed Muhammad to write "after"? It is
difficult for us to believe that.
This problem is not confined to one word
because the Suyuti provides us with eight pages (Itqan, part 2,
pp. 132-139) full of similar examples found in the Qur’an in
which, according to the interpreters of the texts, the Qur’an
meant the opposite meaning than the literal meaning of the
expression. There is no connection between the literal meaning
and the meaning intended by the Qur’an.
Let us examine together some of the
examples the Suyuti presented to us in his book, the Itqan, part
2,
(A) "The Qur’an means, ‘Do not those who
believe know that had Allah willed, He could have guided
all mankind’, but he said, ‘Do not those who believe despair!’
instead of writing ‘know’ as he meant" (see Thunder: 31). Is
"despair" the same as "know"?
(B) "The Qur’an says in chapter 2:23, ‘...
your martyrs’, but it means here, ‘ ... your partners’ (p. 133).
After the Suyuti made this remark, he commented,
"The martyr is supposed to be the
person who is killed, or the one who testifies concerning
people’s matters, but here it means ‘your partners."’
(C) "In chapter Joseph: 20 the word
‘Bakhs’ (too little) is meant to be ‘haram’ (forbidden, sacred)
contrary to the usual meaning" (p. 132).
(D) "In chapter Mariam (Mary):46 the
phrase, ‘I certainly will stone you’ is interpreted to mean, ‘I
certainly will curse you’, and not, ‘I certainly will kill you’
as its literal meaning suggests" (p. 133).
Let the reader decide for himself as he
examines these illustrations.
Why the Qur’an did not say: "Do not know
those who believe.. " instead of "do not the believers give up
all hope..." Is "despair" the same as knowledge? And if the
Qur’an intended to say, "Did not ... know" would it be recorded
as to mean "to give up all hope?" The same thing could be said
about "too little" and "martyrs " Does not each word have a
different meaning than the meaning indicated by the Qur’an? Is
it one of the prerogatives of the language to use a word which
has a different connotation than the intended meaning?
Let us state another illustration from
"The Itqan" (part 3, p. 251) where the Suyuti says,
"In chapter the (Rahman):6, The Qur’an
says: ‘The "Nagm" stars and the trees bow themselves.’ Here
the Qur’an does not mean by ‘the stars’ the heavenly stars
but the plants which do not have trunk. This is the
far-fetched intended meaning."
We would like to state here that there is
no one who would imagine or expect this meaning. Even the
Saudi scholars who translated the Qur’an into English (p. 590)
understood the word ‘Nagm’ ("star") to mean a heavenly star—and
stated it as such. Thus, even the Saudi translators of the
Qur’an could not imagine that the Qur’an has meant by the word
"Nagm" ("star"), the plants which do not have trunks.
I, myself had some doubts about the
Suyuti’s explanation and thought maybe it was the Suyuti’s fault
and not the Qur’an’s, or the Saudi scholars. Why should we
attack the Qur’an and blame it for the Suyuti’s error?
Therefore, as a candid researcher, I decided to examine the
interpretations of the former Muslim scholars to be sure of the
proper interpretation. I referred to the Baydawi’s commentary
(p. 705) and found him in full harmony with the Suyuti’s
interpretation who stressed that this word alludes to the plants
which sprang from the earth without a trunk. The same
interpretation is found in the Jalalan (p. 450). In Al-Kash-shaf
(part 4, p. 443), the Zamakh-Shari agreed with the mentioned
scholars and remarks,
"And the ‘star’ which is a plant which
springs from the earth without a trunk such as the herbs,
for the trees do have trunks."
Thus, let the Saudi scholars correct the
translation errors of the Qur’an, along with another error (as
the Suyuti comprehended it) though they are right in their
interpretation of it: The word "amid most" (chapter 2:143) means
- according to Suyuti - righteous or just people (p. 251 also
refer to the Baydawi p. 29 and Tabari 24). Thus Suyuti says,
"The conspicuous meaning of the word
suggests the (idea) of intermediary, while the intended
meaning is ‘righteous’ and this is the far-fetched
meaning."
Another example in which the English
translator was proper.
The Qur’an says in chapter 57:29: "Lest
the people of the book may know." This is the literal
translation of the phrase. The word means (in both Arabic and
English) "lest" while the intended meaning is that they may know
(refer to the commentary of Jalalan p. 459). The translators of
the Qur’an correctly translated it as "that they may
know" which is opposite to the literal meaning of the word in
Arabic.
Yet, before we conclude the discussion of
this point, I would like to share with the readers another
strange phrase which illustrates the above mentioned point even
more clearly.
In chapters 75: 1,2 and 90:1, the Qur’an
repeats the phrase: "I do not swear..." This is the literal
translation of the phrase, but the interpreters and the
translators of the Qur’an insist that the meaning is: "I do
call...," or "No, I swear" indicating that the word "do not" is
redundant, and when He said, "I do not swear", he meant, "I
swear" (refer to the Jalalan, p. 493, 511; Al-Kash-shaf, part 4,
p. 658, 753; and Baydawi, pp. 772, 799). The Qur’an says,
"I do not swear by the Day of
Resurrection"
"I do not swear by the reproachful
soul"
"I do not swear by this city"
While he meant (according to all Muslim
scholars) that He does swear by the above three things. The
Zamakhshari noted that some had objected to that, and they have
the right to object to this confusion, but others said that the
pre-Islamic, great poet Emro Al-Qays used to do so.
In the Qur’an
There Are Omitted Words, Incomplete Phrases, and Errors In The
Structure Of Sentences
This is strange and unjustifiable. Why
should many words or even completed phrases be omitted confusing
the meaning? In his book, "The Itqan", the Suyuti has discussed
this matter and pointed to many omitted letters or words and
sentences. He devoted ten pages of part 3, (pp. 181-192) to
listing ample examples of which I quote but a few of them.
A) "We read in chapter (Surah) 22:32:
‘It is from the piety of hearts.’
The Suyuti says it should have been
written this way,
‘Its glorification comes from the
deeds of those of piety of hearts."’
B) "Also, in chapter 20:96, the Qur’an
says,
‘So I took a handful (of dust) from
the footprint of the apostle.’
The Suyuti says: It is supposed to be
written as such:
‘...from the footprint of the hoof of
the apostle’s mare"’ (refer to p. 191)
C) Among the many striking examples of the
omission of various sentences is what we read in chapter
8:45,46. The Suyuti comments in p. 192,
"The verse: ‘Send ye me oh righteous
Joseph...’ means, ‘Send ye me to Joseph to ask him
for the interpretation of the dream.’ So he did. He came to
him and said, ‘O, righteous Joseph...."’
In the Qur’an just two words at the
beginning are written and two words at the end and all the words
in-between are omitted!
Let the reader decide for himself if it is
possible to comprehend the intended meaning, having all these
words omitted from the verse until it becomes entirely
meaningless.
Other
Language Errors In Sentence Structure
It is appropriate to refer to Muslim
scholars when a person wants to study and comprehend the Qur’an.
They are well acquainted with the principles of the Arabic
language and the Qur’an. There is none better than the Suyuti,
Baydawi, Tabari, Jalalan, and Zamakh-Shari who are great,
recognized scholars and linguists quoted by the Azhar scholars
in Egypt as well as the Saudi scholars. The American, European
and Orientalist, with all due respect, do not understand the
Qur’anic language like those great Muslim scholars. The Suyuti
(part 3, p. 33), quoting several great Muslim scholars, says,
"The Qur’anic verse: ‘Let not their
wealth nor their children astonish thee! Allah purposeth
only to punish them in the world’ (chapter 9:85). It
actually means: ‘Let not their properties and children
astonish you on this Earth because God purposes to torment
them in eternity."’
Let the reader notice that there is no
mention of eternity in the verse. In pp. 34 and 35, the Suyuti
remarks:
"The intended original word order of
(the Qur’anic) text: ‘Have you seen the one who made his God
(the object of) his compassion?’ (25:34) is to be read, ‘...
who made his compassion his God’ and not, ‘... his God (the
object of) his compassion’, because ‘who made his God (the
object) of his compassion’ is not blame- worthy."
In page 328, the Suyuti says that,
"There are many verses in the Qur’an
which were revealed without any connection to the verses
which proceeded or preceded them, such as what we read in
chapter 75:13-19 because the entire chapter talks about the
states of resurrection. But these verses were revealed
because Muhammad used to hastily move his tongue when
dictating the Qur’anic revelation. Some Muslims said that
part of the chapter has been dropped, because these verses
are not relevant to this chapter at all."
We conclude our discussion of this part by
pointing to the boring repetition of certain phrases by which
the Qur’an is characterized. The phrase, "O which of your Lord’s
bounties will you deny?" is repeated thirty-one times in a
chapter in which there are no more than 78 verses (chapter 75).
The story of Noah is repeated in 12 chapters. Abraham’s story is
repeated in 8 chapters along with the episode of Lot. Moses’
story is repeated in 7 chapters, Adam’s in 4 chapters, and
John’s in 4 chapters. Moses’ conversation with pharaoh is
repeated in 12 chapters. Certainly these stories differ
drastically from the stories recorded in the Old Testament.
There are approximately 15-20 grammatical
errors found in the Qur’an which cannot be denied by those who
master Arabic grammar This has created a heated argument because
these grammatical errors are not expected in a book which
Muslims claim is dictated by God and its inimitability lies in
its perfect Arabic language. Thus, how can the Qur’an include
grammatical mistakes which a junior high school student who has
a basic background in Arabic would not make? If anyone of the
Arab readers wishes to expand his knowledge of these errors, we
would like to refer him to the following Qur’anic verses:
Chapters 2:177; 3:39; 4:162; 5:69; 7:16; 20:63; 21:3; 22:19;
49:9 and 63:10. As an illustration, we refer to one example
which is found in chapter 20:63. The Qur’an says,
"These two are certainly
magicians"—Inna Hazan Sahiran. The correct grammar must say,
Inna Hazyn Sahiran.
According to Arabic grammar, these two
must be in the accusative case after "Inna", but they are
stated in the nominative case which is completely wrong.
|