The Qur'an: Grammatical Errors
-
Dear Progod
JM and sister Samia might be having some constructive proof to support their statements.Let us wait for their reply.Salaam Al-Quran only
Not a proof, but explanation. I should have mentioned the case of linking two equational sentences with "laakin" where it will be followed by the predicate (a noun, eventually) as in verse 3340 ( . This "laakin" is a connector.You may want to search any grammar book for the " conjunctions/connectors " where you will find "laakin" (no grammatical action), and the sisters of "inna" where "laakinaa" puts its subject in the accusative.
-
Peace,
Some more examples of plurals of collective plurals are Al-bahru (oceans) Al-bihaaru (many different kinds oceans). Al-khailu (horses) and al-khuyoolu (many (different kinds of) horses) and Al-&arabu (Arabs) and al-A&raabu many (different kinds) of Arabs. I'll list more when I think of them or come across them.
Godbless,
AnwarLet me add too, that this could be just an irregularly fixed plural. Although I think the grammatical patterns would suggest that it comes from samnun or samnatun. There are wierd plurals like this that derived from other patterns and the singular from another one. For instance (in MSA as far as I know) a feeling is shu&oorun and feelings is mashaa&ir. Where as the litarly singular of mashaa&ir is mash&ar, which is usually translated as a temple or monument but which I believe as also mean feeling. I'll see if I can come up with somore more irregularities like this.
All of the above are possible, but the logic of it would be that simaan became a fixed plural for fat (plural male and female) but was originally derived from samnun/samnatun, meaning cow or goat (and from what I see obviously referring to a well fed cow or goat). Just like samnun can mean butter or clarified butter, obviously referring to its fattiness. To point to the fact that associations becoming fixed part of a language is not rare let's take the Spanish lechon. It literally means really milky or creamy and is now always used to refer to fatty (young) pigs destined for the dinner table. I hope my point is made. Again any other examples that can illustrate my point I will post as soon as I find them or they come to mind.
-
Salaam Al-Quran only
Not a proof, but explanation. I should have mentioned the case of linking two equational sentences with "laakin" where it will be followed by the predicate (a noun, eventually) as in verse 3340 ( . This "laakin" is a connector.You may want to search any grammar book for the " conjunctions/connectors " where you will find "laakin" (no grammatical action), and the sisters of "inna" where "laakinaa" puts its subject in the accusative.
Dear sister
I am concerned only with your statementAccording to "grammar" there are two kinds of "LKN" laakin, which is to be followed by any kind of words (verb or preposition) but NOT a noun, and there is laakinna, which is ONLY followed by a noun.
What is your source which says thatlaakin, which is to be followed by any kind of words (verb or preposition) but NOT a noun
Secondly ,in the Aya which you have quoted the Laakin used is not a "connector " rather .Here "vAw" is the connector.(No doubt laakin is also connector but in this aya its status is different).
-
Peace,
Could I get a review? What is the issue with Lakin and lakinna?
Godbless,
AnwarMy concern is Red highlighted quote in the above post.
On the one hand she says that "laakin " cannot be followed by a "noun" (for which I am asking some evidence). On the other hand she has quoted a verse in which "Laakin" is followed by a noun.
I could not understand this disparity. -
Peace,
I looked in Wright and found an entry for this, it has lakinna and lakin as an adverb and it goes
Lakinna, Lakin, often with waw prefixed, but, yet. Lakinna is placed only before nouns and pronominal suffixes in the accusative , but in the 1st person lakinni, lakinnaa are used as well as lakinnani, lakinnanaa [When lakin is used followed by a single word, it is a conjunction}
Godbless,
AnwarI hope this clears something up. The only thing I'm not too sure about is what is a pronominal suffix. I think they are nee, naa, kum, ka, ki, hu, haa, hunna, hum, kumaa, humaa but i'll have to check.
-
Peace,
I looked in Wright and found an entry for this, it has lakinna and lakin as an adverb and it goes
Lakinna, Lakin, often with waw prefixed, but, yet. Lakinna is placed only before nouns and pronominal suffixes in the accusative , but in the 1st person lakinni, lakinnaa are used as well as lakinnani, lakinnanaa [When lakin is used followed by a single word, it is a conjunction}
Godbless,
AnwarI hope this clears something up. The only thing I'm not too sure about is what is a pronominal suffix. I think they are nee, naa, kum, ka, ki, hu, haa, hunna, hum, kumaa, humaa but i'll have to check.
Dear progod
Lakinna is not the problem.The problem is Laakin. You have to decide whether it can be followed by a "noun" or not.Samia says that it cannot be followed by a noun. -
Peace,
I don't see why it can't. As you can see from the above there is even a provision made for it. It is probably since lakinna is always followed by a noun that the confusion arises. I think that grammar book is precise on the issue, lakinna is always followed by a noun. Lakin can be followed by a noun or not. The issue is already solved for me. I'll keep my eyes open though.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
Got some more
Second part Wright pg 81, Rem. e. If lightened (mukhaffafun) froms in, an, ka'an and lakin, be used, their government is likewise hindered, and their noun is put in the nominative. 'in' is in this case always followed by la as in zaidun lamuntaliqun verily Zeid is goign away; in hadhaani lasaahiraani . . .(onto page 82) examples of lakin lakin adh-dhaalimoona al-yawma fee dawlaalin mubeenin but the wrong-doers are this day in manifest error; laakin ar-raasikhoona fee al-Ailmi minhum but those of them who are firmly rooted in knowledge.
Speaking on this issue I found in the page before on 80 Rem c A second subject after inna, anna and laakinna may be put in the nominative, if the common predicate has been already expressed; as inna zaidan jaalisun wa bishran * or wa bishrun . . . inna al-khilaafata wa an-nubuwwata feehim wa al-makrumaatu wa saadatun at-haaru verily the califate and the office of the prophet are in them (in their tribe) and noble deeds and chiefs of spotless character.
So again any misunderstanding in the grammar of the Quran is caused because of an incomplete knowledge of Classical Arabic grammar or a wrong supposition that Modern Standard Arabic is Classical Arabic grammar 100%. Anyone who wants to see the other examples can buy (or download) the book and review these pages.
Another thing I would like to mention is where you see the asterisk above, I would like to say that this sentence structure can also render the waw as with, especially seeing that the two sitting persons in the example are assumed to be sitting together or in close proximity. The same goes for when other verbs are used. For instance 'rasheedun dhaahibun wa zawjuhu' This can be rendered "Rasheed is leaving with his wife'' or "Rasheed and his wife are leaving" in any case you can see the common meaning in both English sentences and understand why the Arabic can be rendered both ways.
Also I would like to point out the word used for spotless. At-haaru is a natural plural of tahrun or taharun. forms that correspond to fa&lun or fa&alun ( I used A and & for ain), and not taahirun (faa&ilun) or taheerun (fa&eelun). This is a further confirmation of how the form fa&lun can be used with the meaning faa&ilun or fa&eelun. So this gives another grammatical explantion for the plural simaan for samn or samnatun.
I hope this clears the doubts up. Again, if you want to clear up these issues get a book dedicated to Old Classical Arabic Grammar. A grammar of the Arabic langauge by W. Wright is more than an excellent place to start. Be wary of grammar books for the generic term Fus-haa or MSA. If the book is full of a lot of old, awkard quotes and hadeeth quotes talking about tribes or different types of camels, goats, sheep, cows or horses, desert life or nomad life, it is most likely appropriate as it is dealing with very early islamic era texts, pre-Islamic era texts and the Quran.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
So again any misunderstanding in the grammar of the Quran is caused because of an incomplete knowledge of Classical Arabic grammar or a wrong supposition that Modern Standard Arabic is Classical Arabic grammar 100%. Anyone who wants to see the other examples can buy (or download) the book and review these pages.
Dear Progod
Thank you very much for this excellent input.
Honestly speaking ,so far I have realized you the only one who knows arabic grammar.
I think people who do not know it they call the Grammar as "Seebawah's errors". It is said a bad workman querrels with his tools.Keep up your good work.
Thanks once -
Dear Progod
Thank you very much for this excellent input.
Honestly speaking ,so far I have realized you the only one who knows arabic grammar.
I think people who do not know it they call the Grammar as "Seebawah's errors". It is said a bad workman querrels with his tools.Keep up your good work.
Thanks onceSalaams. I would second this comment and add one of the very very few. It's too bad that most on this site don't understand and see this. Seems they cater to any others that know some arabic and expose what they want to hear instead of what is right...and they don't have enough knowledge to question or challenge themselves.
peace
-
Peace,
Got some more
Second part Wright pg 81, Rem. e. If lightened (mukhaffafun) froms in, an, ka'an and lakin, be used, their government is likewise hindered, and their noun is put in the nominative. 'in' is in this case always followed by la as in zaidun lamuntaliqun verily Zeid is goign away; in hadhaani lasaahiraani . . .(onto page 82) examples of lakin lakin adh-dhaalimoona al-yawma fee dawlaalin mubeenin but the wrong-doers are this day in manifest error; laakin ar-raasikhoona fee al-Ailmi minhum but those of them who are firmly rooted in knowledge.
Speaking on this issue I found in the page before on 80 Rem c A second subject after inna, anna and laakinna may be put in the nominative, if the common predicate has been already expressed; as inna zaidan jaalisun wa bishran * or wa bishrun . . . inna al-khilaafata wa an-nubuwwata feehim wa al-makrumaatu wa saadatun at-haaru verily the califate and the office of the prophet are in them (in their tribe) and noble deeds and chiefs of spotless character.
So, the conclusion is that laakin can be followed by a nominative.
But what is your conclusion as for the second error is concerned (see the first post) ?Peace
-
Peace,
My first answer is nasb can be used for emphasis. I saw a Classical Islamic scholar admit this but then say that giving prayer more emphasis than charity (zakat according to his interpretation) is fisq. So he just gave an opinion contradicting what the Quran is implying because he doesn't like it. Again, I'll keep my eyes open. Also let me remind that Al-Salaat can also mean blessing(s).
Godbless,
AnwarAs for me only being seemingly the only one who knows Arabic grammar. Let me first say thank you. And then let me say that this is because knowing Arabic is more than just speaking the modern langauges used and having gone through an Arabic education system. I have dedicated my studies to understanding "Arabic" from a big picture (knowing when to refer it as Dialect, MSA or Classical Arabic). Furthemore I don't have any face to lose by studying books that I know are Classical Arabic based especially when I know that what seems like correct grammar is not always correct. For the longest i have been saying that there is not just one language called Arabic. All three facets of Arabic have distinct grammatical usages and vocab. They share some but they also don't share alot. This conversation just continues to prove what i am saying. Fist be sure that you know what Arabic you are talking about when someone mentions Arabic (Dialect, MSA or Classical Arabic). And if someone mentions fus-haa be careful that you have defined whether the text you are dealing with is Old Classical Arabic or MSA.Why? Because there is alot in common, but there is still alot that is not the same between these two. If you can understand what the term Arabic consists of in all its facets it makes it easier to look up these things that seem to be grammatically wrong. The first question to ask is, which grammar are we talking about? There isn't just one. That is just the reality of Arabic. The colloquial Arabic 1500 years ago has been replaced by a post-Quranic creole form of Arabic. The language evolved on the street. It is not the same as it was 1500 years ago. That colloquial language from 1500 years ago become the language of the educated, the Classical language. And in our modern era its grammar was intentionally reduced and codified for more ease in teaching and learning by Arabs to use as common tongue who for all intents and purposes don't speak Arabic anymore, they just call it that. These post-quranic colloquials are evolved languages that are based off of Arabic and whose speakers still identify themselves as Arabs. That is the only reason it is still called Arabic. If is the same as if all Italians (with their differing dialects) still called their language Latin, which they could if they wanted. The majority of them descend from the Latin people and their language is based off of Latin.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace,
My first answer is nasb can be used for emphasis. I saw a Classical Islamic scholar admit this but then say that giving prayer more emphasis than charity (zakat according to his interpretation) is fisq. So he just gave an opinion contradicting what the Quran is implying because he doesn't like it. Again, I'll keep my eyes open. Also let me remind that Al-Salaat can also mean blessing(s).
So, your response is the same as in this page http//www.islamic.org.uk/grammar.html ?
Peace
-
Peace,
Yes, Jm I agree with him 99 percent. As for his grammatical explanations 100 percent. This is the first time I have seen a traditional Muslim who has studied Arabic grammar enough to actually be able to answer these questions. Because traditional Muslims most times do not know these things (even some "Scholars" Quranists like to try to discard these things altogether out of ignorance.
The only thing I disagree with him about is the Quran being the basis for the codification of Classical Arabic. It was the motivation behind codifying and recording the usages of Classical Arabic which came to be known as its fixed grammar. However the Quran, the Hadeeths, Classical Arabic poems and other speeches and such from that time period (even the Arab Bedouins, who had been isolated from the language change) were consulted to put together the rules. In my grammar book the Quran is often used however many other phrases from Old Arabic sayings outside of the Quran are used as well.
But yes, That web page is 100 percent correct on the grammar. Thank you for pointing it out, I will be reading it some more as this comes as a shock to me that there are some Muslims out there who have educated themselves enough about Arabic to know that these so called mistakes are not mistakes at all. he also mentions the difference between Modern Standard Arabic and Classical Arabic a phenomena for which I have caught alot of flack about from those who do not know there is a difference, and would rather argue me down because they do not know, have not studied enough and are quick to knock anything that sounds like it is from the Islamic "Establishment".
Godbless,
Anwar -
As for his grammatical explanations 100 percent.
OK, and why to you think about the hypothesis according to which these "grammatical errors" would actually be transcription errors ?
Like arjulakum/arjulikum, for example (see http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation4.htm).Peace
-
Peace,
OK, and why to you think about the hypothesis according to which these "grammatical errors" would actually be transcription errors ?
Like arjulakum/arjulikum, for example (see http//www.islamicperspectives.com/Preservation4.htm).Yes and no. The real issue is that even though there were some written Quranic mushafs very early on the Arabic script did not have dots or vowels. So, as is known the text was preserved through memorization by schools of memorizers. I definitely think there were mistakes made but these mistakes were made in the recitation, for which there was no specific script to balance all errors. The reason why I still believe in the authenticity of the Quran is that despite these variants obviously caused by reciters' mistakes all of these variants can mean the same thing. I mean all of them share a common meaning in the context. Take yaqoolu and yaqoola for instance, the first is nominative and the second is subjunctive. But you will see in the Quran that if you say "If I say this he will say that" it is either 'In aqool(a) hadhaa huwa yaqool(a) dhaaka' (literally If I would say this he would say that) or "In aqool(a) hadhaa huwa yaqoolu dhaaka" (literally If I say this he will say that). Yaqoolu is technically present but like present tense in most langauges it can extend into the future or into the realm of obligation.
As for the hadeeths recording all of those variants Such variants still exist in the recitations of well-known reciters. Why? Because whereas the early Arabs were influenced by their Classical Arabic Dialects (some of these varying pronuncations from Classical Dialects are also seen in the Quran) now reciters are influenced by their modern Arabic dialects. If you read A grammar of the Arabic langauge you will see where instead of na'budu some reciters say ni'budu. This is from non-Classical Dialects where for example naktabu, yaktabu, yaktiboona and taktibu are corrupted to niktib, yiktib, yikitboon/yiktiboo(n), and tiktib. So those variations we find in the Hadeeths are just records of how people messed up the Quran, the different versions that we have now are the recitations that had the most reciters from the earliest times. These were written down vowel by vowel and dot by dot, when the vowel and dot system was fully developed for the Arabic script. But I can admit that somebody messed up (knowing the langauge they substituted forms, vowels or words of equal signification in the contexts unintentionally) But the amazing part is that as bad as that could have gotten all of these variations have common meanings and all Quranic scripts agree with each other in most of the words and in all of the meanings. That is a miracle in itself.
Godbless,
Anwarps. If it's arjulikum it is a continuation of the genitive begun with biru'oosikum wa . . .
And when it is arjulakum it is like saying 'Wipe your heads, not forgeting your feet to the ankles.' Yes a case ending can do all that! Yet still amazingly in this context the meaning is exactly the same. It gives feet emphasis. It is a very minimal difference in meaning, yet in a different context it could add crucial meaning. It is like the difference between laa ilaahun illa allahu (There is not any god other than God] (this could be a statement of fact or obligation) and la ilaaha(n) illa allaaha (There is not any god but God!. One is more emphatic than the other, but the meaning is the same.
To some all this is very complicated. But for those of us who have linguistic experience and experience in learning different languages and even how to use our own native languages more eloquently the abundance of rules and tones and subtleties in any given language , we know they can be numerous. The amazing part is how we master them and use them, sometimes without even realizing that these things have names and rules that can be classified and written down in books. When I first started taking classes on AAVE (Afro-American vernacular English) in a linguistics class I was shocked at how grammatically based and specific my dialect was, especially since most people percieve it as a dialect that has no grammar and is similar to baby talk. The same goes for any language or dialect. It is just that when that dialect or language is foreign to us we see it as too complicated. When you learn it on the street those rules are taught you just through reproaches like "that is bad talk" or "you don't talk good/well/right" or "Don't say it like that" or "Don't say that" whereas when we study a language from a book/academic perspective, having the specific rules, subtleties and grammar explained to us (which amounts to no more than saying something well or saying it bad or incomprehensibly) then all of it seems so overwhelmingly false, academic or in some cases where the language is still used it is immensely helpful so we don't have to be criticized so harshly by native speakers. I took an Iraqi dialect class and have studied some Egyptian dialect and for a foreigner even these dialects are full of rules and no no's, it is just that real academic classification of Arabic dialects (mainly by westerners) is just beginning. Arabs still continue to view their dialects as ungrammatical street langauges. But all langauges have grammar, and the only reason Arabs find that dialects are more free-flowing than CA is because they are not native speakers and there attempt to tie the Quran to their dialect by saying it is ungrammatical too is just a lack of knowledge about their own languages and the grammar of Classical Arabic which the hadeeths, the Quran and the wealth of speeches, poems and the like that were recorded after the Arabs and their language came into prominence with the rise of Islam and the fall of the Persian and Roman empires. -
The real issue is that even though there were some written Quranic mushafs very early on the Arabic script did not have dots or vowels. So, as is known the text was preserved through memorization by schools of memorizers. I definitely think there were mistakes made but these mistakes were made in the recitation, for which there was no specific script to balance all errors. The reason why I still believe in the authenticity of the Quran is that despite these variants obviously caused by reciters' mistakes all of these variants can mean the same thing.
Progod, thanks for your response.
So, cannot some (or maybe all) of the alleged grammatical mistakes be explained by transmission mistakes instead of rethorical effects ?
Peace
-
Peace JM,
No. Let me clarify what i mean by mistake. I mean a benign addition or subtraction from the original Quran. For instance the addition of a waw or the changing of a waw to a fa, or the chaning of the IV form to the II or vice-versa, etc. These versions obviously imply that somebody added or changed something from the original. (I believe unintentionally). So when I say mistake I dont mean that anything in the Quran is wrong, grammatically or otherwise. I just mean that in the preservation of the Quran people unintentionally changed the original version using words or phrases (coinciding with CA grammar and rhetoric) that they understood to be the eqiuvalent of what they had previously memorized and understood. Hence, fa and wa have common meanings awsaa and wassaa , nashara and nashaza etc, etc. Every discrepancy betwen the different versions of the Quran allows for a common meaning between them, which is very impressive to me, and redeems the Quran from what truly inconsistent versions would indicate.
Please do not disregard all of my post just to find something that you can interpret in a way that goes against the grain of everything I said in that same post. Please take all that I say in context. However if this was just a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word mistake, I hope you understand my point from what I wrote above.
Godbless,
Anwar -
Peace JM,
No. Let me clarify what i mean by mistake. I mean a benign addition or subtraction from the original Quran. For instance the addition of a waw or the changing of a waw to a fa, or the chaning of the IV form to the II or vice-versa, etc. These versions obviously imply that somebody added or changed something from the original. (I believe unintentionally). So when I say mistake I dont mean that anything in the Quran is wrong, grammatically or otherwise. I just mean that in the preservation of the Quran people unintentionally changed the original version using words or phrases (coinciding with CA grammar and rhetoric) that they understood to be the eqiuvalent of what they had previously memorized and understood. Hence, fa and wa have common meanings awsaa and wassaa , nashara and nashaza etc, etc. Every discrepancy betwen the different versions of the Quran allows for a common meaning between them, which is very impressive to me, and redeems the Quran from what truly inconsistent versions would indicate.
Please do not disregard all of my post just to find something that you can interpret in a way that goes against the grain of everything I said in that same post. Please take all that I say in context. However if this was just a misunderstanding about the meaning of the word mistake, I hope you understand my point from what I wrote above.
Godbless,
AnwarDEar progod
Would you please
1Point out where "waw" and "faa" have been interchanged
2Where IV form has been changed to II form
3What is the evidence/proof for them??
?? Or it is just a claim for the sake of claim without any evidence.
I will appreciate your research.