Grammatical Errors in the Quran [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

In the Name of
Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful

Doubts Raised About Quran's Grammatical Rules.

by: Moiz Amjad

Mr. P. Newton with Mr. Rafiqul-Haqq has written an article titled:
"Grammatical Errors in the Qur'an" [1]

. He
writes:

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.

Mr. Newton has cited the following verses of the Qur'an to substantiate his
claim:

Al-Maaidah 5: 69
Al-Nisaa 4: 162
Ta Ha 20: 63
Al-Baqarah 2: 177
Aal Imraan 3: 59
Al-Anbiaa 21: 3
Al-Mominun 22: 19
Al-Hujraat 49: 9
Al-Munaafiqun 63: 10
Al-Shams 91: 5
Fussilat 41: 11
Al-Aaraaf 7: 57
Al-Aaraaf 7: 160

After citing these examples, Mr. Newton ends his article with the following
words:

The Qur'an, because of these errors, is not even a masterpiece.
If, humanly speaking, the Qur'an cannot be called a masterpiece, can anyone
honestly call it a divine literary miracle?

The object of this article is to give answers to the following questions:

How does the grammar of a language develop?
Why and how did the Arabic grammar develop?
What were the sources of deriving grammatical rules of the Arabic
language?

The writer believes that answers to these questions will themselves be an
adequate evidence of the absurdity of trying to find Grammatical Errors in the
Qur'an.

Grammar - A Stage in the Development of a Language

It is a commonly known and an established fact that compilation of grammar is
a stage in the development of a language. This statement needs a little
explanation.

Laying down 'Grammatical Rules' of any language does not and cannot precede
speaking and comprehension of that language by its native speakers. For
instance, the English language was being spoken for a long time before someone
sat down to lay down the rules of the English language. The grammar of a
language is created, but not before that language is spoken and understood by
the natives.

We can take Greek, as a case in point. Greek, as we know is a very old
language. But it was only in the second Century B.C. that Dionysius Thrax, wrote
a book of Grammar on the Greek language and that too was limited only to the
word morphology. This work, incidentally, was the first systematic grammar of
the Western tradition. It was not before the second century A.D. that a study of
sentence syntax of the Greek language was conducted by Apollonius Dyscolus.
Dionysius Thrax also defined Grammar. His definition is as under:

The acquaintance with [or observation of]

what is uttered by poets
and writers. [2]

A close look at this definition would further substantiate the obvious.
According to it, Grammar was developed:

through the observation of the utterances of (established) poets and
writer of that language - which obviously implies that before any grammatical
rules were laid down, writers and poets were using that language to convey
their messages and to do their works,
to get acquainted with the language of these (established) poets and
writers - which, to some extent implies that such grammatical rules are not a
need for a people whose native language is under consideration. It is a need
for peoples for whom the language in question is either a foreign language or
is a language not completely the same as the language they speak. For
instance, a modern-day Englishman normally does not need to study English
grammar to fully comprehend modern-day works. However, for comprehension of
the classical English literature he may require to take a course in grammar
and word usage of the classical English language.

It should be clear from the foregoing points that knowing the correct
language is really a matter of knowing what and how the native speakers of that
language speak. Grammatical rules are derived from this usage of the native
speakers. This fact is irrefutable. [3]

This
fact also points out the reason and basis of development and change in a
language. It is stated in Britannica:

When a child learns to speak he tends to regularize the anomalous,
or irregular, forms by analogy with the more regular and productive patterns
of formation in the language; e.g., he will tend to say "comed" rather than
"came," "dived" rather than "dove," and so on, just as he will say "talked,"
"loved," and so forth. The fact that the child does this is evidence that he
has learned or is learning the regularities or rules of his language. He will
go on to "unlearn" some of the analogical forms and substitute for them the
anomalous forms current in the speech of the previous generation. But in some
cases, he will keep a "new" analogical form (e.g., "dived" rather than
"dove"), and this may then become the recognized and accepted form. [4]

The reader should note the words: '... and this may become the recognized and
accepted form.' This statement once again is evidence of the fact that what we
refer to as 'correct language' is really the language recognized and accepted by
the natives of that particular language as correct.

This process is the usual case in the development of grammar and the
dependable sources of deriving its 'rules'. Now, once these concepts are clearly
understood, consider the following example:

Suppose that Group X was the accepted and recognized literati of
Latin, prior to the compilation of Latin grammar. Later on, some scholars of
Latin sat down to compile the Latin grammar. They looked for various sources
for their work. The scholars find that the works of Group X comprises of Latin
literature, recognized and accepted to be correct by the natives of that
language. So these scholars, without any reservations accept the works of
Group X as one of the sources for their work. Time moved on. After a few
hundred years, some other 'scholars' sit to analyze the works of Group X on
the basis of the work done by the 'grammarians' (the scholars who compiled the
rules of grammar). Now, after "thorough deliberation" if they declare, on the
basis of the work of the grammarians, that the writings of Group X contains a
number of 'grammatical' errors, these modern "scholars" in their exuberance
may even claim (or at least expect) a literary award for their findings, yet
even an ordinary person would only laugh at their findings. For he would
hopefully have the common sense of asking himself: "How can something be
analyzed for errors on the basis of another thing which itself is based on the
first thing". This basis for analysis would really be like saying: "the human
body (the source) does not correspond to the books written on human physiology
(the derived result), and therefore, the human body (the source), when
analyzed on the basis of these books has such and such errors". The common
man, rather than going into such "sick" logic, would almost certainly take to
the point that the books written on human physiology (the derived result) do
not adequately describe the human body (the source). Obviously, the same
principle would also apply to the appraisal of the writings of Group X on the
basis of the work of the grammarians. If the rules laid down by the
grammarians do not correspond to the writings of Group X, then the fault lies
with the rules of the grammarians and not with the writings of Group X.
Obviously, appraising the source, on the basis of the results derived from
that very source is nothing but absurd.

Two Distinct Stages in the Development of a Language

There is yet another important aspect of history of the development of a
language.

If we analyze the development of a language closely, we shall see that in
relation to conformity to grammatical rules, the history of a language can
normally, be divided into two distinct stages. One is the "Pre-grammar" stage,
and the other is the "Post-grammar" stage. Each of these stages has a set of
characteristics peculiar to it.

First let us see the Pre-grammar stage. In this stage, a language is in its
purest and most natural form. The natives of the language speak their hearts and
minds out, and whatever and however they speak and accept and recognize as
correct is the standard for correct language. In these times, poets, writers and
orators are criticized, not for wrong grammar, as no such thing as compiled
grammar has any existence, but for lack of clarity, non-idiomatic use of
language, improper use of words and poor style. It is not just improbable, but
inconceivable that these writers, poets or orators commit such mistakes as may
be termed as "grammatical errors". For whatever they say and however they say it
provides the very grounds on which, later on, the grammarians base their
"grammatical rules". It is on the very authority of these writers, poets,
orators and other established users of a language that "rules" of grammar are
laid down. For instance, in later times, a grammarian might say: "XYZ is a rule
of language A, as is obvious from the statements/verses of the poet D, who was
accepted and recognized by the natives of language A, as qualified to be held as
an authority on that language", or "XYZ is a rule of language A, because this is
how it is spoken by the natives of that language". Another important aspect of
this stage is that even such deviations from the common and regular usage as are
recognized and accepted by the natives of that language to be correct, cannot be
termed as incorrect. What the grammarians, in fact, do is to try and find out
the reasons for such deviations and the added meaning a certain deviation
provides to the regular and common usage, but even if some grammarians are
unable to find out the reasons for these deviations, they still cannot be termed
as incorrect.

Now, let us also have a brief look at the Post-grammar stage of a language.
In the first stage, it is the poets, writers, orators and users of that language
that provide guidelines for the work of the grammarians. In the Post-grammar
stage, it is normally, the other way round. In this stage, generally,
grammatical rules are held by the writers, poets, orators and other users, as
the standard for the correctness of their written or spoken words. In the first
stage, grammatical rules are derived from the usage of writers, poets etc., and
every grammatical rule along with every deviation from such a rule, which can be
substantiated by the usage of such writers and orators is held to be correct. On
the other hand, in the second stage it is normally the accepted rules (and the
accepted deviations from these rules) that substantiate the correctness of a
writer's, poet's, orator's or anyone else's usage. Obviously, it can so happen
that a writer uses a style, which is considered to be against the general
grammatical rules of the language. The writer is then criticized for this
deviation. Nevertheless, sometimes the writer can provide examples of such
deviations from the 'Original' authorities of the language, which had previously
been missed by the grammarians of that language. In such an event, the style of
the writer is then accepted to be correct. Furthermore, sometimes a writer,
because of the native acceptance that he may acquire over time for his usage and
style, can become so influential that even his deviations may later on be
considered as authentic. Thus, grammatical rules may even be modified on the
authority of the deviations of such a writer. This tendency of accepting new
grammatical rules because of any new styles introduced by modern writers is far
less in peoples who are more conscious and conservative about maintaining the
purity of their language, as compared to those who are not.

These are some of the major changes that take place in the development of a
language before and after the compilation of grammatical rules.

The Particular Case of the Arabic Language

Generally, the grammar of a language is developed to teach that language to
such peoples, who are not native speakers of that language. However, in the case
of the development of the Arabic grammar there was a difference. One other
factor played an important role in the initiation of the compilation of Arabic
grammar. This factor was the concern and the consciousness of the Arabs for
maintaining the purity of their language.

It is quite clear to all those who are aware of the history and psyche of the
Arabs that they were a people who took great pride in the beauty, simplicity,
purity and eloquence of their language. This pride was so deep-rooted in their
psyche that the word used for non-Arabs in the Arabic language - 'ajami'
- means 'a person who stammers and is not eloquent'.

The conquests of the Arabs and the conversion of a large number of non-Arabs
to Islam, during the first century after the Prophet (pbuh) created a need for
the compilation of Arabic grammar as a large number of non-Arabs, now developed
an inclination of learning the Arabic language to understand the Qur'an and the
sayings of the Prophet (pbuh). Furthermore, these conquests and the resultant
expansion of the Muslim state also opened up the hitherto closed Arabian
society. This situation, on the one hand, provided an opportunity of rich
social, cultural, political and economic exposure to the Arabs and, on the
other, threatened the more conscious among them with the adulteration of their
language by the social and cultural interaction with other peoples. This fear
provided the other important basis for the yet unknown and unconsidered task of
the compilation of Arabic grammar. [5]

The first person to take up this task was Abu al-Aswad Al-Du'wali
(A.D. 605-688). Some people ascribe the book "Usul al-Nahw al-Arabi" to
Abu al-Aswad. Later on, a chain of grammarians made their contribution to
the now esteemed task of the compilation and research on Arabic grammar. The
grammarians' job, in the later stages became so esteemed and exalted that the
most outstanding grammarian, along with the best Jurist, was given a distinct
position in the royal assemblies.

The Primary Sources in the Compilation of the Arabic Grammar.

The Grammarians and other scholars of linguistic fields, in their task of
compiling their rules, used all the compiled or scattered Arabic literature that
was accepted by the Arabs to be in its unadulterated verbal tradition and
representative of the correct usage of their language. The two major,
unanimously accepted sources of this literature were the Qur'an and the
pre-Islamic and Islamic poetry. There was a difference among the linguists
regarding whether or not the words of the Prophet (SWS) and addresses of well
known orators as reported in isolated narrations may be used as source material
in their work. Those who were in favor of using these narratives believed such
material to be reliable enough for the derivation of linguistic and grammatical
rules and were of the opinion that because of the recognition of the Prophet
(SWS), in particular, and the considered orators, in general by the Arabs as
authorities in the Arabic language, such material should be held as a source for
their work. On the other hand, those who were against using these traditions as
source material gave their dissent on the basis that contrary to the Qur'an and
the poetic works, it is difficult to rely on these narratives to be verbally
accurate and unadulterated. The basis of their argument was that the Qur'an,
because of its religious importance and the Arabic poetry, because of the Arab
culture were not only accepted authorities in Arabic language, but were also
transmitted from one generation to the other, in their exact and unaltered
verbal form, whereas the narratives of the Prophet (SWS) and the addresses of
the well known orators lacked this quality. Abd al-Qadir ibn Omar
al-Baghdadi states in his book "Khazanatul-Adab" [6]

writes:

Undalasi explaning his colleague's - Ibn Jabir's - literature,
says: "There are six sciences related with language: Linguistics, Morphology,
Syntax, Rhetoric, Connotation and the science related to the figures of
speech. In the first three, a citable authority can only be the Classical Arab
speech. While in the later three, as they are a matter related to the common
sense and reason, even the post-classical people or even non-Arab people may
be cited. This is the reason why in these fields citations have also been made
from the literature of people like Buhtari, Abu-Tamam, Abu-Tayyeb
etc.

My point of view is that a citable authority in linguistic
sciences is of two kinds: one is poetry and the other anything besides poetry.
As far as the first category is concerned, scholars have divided the Arab
poets in four categories: 1) "Al-Shoara al-Jahiliyyah", that is the
Classical, pre-Islamic poets... 2) "Al-Mukhadhramun" or the poets who
witnessed the pre-Islamic as well as the Islamic era... 3) "Al-Mutaqaddimun"
or the poets of the early Islamic era... and 4) "Al-Muwalladun" those after
the early Islamic era till the poets of our day.

Citations from the
first two groups are unanimously accepted by all linguists as authority... As
far as the third group is concerned, [although there exists some difference]

but it is [normally held to be]

correct to accept their references as
authoritative... While from the fourth group, citations from only those who
are held to be reliable among them are accepted as authority, this opinion is
also held by Zamakhshuriy...

The non-poetic sources include
either the Blessed Book of our Lord, the purest, the most fluent and the most
eloquent piece of Arabic literature, citations therefrom are accepted to be
authoritative, whether they are from its continual [most well known]

tradition
or from its irregular [not so well known]

traditions, as has been declared by
Ibn Janni in the beginning of his book "Al-Mohtasib". Besides
[the Qur'an]

such [non-poetical]

sources include [speech]

references from the
first three categories of Arabs, as we have mentioned in the categorization of
poets, above. As far as citations from the Hadith (narrative traditions) of
the prophet are concerned, Ibn Malik accepts them as authoritative... while,
Ibn Dhai and Abu Hayyan refuse to do so. Their refusal is based
on two reasons: 1) these traditions are not verbal narrations of the speech of
the Prophet. On the contrary, only their content has been narrated [in the
words of the narrators]

. And 2) the great grammarians of Basra and Kufa do not
hold them as citable authorities [in the derivation of Grammatical
rules]

.

Thus, all the grammarians and other linguists of the Arabic language, without
exception have accepted the Qur'an as a source of grammar and other linguistic
sciences of the Arabic language. It is because of this reason that such well
known grammarians and linguists as Al-Siibwayh, Al- Zamakhshuriy, Ibn Hisham,
Malik, Al-Akhfash, Al-Kasai, Al-Farazdaq, Al-Farra', Khalil, Al-Farahidi and
innumerable others, while stating a particular grammatical or linguistic rule
present wherever possible, as evidence supporting their claim not only poetical
but also Qur'anic verses. It would be accurate to say that for them - the
fathers and founders of the compiled Arabic Grammar - the Qur'an has always been
the most dependable source for their work. All that is required to appreciate
the importance that these people give to the Qur'an is to have a look at their
works. Al-Farahidi writes in the preface of his book, "Kitab al-Jumal Fi
al-Nahw" (Muassasatul-Risalah, Beirut, 1987):

We have placed all the discussions in their respective chapters
providing support for each argument from the Qur'an and Arabic poetry.

Likewise, Howell writes in the preface of his book, "A Grammar of the
Classical Arabic language":

The object of the Grammarians being to demonstrate the classical
usage, they endeavor to support every proposition and illustrate every rule by
one or more evidentiary examples taken from the classical language. These
examples consist of texts from the Kuran, passages from tradition, proverbs,
phrases transmitted by the learned from the Arabs of the desert, and verses
from the poets.... A text from the Kuran, as being the very word of God,
delivered in the purest dialect of the Arabs, according to the theory of
direct verbal inspiration inculcated by Muslim theologians, is of necessity
infallible. A passage from tradition, if it be the word of the Prophet, is
universally accepted as conclusive evidence; and if it be the word of a
Companion, is generally so received, while some hyper critical purists affect
to consider the Companions as liable to the suspicion of solecism. A proverb
if it dates from heathen times, is admittedly excellent evidence of classical
usage. But a saying transmitted by a Grammarian or a Lexicologist from an Arab
of the desert varies in authority with the antiquity of its transmitter, a
saying transmitted by Ibn Hisham, for instance, not being nearly so
authoritative as one transmitted by Al-Akhfash al-Akbar. [7]

This, then is the accepted and acknowledged position of the Qur'an in all the
sciences of Arabic language and literature.

The Absurdity of Searching For Grammatical Errors in the Qur'an

Once this position of the Qur'an, which it holds in the eyes of the most
approved native or naturalized authorities of the Arabic language and literature
and also in the eyes of the grammarians, lexicologists etc. of the Arabic
language is fully understood and appreciated, one can easily see the absurdity
of claiming 'Grammatical Errors in the Qur'an'.

The Qur'an being one of the major source materials of the grammarians' works
can obviously not be judged on the basis of the grammarians' work. Trying to do
so would actually be like trying to find faults in in the Universe on the basis
of the books written by astronomers.

Logically, had the position of the "Human Body" or the "Universe" as a source
material for the works of physiologists and astronomers respectively, been fully
appreciated it would be more appropriate and understandable if someone
challenged the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the works of these
physiologists and astronomers. Similarly, had the position of the Qur'an as a
source material of the compiled Arabic grammar been fully appreciated, it would
have been more appropriate and understandable if someone had challenged the
accuracy and comprehensiveness of the grammarians' work, rather than challenge
the reliability of the Qur'an, when and if an inexplicable deviation was found
in the Qur'an.

To sum it up, the process of the development of the Arabic grammar is such
that does not allow the appraisal of the Qur'anic language on the basis of the
rules laid down by the grammarians of the Arabic language. Appraising or
criticizing the Qur'an or any other source material used by the linguists,
grammarians, lexicologists etc. is like refusing to accept Arabic, even as a
language... and this, obviously is absolutely absurd.

The Sayings Ascribed to Ayesha and Uthman

From the foregoing discussion, it should be quite clear that the Qur'an,
logically cannot be criticized on the basis of the work of the grammarians and
other linguists, because of the simple fact that the Qur'an was the very basis
(or one of the bases) of the works of these linguists and grammarians, and,
furthermore, the Qur'an been recognized and accepted by all the linguistic
authorities of the Arabic language as the most outstanding, in fact, miraculous
piece of their literature. How, then, can we appraise or critically evaluate the
reliability or otherwise of the language of the Qur'an.

Once it is known that the Qur'an was generally accepted and recognized by the
Classical, pre-Islamic Arabs, as a piece of unparalleled literature in its
purity, fluency and eloquence, then it has to be accepted as such by the later
people as well. As far as the primary evidence, in this regard is concerned, it
is overwhelmingly in favor of the general acceptance of the Qur'an. It was
obviously, primarily on the basis of this Qur'an that the Arabs - eloquent and
proud of their language as they were - started converting to Islam. The Prophet
during the first thirteen years of his prophethood had just the Qur'an to
present to the people. Surprisingly, no one objected to the language or style of
the Qur'an. On the contrary, even those Arabs who refused to accept Islam had
nothing to say regarding its language and style. They could obviously see that
it was effectively winning the hearts of more and more people each day. They
knew that it was not human literature... yet they were just not willing to
accept it to be Divine. Under these circumstances, they direly needed a good
excuse for their refusal to accept the Qur'an as a revealed word of God. Yet,
even under these circumstances, they - with all their eloquence and linguistic
pride - were unable to point-out even a single error in the Glorious Qur'an; all
that they could come up with was that "it is nothing but 'Magic' and
'Sorcery'."

Obviously, had the Qur'an - that claimed to be in "Arabiyun Mobin" (clearest
and purest Arabic dialect) - entailed any grammatical or other linguistic
'errors', it would then have been impossible for the Prophet to win even a
single Arab soul. However, we know that during the first thirteen years, it was
only the character of the Prophet and the content of Qur'an that had actually
won the hearts and minds of the God-fearing Arabs, through whom, later on an
Islamic State was setup first in Medina, and subsequently, in the whole of
Arabia.

This is an irrefutable historical fact.

Now, with this in mind, let us examine another aspect of the arguments
presented by the author of the referred article. He writes:

It is reported that Uthman, after viewing the first standard copy
of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read
it correctly with their tongues.'

Then, he further states:

The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib who quoted the above report in
his book al-Furqan, went on to mention another report on the authority of
'Aa'isha, one of Mohammad's wives, saying, 'There are three grammatical errors
in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe:

In 20:63
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..." And in 5:69
"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." And in
4:162
"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."

In the following paragraphs, we shall analyze the cited sayings of Ayesha
and Uthman.

The Saying Ascribed to Uthman

The first among these narratives is ascribed to Uthman (ra). According to
this narrative, Uthman is reported to have said that he could see (a few/many?)
mistakes in the official standardized copy of the Qur'an, but was of the opinion
that because the Arabs shall have no difficulty in finding these errors -
appreciating them as "errors" - and shall be in a position to correct them,
themselves, he, therefore, did not give such "errors" much importance.

Now, the first thing about this tradition is that even if we accept that the
later generations were not aware of these errors (because of any reason), still
it relates to a matter that concerns not a few but all the Muslims that were
present during Uthman's (ra) time. It thus relates to a matter, which, if it
had really happened, should have been reported, not by one, two or a few people,
but by hundreds and thousands of people. It should have become as well known a
fact as, for instance the existence of a person called Uthman is, but as we
see, that is not the case. According to one of the principles of some of the
Jurists, especially Abu Hanifah, if one, two, three or a few people report an
incident that should logically be reported by hundreds or thousands of people,
such traditions shall not be accepted. To understand this concept, let us
consider an example of our everyday life. If someone declares that an earthquake
in a neighboring country has killed thousands of people and that "someone" is
the only person giving such a news, none of the newspapers or any other of the
well known communication media is giving such a news, every reasonable person
shall reject such a news on the same principle. Obviously, something as big, as
significant and as well known cannot be accepted on the basis of a report of
one, two or just a few people.

Furthermore, looking at this narrative closely, we are faced with another
very serious question. If Uthman (ra) had really known that there were mistakes
in the text of the Qur'an, why did he not correct them immediately. It is
generally believed that in his effort to standardize the reading of the Qur'an
and to disseminate the official copy of the Qur'an, Uthman ordered the burning
of all the other copies of the Qur'an, which were in circulation at that time.
If Uthman could, as is generally believed, destroy all the copies of the Qur'an
once, for the purpose of standardization, then why could he not do it a second
time, for the purpose of correction? Obviously, the tradition does not answer
this question. This simple, unanswered question leaves the tradition
inconsistent with common sense. According to another one of the principles laid
down by the Muhaddithin (the scholars of the Prophet's traditions), if a
tradition is inconsistent with common sense, it shall not be accepted.

Then again, according to the cited narrative, Uthman ignored the so-called
'mistakes' and 'errors' because he thought that the Arabs would have no problems
in recognizing these 'errors' and, consequently, making emends in them. However,
this narrative completely ignores the point that the original idea of the
Uthmanic compilation of the Qur'an - if it ever actually took place - was to
standardize the style of writing and the recitation of the Qur'anic text, for
the very purpose of making it possible for the newly conquered non-Arab
territories (and peoples) to be able to read the Qur'anic text in a standardized
manner. It seems quite ridiculous that even though the whole exercise of
standardizing the Qur'an was undertaken for the purpose of making it easier for
the newly converted non-Arabs to read the Qur'anic text in a standardized
manner, yet the so-called 'errors' and 'mistakes' were so easily ignored on the
presumption that the 'Arabs would have no problems in recognizing these errors'.
The whole incident reported in the cited narrative is, obviously, an unfounded
concoction of someone, whose intention were only to create doubts about the
Qur'anic text in the minds of the subsequent generations.

Moreover, this tradition ascribed to Uthman very seriously questions the
correctness of the verbal tradition of the Qur'an. It, therefore, can be termed
as a tradition against the Qur'an. Thus, according to yet another one of the
principles laid down by the Muhaddithin any narrative, which is against the
Qur'an or the established unanimously held beliefs or unanimously followed
actions of the Muslims is not acceptable. The aforementioned principles of the
Muhaddithin have been combined in a single statement, in one of the most well
known and accepted books on the principles of the Muhaddithin relating to the
acceptance of narratives. Khatib Baghdadi in his book "Kitab ul-Kifayah fi ilm
al-riwayah" writes [8]

:

No such narative reported by a few people shall be accepted, which
is against common sense, or against an established ruling of the Qur'an or
against a known Sunnah of the Prophet or against any thing accepted and
followed by the Muslims as the Sunnah, or against logic.

Unless satisfactory answers are provided for these questions, this narrative
cannot be taken as correctly ascribed to Uthman (ra). The general acceptance of
the vast Arab population of the Qur'an as an infallible piece of Arabic
literature makes the content of such narratives highly questionable. If such was
really the opinion of Uthman, as is mentioned in this narrative, the Qur'an
would obviously not have received such tremendous acceptance from, at least the
Arabs. To the contrary, we see that it was none other than the Arabs themselves,
who not only accepted the Qur'an to be infallible in language, literary style,
grammar etc., but were also the primary source of propagation of this book in
the whole world.

The Saying Ascribed to Ayesha

Now let us turn to the narrative ascribed to Ayesha

Acceptance of this narrative again hangs on the answers to the following
questions:

Why were these so-called 'errors' not recognized and reported by a large
number of Arabs, rather than just one or two of them? It is even more
surprising that even after these 'errors' were pointed-out by two of the most
well known personalities of Islamic history, the common Arabs remained
oblivious of them. If such narratives had any truth in them, they would have
gained the status of generally accepted public narratives, which, even if they
were not reported in the various compilations of narratives, would most
certainly have become well known through simple public transmission.
Why did Ayesha (ra) not take any step to correct these 'errors'? It must
be kept in mind that Ayesha (ra) is the person, who is said to have made a
public appearance in a political matter after Uthman's murder. Why did she
not plan any action to correct the 'errors' that she knew were only a result
of scribal and human mistakes? Why did she let these mistakes become so
sacrosanct that even the possibility of retrieving the correct (original)
words, in future, was reduced to non-existent?
This narrative is against the Qur'an. Thus, according to the cited
principles of the Muhaddithin it cannot be accepted.

Besides these reservations, there are also some other problems in accepting
these narratives as correct. Some of these problems are given below:

This narrative is reported by Abu Muawiyah Mohammad ibn Khazim al-Tamimi
al-Dharir al-Kufi to Ibn Hamid or Ibn Humaid. According to Abdullah ibn Ahmad
ibn Hanbal, his father Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: Abu Muawiyah's narrations except
those reported by Al-Aamash, are not reliable. [9]

Likewise, Abu Dawood states: I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal: what do you think about
the narratives of Hisham ibn Urwah (another narrator in this narrative) that
are reported by Abu Muawiyah? He replied: These narratives include such
narratives that are not reliable. According to Ibn Kharrash, narratives
reported by Abu Muawiyah are dependable if they come through Al-Aamash. [10]

The
first verse stated in this narrative (20: 63) has been transliterated by the
author of the article thus:
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..." the
"error" in this verse, as is stated by the author is:
The word saahiraan should be saahirayn.

The
word saahiraan was declined incorrectly because the word inna 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".At close examination of the actual verse, as it
appears in the Qur'an, it, however, becomes obvious that the whole objection
is unfounded. The referred verse does not even read as the author has stated.
The reading as it appears in the Qur'an is:
"Qaalu in haazaani la-saahiraani ..." (Ta Ha 20:
63)'Unfortunately', in this verse, it is not the word
"inna" but "in". Because of this, the whole argument of the author is
completely unfounded. The word "in" as the learned author would
obviously be well aware of, does not "cause a form of declension called
'nasb' to the nominative".

Thus, the narrative cited by the
author does not even state the verse in its correct form. Now, how can such a
narrative be accepted to be correctly ascribed to Ayesha?
The second 'error', mentioned in Ayesha's narrative, lies in 5: 69. The
verse reads thus:
"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." The
author states:
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.As is
clear from the cited argument, the author has tried to establish that the two
verses of the Qur'an: 2: 62 and 22: 17, are themselves an evidence that the
word in the above verse should have been "Saabi'iina" rather than
"Saabi'uuna". The author, by quoting the two verses (2: 62 and 22: 17)
has, at least, recognized the fact that whoever authored the Qur'an was not
unaware of the "correct" declension of the word "saabi'uuna". However,
even after recognizing this fact, the author finds no option but to term such
a deviation, of even someone who is fully aware of the general rule as an
"Error".

The most well known and acknowledged grammarians of the Arabic
language were also faced with the same situation. However, they dealt with it
differently and thus, drew a different conclusion. After looking at the
Qur'an, they felt that there could be no doubting the fact that the author of
the Qur'an was fully aware of the general rules of the language (and most
certainly that of the declension of nouns after "inna"). Then they were also
faced with the verse 5: 69. Now, rather than finding the easier way out by
calling the deviation from the general rule an "error", the grammarians, on
the presumption that a "person" as knowledgeable as the author of the Qur'an,
could not commit such a trivial mistake in a book as important and as
significant as the Qur'an, started looking for such deviations in other
sources of the Arabic literature and grammar.... and found them. They
collected all such deviations and tried to analyze them. They drew their
conclusions and were, subsequently, in a position to safely say that such
deviations in the Qur'an were not "errors". Even though these, indeed, were
deviations from the normal usage, yet such deviations could not be called
"errors". Thus, al- Zamakhshuriy in his commentary on the Qur'an, under the
referred verse has alluded to a verse of one of the pre-Islamic poets. The
alluded verse reads as follows:
the part "anna wa antum" of this verse, as per the
argument presented by the author of the article, should have read "anna wa
iyya kum", but we can see that there is a deviation here from the
generally followed rule. This is adequate evidence that such deviations cannot
be termed as "Grammatical Errors". As far as the meaning added by such a
deviation is concerned, it is not directly related to "grammar" or to
"Grammatical Errors" and therefore, we leave it out of the folds of our
discussion here.

The argument presented above, substantiates the fact
that such deviations were and are known to be existent in the works of, at
least the poets of the pre-Islamic era, and therefore cannot and could not
have been termed as 'errors' by anyone, who was well versed with the language
and its literature. It is thus difficult to accept that Ayesha (ra) could
have missed the existence of such deviations in the Arabic literature.
Furthermore, even if someone as knowledgeable of the Arabic literature as
Ayesha, could have missed-out on such deviations, it is unlikely that even
all the Arabs who heard Ayesha's (ra) cited statements would be so ignorant
of their own language that they did not correct her.
The third 'error', mentioned in Ayesha's narrative, is in 4: 162. The
verse reads thus:
"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 author, explaining the mistake in this verse, states:
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.
It seems from the above statement that the author is in agreement
with Ibn al-Khatib in his refusal to accept the explanation given by various
grammarians. Even so, it must be clearly understood that this particular
deviation, whether the explanation (of distinction) is accepted or held to be
"sick", is an established deviation, and every person who has knowledge of
even only the basics of the Arabic language is well aware of it (I am sure the
author would not even question this point...). The only question that could be
asked or the only objection that could be levied on this verse is that the
meaning added by this deviation from the general rules is not clear or not
logical. Such an objection, as should be clear on the readers, cannot and
should not be termed as a "Grammatical Error".

Under these circumstances, it is obvious that ascribing the cited narrative
to Ayesha (ra), is highly questionable.

With the stated problems, it seems quite obvious that on the basis of a
narrative reported by a few people, which themselves do not stand upto the test
of acceptability, the infallibility of the Qur'an which has always been and
still is accepted by the vast Arab population as the epitome of the purest, the
most fluent and the most eloquent Arabic language cannot be challenged.

A Final Word

To summarize, the language and the style of the Qur'an, because of the
general acceptance it has received from the classical, as well as the modern,
Arabs is above all kinds of linguistic criticism. Any one who is seriously
interested in challenging this position of the Qur'an can do so, only after
establishing:

The Qur'an was not accepted by the classical Arabs to be a piece of
unmatched Arabic literature. Evidence of this point must also include an
acceptable answer to the question: With the existence of such grammatical and
other linguistic errors, why did the Arabs - classical as well as modern -
accept the Qur'an to be of a divine origin?
The linguists of the Arabic language did not hold the Qur'an to be a
source material for their work.
The most recognized and acknowledged grammarians of the Arabic language
have refused to substantiate their linguistic findings on the basis of any
verses of the Qur'an.

Only after these points are established, the grammatical objections levied by
the author of "Grammatical Errors in the Qur'an" need to be dealt with seriously
and answered. Till such time, these objections do not even come upto the
standard of being considerable.

[1]

The original article may be seen at the following internet
address: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4U/grammarl

[2]

Encyclopedia Britannica, Linguistics, Greek and Roman
antiquity

[3]

This, incidentally is also what the author of
the referred article stated, in response to one of my questions: "What were the
sources which were relied upon for the purpose of the development of Arabic
Grammar?" His answer was: "So the source of the Arabic grammar is the Arabic
language itself."

[4]

Encyclopedia Britannica, Linguistics,
The role of analogy

[5]

For details, see "Grammar", Ibn
Khuldoon's "Muqaddamah".

[6]

"Khazanatul-Adab" (Arabic), Abd
al-Qadir Ibn Omar al-Baghdadi, Volume I, Dar Sadir, Beirut, (First Edition)
Pgs. 3 - 5.

[7]

For details, see "A Grammar of the Classical
Arabic Language", Howell, Mortimer Sloper, Allahabad, 1883, pages xxxiv, xxxv -
xxxvi (Preface).

[8]

Page 432

[9]

"Tahzib
ul-Tahzib" (Arabic), Ibn Hajar, Dar Ihya al-Islami, First Edition, 1326 Hijrah,
Volume 9, page 138, 139

[10]

"Meezan ul aitidal", Muhammad
ibn Ahmad ibn Uthman al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatul-Athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan,
Volume 4, Page 575.