Grammatical Errors in the Qur’an

Moiz Amjad · December 31, 1997

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-Aa`raaf 7: 57
Al-Aa`raaf 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:

Image from original article (requires archive access)

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-Sho`ara

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 Kur`an,

passages from tradition, proverbs, phrases transmitted by the learned

from the Arabs of the desert, and verses from the poets…. A text from the Kur`an,

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

(ra)

Now let us turn to the narrative

ascribed to `Ayesha (ra).

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

Mu`awiyah 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-Aa`mash,

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-Aa`mash^[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 (ra) 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

(ra) 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.