Is Allah one a grammatically correct sentence

 

There are grammatical errors in the Koran!

That is actually a strange accusation!

The grammar of the Arabic language is mainly based on the Koran and was only established in writing more than a hundred years after the Koran was revealed. Classical Arabic is only regarded as a language that has a fixed system of grammar because of the Koran. Dictionaries and grammar books were written primarily to protect the language of the Qur'an and Hadith from the changes in the Arabic language that were the result of the sudden expansion of the Islamic caliphate into new populations that stretched from present-day Pakistan to Portugal. My grammar manual uses Koran quotations as evidence for most of the 500 grammar rules. I find it even stranger that this accusation comes from Christians when the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was a corrupted form of classical Greek and paid little attention to grammatical rules. A grammatical analysis of the Bible would hardly find a sentence in which the grammar does not deviate from the rules of classical Greek. However, these points can also be explained.


Muslims claim that the Koran is not just a human literary masterpiece, but a divine literary miracle. But this claim is inconsistent with the facts. Because the Koran that we hold in our hands contains obvious grammatical errors that can be clearly seen by anyone who speaks Arabic.

The first mistake in Sura 5,69:
Those who believe and those who are Jews and the Sabians and the Christians, all those who believe in God and in Judgment Day and do good, have nothing to fear and they will not be sad.

innal-layiina ‘aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Sabi’uuna wan-Nasaaraa man‘ aamana bilaahi wal-yawmil-’Aakhiri wa-’amila saalihan fa-laa khawfun ‘alayhim wa-la hum yahzanuun.

 

There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi’uuna has the wrong endings. In two other verses, the same word was given the correct endings in exactly the same grammatical usage:

Sura 2.62: innal-laziina ‘aamanu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi’iina...

Sura 22.15: innal-laziina ‘aamanu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi’iina wan-Nasaaraa ...

You see that the word in sura 5 Saabi’uuna was written and in the other two suras Saabi'iina. Saabi'iina is the correct form because ‘inna at the beginning of a sentence requires an accusative, nasb, and the ya ’(ii) is the accusative form, while Saabi’uuna in the nominative, raf ’, stands. So this is clearly a grammatical mistake.

 

But case changes are often used in the Quran for rhetorical purposes. This phenomenon is called iltifaat of which there are innumerable examples in Arabic. For more information on how these rhetorical measures are used in the Koran, see the most extensive work of the Koranic sciences, in Al-Burhan by Zarkashi.

 

The second mistake in Sura 4,162:

But those of them who are firmly established in knowledge, and the believers too, believe in what was revealed to you and what was revealed before you. And to those who keep up prayer and pay the levy and believe in God and the Last Day, He will give them a great reward.

laakinir-raasikhuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-mu'minuuna yu'minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila' ilayka wa-maaa 'unzila min qablika wal-muqiimiin as-salaata wal-mu'tuuna z-zakaata wa-l-mu' minuuna bi-llaahi wal-yawmi l-'aakhiri: 'ulaa'ika sa-nu'tiihim' ajran 'aziimaa.

 

The word muqiimiin is correct muqiimuun, it should have the nominative ending like the other words in the sentence. The two preceding words (raasikhuun and mu’minuun) and the following word must do have the correct case ending. Some scholars have argued that the word was wrongly declined to extol the act of prayer, but the scholar Ibn a-Khatib suggests that this is a sick logic (Al-Furqan, by Muhammad M. ‘Abd al-Latif Ibn Khatib, Dar al-Kutub al-’ilmiyah, Beirut, p. 43). Such reasoning is devoid of logic. Why should emphasis be placed on prayer, which is only a branch of religion, and not belief, which is the foundation of religion? Also, can this logic be applied to the case error of the earlier verses? Let us conclude from this that the Saabi’uun of higher rank than those who believe and the people of the book? And why are they ascribed higher rank in one verse and not in another, as we have seen? God is greater than all this sick logic.

Again, it is simply a grammatical error that can be justified as above.

The third mistake in Sura 20.63

They said: "These two are certainly wizards ...

qaaluu in haazaani la-saahiraani ...

The word saahiraan should saahirayn ring. The word shows the wrong case ending for the word in at the beginning of the sentence causes an accusative, while we find a nominative. Another clear mistake

but again a phenomenon that Arab linguists have dealt intensively with, such as B. T. Hasan in his book Al-lugha al-’Arabiyya.

 

The fourth mistake in sura 2,177

Piety does not consist in turning your face east or west. Piety consists in believing in God, the Last Day, ... giving money to the beggars and spending it on the ransom of slaves and prisoners, ... and praying and paying the tax . Those who live up to their commitments and are ... patient.

laysal-birra 'an tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal mashriqi whale-maghribi wa-laakinnal-birra man' aamana billaahi whale-yawmi l-'aakhiri whale-malaa'ikati whale-kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin, wa-'aatal-maawilala 'alahiia-hubbilala.' alahiia-hubbilala -qurbaa wl-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili was-saaa'iliina wa-fir-riqaab, wa'aqaamas-salaata wa-'aataz-zakaata, wal-muufuuna bi-'ahdihim 'iza' aahaduu was-saabiriina fil- ba'saaa'i waz-zarraaa'i ...

 

There are five grammatical errors in the verse above. Four of them are the use of the wrong tense, as the sentence starts with the verb tuwalluu in the present, but the other four verbs then follow in the past:

‘Aamana

should tu’minu be

‘Aata

should do’tuu be

‘Aqaama

should tuqiimuu be and

‘Aata

should do’tuu be.

 

In German the verse as it stands in Arabic would read as follows: “Piety does not consist in turning your face to the east or west. Piety consists in believing in God and the Last Day and the angels and the book and the prophets ... and giving money to the needy ”etc.

The fifth word that is incorrect is saabiriina, the same as the previous word muufuuna should be declined.

In Arabic, however, this is simply a possibility of grammar that the time is changed, as one says in German: "He forgot to pay" and not "He forgot to pay".

..and the fifth word ... the answer to that is explained above.

 

The fifth mistake in sura 3,59

Jesus is like Adam before God. He made him out of earth, then He said to him: BE !, and he was.

inna masala ‘iisaa‘ inda llaahi ka-masali ‘aadam. khalaqahuu min-turaabin summa qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun.

 

The verb yakuun literally means “is” and not “was” as it is correctly said above.

 

This concept is called in Arabic al-hikaaya, whereby a word block is taken as a whole and remains unchanged, just as one also leaves idioms unchanged and does not adapt to gender, number and time. For example: If someone achieves an achievement that he is actually not capable of, it is said that “even a blind chicken sometimes finds a grain”, although the person is neither a chicken nor blind. Is that why that's grammatically wrong?

 

The sixth mistake in Sura 21.3

And they secretly express in a confidential conversation - they who do wrong ...

wa-’asarrun-najwa llaziina zalamuu ...

 

The word ‘Asarru should ‘Asarra because the above sentence is a verbal sentence, and the rule is that the (masculine) verb of a verbal sentence is in the 3rd person singular (masculine) when the active subject of the verbal sentence is mentioned. The same applies if feminine is used instead of (masculine). But the verb in the above verse appears in the plural form. The above rule, however, was kept in the Quran in the following verses: Sura 3,52, Sura 10,2, Sura 16,27, Sura 3:42, Sura 49,14.

However, the above deviation is an accepted dialectal variant in Classical Arabic, in all grammar books as lughat akaluni al-baraghith denotes: a verb in the plural form introduces the verbal clause.

 

The seventh mistake in Sura 22:19

These are two parties to the dispute who argue about their master ...

haazaani khismaani ‘ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ...

 

In Arabic, as in German, words are declined according to their number. In German there is only singular and plural, so two parties to the dispute are plural in German. In Arabic, on the other hand, there are singular, dual and plural, i.e. This means that the nouns and verbs must correspond to the respective number. However, the verb in the above verse is in the plural form instead of the dual form, so it should ‘Ikhtasamaa called instead of ‘Ikhtasamuu. That is a definite mistake.

The dual refers to the two groups, the believers and the unbelievers, and the plural refers to the majority of the numerous individual individuals within each group.

The eighth mistake in Sura 49.9

And when two groups of believers fight each other, make peace between them ...

wa-’in taa’ifataani mina l-mu’miniina qtatalu fa-’aslihuu baynahumaa.

 

The mistake in this verb is the same as the one mentioned earlier. The subject is dual, but the verb has a plural ending. The verb ‘Iqtatalu should ‘Iqtatala ring.

The answer from before also applies here.

 

The ninth mistake in sura 63,10

...Sir, could you put me back for a short period of time! I would give alms and be one of the righteous.

rabbi law laaa ‘akhartaniii‘ ilaaa ‘ajalin qariibin fa’assaddaqa wa-akum mina s-saalihin.

 

The verb ‘Akun is incorrectly conjugated, it should ‘Akuuna hot, d. i.e., the last consonant must have an a-vowel instead of being vowelless, because the verb ‘akun is in the subjunctive. The preceding verb ‘Assaddaqa was conjugated correctly and is in the subjunctive. The reason for this is that in Arabic the present is in the subjunctive when it is preceded by certain words (huruuf naseba). One of these words is the causative one fa-.

First it should be said that there is a reading variant (one of the standardized seven readings) in which the word ‘Akuuna is read. The verb can also be in jussive, where it ends without a vowel. This is called in Arabic grammar ‘Atf ala l-mahall known.

 

The tenth mistake in sura 41:11

Then he straightened himself up to heaven, which was still made of smoke, and said to it and to the earth: "Come here, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We come willingly."

...fa-qaala lahaa wa-lil-’ardi ‘tiyaa taw’an‘ aw karhan qaalataa ‘’ atayna taa’i’iin.

 

Heaven and Earth are both feminine nouns in Arabic. The verb “they said” is therefore dual and feminine, but the adverb “voluntarily” at the end of the sentence is in the masculine plural, which contradicts the rule that adjectives must match the noun in terms of number and gender. Hence should taa’i’iin, that is used for the plural, through ta’i’atayn be replaced.

There are different heavens and earths. In classic Arabic, these can be both masculine and feminine. What you are criticizing here is a change that has only occurred in modern Arabic. You may be surprised when I tell you that the following sentences are correct in Classical Arabic: qaala n-nisa ' and qaalat ar-rijaal, both of which sound wrong in modern Arabic. Also compare the answer to the 7th alleged error.

 

The eleventh mistake in Sura 7.56

... The mercy of God is near to the righteous.

...inna rahmata llaahi qariibun min al-muhsiniin.

 

The above phrase is a nominal sentence. In such a sentence the subject (rahmata) match the predicate in gender. The word qaribun (near) is the predicate of rahmata llaahi (Mercy of God), so they should match in gender. But that is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and the word qariibunthat is masculine should qaribah ring.

This rule has been correctly observed in other verses of the Koran.

That may be true, but the structure above is just as well documented in Classical Arabic. It has only been simplified in modern Arabic, but can one criticize Goethe because his grammar does not match modern German grammar?

 

The twelfth mistake in sura 7,160

And We divided them into twelve tribes ...

wa-qata’nahum ‘ithnata‘ ashrata asbaatan.

 

In Arabic it literally means "twelve tribes". This is correct in German, but not in Arabic. In Arabic it should read "twelve tribe" because a numbered word after a numerical word that is greater than ten is in the singular. This rule was correctly applied in Sura 7.142, Sura 2.60, Sura 5.12, Surah 9.36 and Sura 12.4.

Had Allah said “twelve tribe” he would have kept the word in the singular, but He is talking about the numerous tribes within each tribe. asbaatan means grandchildren, not tribes, and these within each tribe. Further guidance can be found in Zamakhshari's tafsir. He mentions the above objection and provides the explanation for it.