Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

They claim the Quran has a grammatical errors

250 views

Skip to first unread message

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 16, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/16/97

Asalam Alaykum

I have followed this link in one of Jochen Katz messages it is a
homepage of Newton
<http://debate.domini.org/newton/home.htm>

and found this funny page of " grammatical errors in the Quran" .
written by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton , so ,I as an Arab decided
to reply to this garbage :

It is quit funny , how two non-arabs try to evaluate the Quran
structure this hard and only come up with 18 grammatical errors
to prove that Quran is not the word of Allah ,I am totally surprised ,
because the Arabic grammar is very complex subject of study , even the
ordinary Arab people themselves nowadays are not fully familiar to
the grammar of their own language .

but I believe that it is a positive sign for the Quran , and a thing
that should upset the enemies of this Holy book , why ?

because when two non-Arab people or even non knowledgeable Arabs try
find grammatical errors in the Quran which is considered that standard
of the Arabic grammar they should come up with much higher number of
errors than only 18 minor stuff , the number should be in hundreds ,
but I guess these guys have tried very hard , right ?and thats all
they can come up with .

But unfortunately and to the contrary these tiny 18 errors they
descovered a long with their dreams and efforts will vanish when they
will learn that there are no errors at all , and all that they have
done is to emphasize the importance of this Holy Book .

I have took a quick look at these errors and looked it up , and this
what I came out with ; these errors which was *descovered* now let say
1996-97 after more than hundreds of years by two amateur foreign
*researchers* , could not even be considered a work of science , it
is merely a work of speculation from an unprofound student of foreign
language

### so if you decided reading my reply to the end you should open this
page <http://debate.domini.org/newton/qm01.html> and compare my
replies to the so called errors mentioned in it .

error #1
The word Saabi'uuna has been declined correctly
after the use of too many of letter "wa" or (and) ,in the
English language, it is quit acceptable and considered to be a nice
change to use it in that form .

error #2 The word muqiimiin is declined with "fath"for the use of
"madh" which means the praise for them , do you know how the praise
works in the arabic grammar , will look it up , and learn !!
here is another example from the arabic poetry from those days
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" la yubidun qawmi alazeen homo usd ul udati wa afat al juzuri
alnazeeleen bekul muaatarakin wa altaiboon maaqeda aluzuri
>~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most important thing to us of the above poetry is the underlined
words; the poet chose to decline with "fath" when he praised his
people as great fighters "alnazeeleena" and declined what came after
the "wa" or (and) with "rafaa" , where Newton and his friend says it
should be declined the in the same manner . will it is quite
acceptable and a known issue for the Arabic language usage .

error#3
>The word saahiraan should be saahirayn
will perhaps in your language it should , the usage here for the word
saahiraan which means the two magicians was based upon a known Arabic
dialect of that time and have been declined based on it , for a
purpose only Allah almighty knows . perhaps an indication for the
place !!! , and again it is grammatically correct .

error #4
No error at all , it is only the misunderstanding of these tow people
who might have tried to deal with Arabic language in similar way to
they deal with the English language , which clearly show , that they
are not will informed of the Arabic language and that was obvious when
they tried to ignore the deferences in the use of the time forms ,
look the next error for more info

error#5
surprisingly they have admit it themselves , it is a mistake in
translation to english ,but it should be translated this way Again due
the deference between the usage of time forms in the two languages you
are dealing with two languages professors !!
and you can't apply the English grammar to Arabic text ,again I
repeat there are a lot of deferences in the use of time forms in the
two languages . got it ?

erro#6
you say the word 'asarru should be 'asarra because he verb comes
before the subject , will that is not correct , the subject was
mentioned in the previous two Ayahs ,smart guys, and it is "alnas"
which means the people ,check it back and you will be relieved .

...........

and the errors go on like that ,with more emphasis on what we call in
the Arabic Grammar " alaatf wa almaatoof " which means the use of the
letter "Wa" (and) , repeating the same mistakes used in the
inaccurate approach of the two men !!!!

this was a quick look from an Arabic speaking net surfer , so be
warned , these two people dont really know how the Arabic grammar
works .

I couldn't complete the list of the so called errors because of the
lack of time and the repetition of the alleged errors but it can be
done even in more details upon request .

This message have been sent to the authors and the Islamic related
Newsgroups.

--------------
Khalid......
--------------

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 18, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/18/97

kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

>but I believe that it is a positive sign for the Quran , and a thing
>that should upset the enemies of this Holy book , why ?

It is not only the "enemies" and "unbelievers" who have been "upset"
but some Muslim scholars have spent considerable time in explaining
the errors.

Dashti writes (page 48, **) "The Qoran contains sentences which are
incomplete and not fully intelligible without aid of the commentaries;
foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than
the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance
of the concords of gender or number; illogically and ungrammatically
applied pronouns which sometimes have no referrant; and predicates
which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. ... The
problem has occupied the minds of devout Moslems."

He further provides specific examples (page 58).

Al-Zamakhshari (538/1144), a Mutazili thelogian in his al-Kashshaf
tries to explain and justify some irregularities in the Quran. A moorish
author criticized Al-Zamakhshari for committing this shocking error.
According to him it is not for humans to make the Quran conform to Arabic
grammar but to to make Arabic grammar conform to the Quran.

** Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed,
Ali Dashti, (Translated from Persian by F.R.C. Bagley), George Allen
and Unwin, 1985, ISBN 0 04 297048 2.

-- Milind Saraph

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 19, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/19/97

Mr Milind, I am not ready to discuss general information !!, if you
want to discuss the Arabic Grammar in the Quran you should provide
examples for you claims so that we can discuss it in more
professional way , anyway I'll reply to the message you have sent
hoping that you will give more grammatical details for the points you
have raised next time !!

Actually Milind there have been a lot of discussions and debates among
Moslem scholars , enough to make libraries ,on the topic we are
talking a bout here , but these discussions and debates were not
provoked by being **upset** with what you wish to call "errors" . It
is because they have been ordered to do so , by the Quran itself !!

Let me give you a couple of examples from the Quran ;
(4:82) " Do they not consider the Qura'n (with care)? had it been from
other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much
discrepancy " .
(2:23) " And if you are in doubt as to what we have revealed from time
to time to our servant , then produce a Surah like thereunto "

Note: the above challenge was given to The people whom the pure
**ORIGINAL*** Arabic language was their basic everyday communication
tool !!!!

So Moslems have been encouraged to do so and not because of being
"upset"

>Dashti writes (page 48, **) "The Qoran contains sentences which are
>incomplete and not fully intelligible without aid of the commentaries;
>foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than
>the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance
>of the concords of gender or number; illogically and ungrammatically
>applied pronouns which sometimes have no referrant; and predicates
>which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects. ... The
>problem has occupied the minds of devout Moslems."

It have been said and repeated again and again , it is easy to produce
complete sentences that appears as true in its content specially if it
pleased or meet it's reader objectives .

But when you put such a topic on the discussion table , you should at
least provided us with the following :
1- an example(s) of sentences which are incomplete and not fully
intelligible without aid of the commentaries in the Quran.

2- an example(s) for "words used with other than the normal meaning;
adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of
gender or number "

3- an example(s) for "illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns

which sometimes have no referrant; and predicates which in rhymed
passages are often remote from the subjects "

I know ,for sure, you would say that you don't have theses examples
!!, and you are only quoting from a reference book , any way you can
also quote these examples from the Dashti's book , whoever he is,
and if you have a background in Arabic grammar , we will discuss it
item by item .

You see thats why I don't want to ramble on general information topics
it is only a waste of time ,if you have a proof so produce it , fair
enough ?

>He further provides specific examples (page 58).
>
>Al-Zamakhshari (538/1144), a Mutazili thelogian in his al-Kashshaf
>tries to explain and justify some irregularities in the Quran. A moorish
>author criticized Al-Zamakhshari for committing this shocking error.
>According to him it is not for humans to make the Quran conform to Arabic
>grammar but to to make Arabic grammar conform to the Quran.
>
> ** Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammed,
> Ali Dashti, (Translated from Persian by F.R.C. Bagley), George Allen
> and Unwin, 1985, ISBN 0 04 297048 2.
>

My friend you are quoting from a book which seems have been translated
by westerns and written by a unknown author ,Persian, who is in his
turn quoting from deferent books and sources ,and you are picking up
some partial information and lines , so where dose this discussion
will take us ? no where !!!

Again I will no longer respond to similar messages in the future ,I
hope you can be more precise next time

-----------------
Khalid....
---------------------

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97

kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid) writes:

>Mr Milind, I am not ready to discuss general information !!, if you
>want to discuss the Arabic Grammar in the Quran you should provide
>examples for you claims so that we can discuss it in more
>professional way ,

I do appreciate your offer, however I dont know Arabic and I dont think
I can contribute anything.

>Note: the above challenge was given to The people whom the pure
>**ORIGINAL*** Arabic language was their basic everyday communication
>tool !!!!

Yes, I have heard this many times. I spent some time in library and
wrote a short article "Tahaddi and Ijaz." I am sending this to you
by email. I have posted this article on SRI twice.

[ My excerpt from Dashti's book deleted]

>It have been said and repeated again and again , it is easy to produce
>complete sentences that appears as true in its content specially if it
>pleased or meet it's reader objectives .

Looks like I am being accused of quoting out of context. You or anyone
else is welcome to read the book and show that I have done that.

>I know ,for sure, you would say that you don't have theses examples
>!!, and you are only quoting from a reference book , any way you can

>also quote these examples from the Dashti's book ...

It will be few days before I can find the book and type some examples in.
Dashti did not "invent" these examples, it is the early Muslim scholars who
brought these up.

>My friend you are quoting from a book which seems have been translated
>by westerns and written by a unknown author ,Persian, who is in his
>turn quoting from deferent books and sources ,and you are picking up
>some partial information and lines

Ali Dashti was trained in Islamic theology, history, Arabic and Persian
grammar, and classical literature in madrasas in Karbala and Najaf. He
was a journalist, member of Iranian Majlis and also appointed a senator.

You are welcome to show where the information I provided was incomplete
or partial or out of context.

-- Milind Saraph

D A Rice

unread,

Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97

Assalamu alaikum,

This whole issue (of "grammatical errors" in the Qur'an) looks to me
(as a non-Arabic speaker) to not really be relevent. The rules of
grammar change over time. Grammar is not an absolute -- it is
something invented by we humans. Just as humans have invented certain
rules of grammar, we can change those rules if we wish to as well.

The whole mistake appears to be to take grammar as an absolute thing
-- a big mistake, I think, committed by those who would try to use
this as a basis to attack the Qur'an. It shows how far they are
trying to grasp at straws in order to attack the Qur'an. Saying the
Qur'an has grammatical errors seems to me to be like saying that
Princess Diana is wearing an unfashionable garment -- neither grammer
nor what is fashionable are absolute things, but both change with
time, and not everyone would agree on what is grammatical, nor what is
fashionable. I would be embarassed to have written their web page,
because of this simple observation.

When I read Shakespeare's English with my 20th Century eyes, his
English looks atrocious! However, in his day, many would probably
have considered much of Shakespeare's English to be absolutely
perfect. It would be totally inappropriate to apply the standards and
rules of 20th Century English to Shakespeare. Also, languages are not
standard over different geographical regions -- we can recognize
differences in English between different English speaking countries.
These things are not absolutes, as these criticizers of the Qur'an
wrongly seem to think.

Grammar is a human invention, and humans can change the rules over
time or in different places if they desire, such as the changes which
have occurred in English between the 16th Century and the 20th, or
differences between English in different regions. Undoubtedly,
changes have also occurred in Arabic between the 7th Century and the
20th.

Thus spake Fariduddien Rice

(Is using "spake" good English, or did I make a grammatical error?
My oh my. Perhaps one of these criticizers of the Qur'an can tell
me.)

Alaadami

unread,

Jan 20, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/20/97

What was that again, he was a senator, part of the Majlis? Under the
shah?

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

Alsslam alaikum

The reason why I have posted my message in the first place is to prove
that the people behind the page of the so called grammatical errors in
the Quran at < http://debate.domini.org/newton/qm01.html > do not
have the simplest idea of what is on their page , I have been told
that these people are willing to discuss it in the public , but they
have failed to do so until now , and I guess that proves my point .

-----------------
Khalid?..
-----------------

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

alaa...@aol.com (Alaadami) writes:

>What was that again, he was a senator, part of the Majlis? Under the
>shah?

Yes, and here is a summary.

Ali Dashti was born in 1896 in Dashtestan in Iran. At a young age, he was

trained in Islamic theology, history, Arabic and Persian grammar, and

classical literature in madrasas in Karbala and Najaf (both in Iraq).
Instead of becoming a cleric, he chose a career in journalism and
published a newspaper (Shafaq-e Sorkh) in Tehran from 1922 to 1935.
He was a member of Majlis at various times between 1928 and 1946. His
criticism of allowing Tuda party into the cabinet and concessions to
the Soviets landed him in prison in 1946. He was appointed a Senator in
1954. He occupied this position until the Islamic revolution. Apparantly
he was arrested after the revolution and during one of the interrogations,
he was beaten and broke his thigh. He was released but not allowed to
return to his home. An Iranian newspaper reported his death in 1981(2).

Dashti wrote Bist o Seh Sal and because of censorship in Iran had it
published anonymously in Lebanon. Ali Dashti gave a copy of Bist o Seh
Sal to F.R.C. Bagley in 1975 and requested him to translate and publish
it only after Dashti's death. Bagley believes this book is valuable
because it discusses both values and problems Islam presents to modern
Muslims. Bagley says that modern Muslim scholars have not paid much
attention to difficulties and for the most part focussed on exposition
and apologia.

-- Milind Saraph

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

In article <5c2ujs$e...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

| The reason why I have posted my message in the first place is to prove
| that the people behind the page of the so called grammatical errors in
| the Quran at < http://debate.domini.org/newton/qm01.html > do not
| have the simplest idea of what is on their page , I have been told
| that these people are willing to discuss it in the public , but they
| have failed to do so until now , and I guess that proves my point .

The reason I am responding to this message in the second place is
because it is "not according to truthfulness" [longwinded expression
for a word that is very short in everyday language but poses problems
in the moderating process of this honorable discussion board instituted
for interaction on a high academic level and free from abusive language].

You certainly have a strange way of looking at things. At the same time
when you are heavily engaged on the very same topic in alt.religion.islam
and are debating over there with Mr. Newton and myself, you accuse him
that he has failed to respond to you?

The reason that my response posting didn't get through as fast here
as in the other newsgroups is that the first attempt got lost while
the second one got stuck in a long queue of postings to be approved.

Well, it is on the newsgroup soc.religion.islam now. And it is an
updated version from the one you have seen on the other groups.

The only point you have proven again with this posting is that
you rather run ad hominem attacks than civilized discussions.

If you are able to bring up a substantial argument on this issue
you will get an answer. And you HAVE GOT the answer for the only
point of substance in your original article.

All the other points you made were simple "not true" statements,
which hardly constitute a rebuttal of the chapter by Mr. Haqq
and Mr. Newton.

Looking forward to an honest and civilized interaction....
[one should never give up hope, that would be disbelief]

Jochen Katz Web Site "Christian Answers to Islam":
jk...@math.gatech.edu http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Islam/

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

Peace to you, Khalid, and all readers,

In article <arielE4...@netcom.com>,
kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

| I have followed this link in one of Jochen Katz messages

You seem to read old archives, that is a rather old message.
But it is still relevant, I agree. So let's see ...

| it is a
| homepage of Newton http://debate.domini.org/newton/home.htm
|
| and found this funny page of " grammatical errors in the Quran" .
| written by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton , so ,I as an Arab decided
| to reply to this garbage :
|

| It is quit funny , how two non-arabs try to evaluate the Quran ...

[wondering how "garbage" got through the moderation process...]

Good that you have had so much fun. I am sure Mr. Newton is as delighted
as I am when people have some humor, are able to enjoy themselves, and
when we could contribute in one small way to your delight as well.

But let me make one more comment on your display of Arab arrogance
["so, I as an Arab ..."]. Just as there are many people with Arab
names who have grown up in the USA and don't know much Arabic at
all, so there are people with non-Arabic names, who have grown up
in Arabic countries and are just as much "native speakers" as you
are. But then, being a native speaker is absolutely irrelevant
since one can aquire a good Arabic knowledge and even become a
scholar later in life. Case in point, the best Arabic-English
dictionary is the "Arabic-English Lexicon", by E. W. Lane, called
L.L. or Lane's Lexicon, and published by The Islamic Text Society.
Now "Lane" is obviously not an Arabic name, but does that mean
that this man has no clue about the language?

Maybe it will be more becoming to you to discuss the issues
instead of amusing yourself about the names of the authors.

Anyway, I am not an expert on Arabic myself, so I forwarded your posting
to Mr. Newton. Below you will find his reply to the only real argument
presented in your posting.

Khalid wrote:

>error #2 The word muqiimiin is declined with "fath"for the use of
>"madh" which means the praise for them , do you know how the praise
>works in the arabic grammar , will look it up , and learn !!
>here is another example from the arabic poetry from those days
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>" la yubidun qawmi alazeen homo usd ul udati wa afat al juzuri
>alnazeeleen bekul muaatarakin wa altaiboon maaqeda aluzuri
>>~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

>The most important thing to us of the above poetry is the underlined
>words; the poet chose to decline with "fath" when he praised his
>people as great fighters "alnazeeleena" and declined what came after
>the "wa" or (and) with "rafaa" , where Newton and his friend says it
>should be declined the in the same manner . will it is quite
>acceptable and a known issue for the Arabic language usage .

P. Newton responds:

The appeal of Muslims to poetry of the pre-Islamic period (al-Jaheliyah)
to explain away the gramatical errors in the Qur'an proves OUR point.
It proves that the Qur'an is EXACTLY of the SAME quality, instead of
being superior. The work of human beings will always contain some
errors. But we would expect the Qur'an to be free from any such
errors if indeed it is letter by letter from God.

An error in poetry does not justify another error in the Qur'an.
Let any Muslim try this trick of praise in his Arabic examination
and see how many marks he will get for it. If we start appealing
to what the poets of that period have done we will allow anything.
But if you want to give the Qur'an some poetic licence that is OK.
But then we need to ask: Where is the poetry?

In Q. 4:162 The Qur'an speaks of people who are 1. firmly rooted in
knowledge, 2. and they that believe, 3. those who perform prayer.
The gramateical error involves those who perform prayer. But why
praise those who perform prayer and not those who believe, for
belief is a foundation ('Asl) of religion but prayer is only a branch
(far') of religion. Does it mean that those who pray are better than
those who are rooted in the knowledge of God? Or better than those
who believe? In other words the verb used for the act of believing is
the one that should have been declined by fath. And why is this same
act not praised in the other six verses where the act of prayer was
mentioned? The verses are 2:3, 5:55, 8:3, 9:71, 27:3, 31:4. In all of
these the word describing the act of prayer was declined correctly.
And this is the opinion of the Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his work
al-Furqan, page 43.

To elevate a branch over the foundation of religion is another error.
It is an error of logic making the attempt to explain away an error
of grammar.

This particular word has been rightly declined according to Mushaf
'Abd-Allah as _Moqimoun_. Also it is declined correctly according
to the reading of Malik Ibn Dinar and Gahdary and 'Isa al-Thaqafy.
When "Aban Ibn 'Uthman was asked about the word Moqimeen(1) and
that what is before it and after it(2) was declined by raf', he said
it is a scribal error. And Sa'eed Ibn Gabir also said that there are
four errors in the Qur'an and he mentioned the one in 4:162.

(1) = (i.e. how come it was declined wrongly)
(2) = (i.e. the word before it and the word after it
were declined correctly)
[I requested this clarification since at first I didn't understand
that quote. J.K.]

For any "primitive" or advanced culture the situation is the same.
The grammatical rules are there all the time. When Bible translators
or other linguists who first research a language in order to be able
to reduce it to writing, they DO NOT MAKE THE RULES. They only discover
them. These same rules are then applied to the translation work. The
Arabic grammar has been there before the Qur'an. The rules of what is
correct and what is wrong were the same all along. Only the DESCRIPTION
of the rules in a systematic form for textbooks of grammar came later.

It is similar to the human body. Everything is there from the beginning.
And it is clear how a healthy human body is supposed to look. If a
deformed person discovers the rules of the science of anatomy after the
deformity occured (through accident for example, or even since birth)
he will not therefore be considerd perfect just because his deformity
was already present before scientifically defining the rules of anatomy
for a healthy body.

In summary the rules of Arabic grammar were not invented (whether by a
human organization nor by a book like the Qur'an), they were discovered.
And when looking at them with a sound mind, the rules are absolutely
clear.

Sincerely,

P. Newton

Khalid decided to conclude his article in the following manner:

| and the nonsense go on like that , with repetition of the same
| mistakes used in the inaccurate approach of the two Nobel prize
| winners !!!!

|
| this was a quick look from an Arabic speaking net surfer , so be

| warned , these two people are fools .

|
| I couldn't complete the list of the so called errors because of the

| lack of time and the absurdity of claims but it can be done even in

| more details upon request .

Mr. Newton will be most willing to respond to your further details if
you chose to carry on this discussion in this forum. As you see from
the above quotes, Muslim scholars have already admitted that those
are errors in the text of the Qur'an. This was not Mr. Newton's
personal idea.

It would be most appreciated also, if you would refrain from ad hominem
attacks and stick to discussing the issue. Calling others names is not
going to strengthen your argument in any way. You are only undermining
your own credibility.

Two comments from me: Since a number of years it has come into fashion in
the USA to be politically correct and things are no longer deficient or
wrong, they are just "different." Even if a man loses both legs, he is
not a disabled person anymore but is now called differently abled instead
in order to not offend, but even though it sounds nicer it doesn't change
the rules of anatomy for a healthy and complete body. I can't judge the
grammar, but looking at the above discussion, it seems that such a
"political correctness" is really much older and has been used by Muslims
when looking at the Qur'an. But the rules of grammar are not influenced
by "political (or religious) correctness."
I can very much agree to show kindness and respect to people who have the
burden of being disabled. God has created us both and dispising somebody
else for any reason is to despise the one who created him. Respect to
those who are less fortunate is not only my religious duty but it should
be natural to anybody who truly knows God. But just as much as it is my
duty before God to be respectful and kind to those who have certain
deficiencies [and we all have our deficiencies, some more blatant some
better hidden], as much it is my duty to not cover up the truth in any
way and at times it is called for to explicitly uncover what others want
to hide. Especially in matters of searching out what the truth of God
is, we cannot submit to political correctness just to not offend when
it means that the truth about important deficiencies is hidden and this
very act of cover up [isn't that what kufr means?] might lead people
astray because they believe it is perfect and true.

Khalid quoted a POEM to support his argument. But the very point of
"poetic license" is that you can use structures in poetry which are
strictly speaking NOT correct but they are forgiven for the sake of
poetic power [to make it rhyme, ...). Arguing therefore from poetry
(which in its poetic license might have broken this very rule under
consideration) FOR the admissability/correctness of a grammatical
feature is fallacious reasoning.

It is similar to the following. Many American movies are dealing with
court cases. In murder cases for example the defense often tries to
plead for insanity of the offender [and hence not responsible and
punishable for the crime]. This is legitimate. But if would clearly
be fallacious to then say that this man was allowed to kill somebody
and didn't get punished _therefore_ it is no longer wrong for anybody
to kill other people and nobody should be punished . Extraordinary
circumstances did give him freedom from punishment DESPITE the laws
not because of the laws and certainly he is no precedent for others
to not have any punishment for murder either. In the same way, having
the license for poets to violate the proper rules of grammar cannot
be turned around and be used to define proper grammar on the basis
of poetry.

Interesting tidbit: In Arabia in Muhammad's time many seem to have
thought that poets (like soothsayers) are possessed by demons which
ties back in with the above "insanity" example.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz

P.S. The title of this thread has a grammatical error... ;->

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 21, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/21/97

Jkatz

Repeating the message you have sent a week ago wont change the fact
that your friends have failed to showup to backup their claims .
Therefore admitting what previously have been said ; they don't have
any idea of what's on their page .

Also ,don't try to change the subject here, I am not displaying any
arrogance and I don't claim that my English is perfect , we are
discussing a certain subject that requires a background in the field
of Arabic grammar , and if you considered being knowledgable in Arabic
grammar ,while your friends are not ,is a kind of arrogance it is
totally up to you .

Here is my respond again ;

>Mr. Newton will be most willing to respond to your further details if

>you chose to carry on this discussion in public. As you see from the

>above quotes, Muslim scholars have already admitted that those are
>errors in the text of the Qur'an. This was not Mr. Newton's personal
>idea.

I would be very happy to carry on the discussion in the public , but
let me begin replying to the comments you have sent .

First of all I have overstated the number of error I 'v found on that
page that we are referring to , it is only 13 , sorry typing mestake ,
any way Newton have picked only one error to reply to , maybe he don't
yet has the answerers to the other points , but who cares he can soon
come up with an irrelevant answers similar to th one you have
posted for him .

Your friend had refused the example of poetry simply because and I
quote;

>The appeal of Muslims to poetry of the pre-Islamic period (al-Jaheliyah)
>to explain away the gramatical errors in the Qur'an proves OUR point.

>It proves that the Qur'an is EXACTLY of the SAME quality, including
>errors as the works of human beings.

I believe mr Newton here is rejecting something that his whole page of
errors are based on ,**** the use of references****, because he might
have guessed already that I will be willing to offer dozens of these
examples which shows the use of praise in statements that uses what we
call in Arabic grammar "alaatf wa maatoof " or the use of the letter
"wa" (and ) , which Newton has extensively used in his page , as if it
was the single thing he knew of the Arabic grammar .that if he knew
any thing in the Arabic grammar !!!

Secondly , if mr Newton will consider every body is wrong :

>An error in poetry does not justify another error in the Qur'an.

then what makes him feel that he is right ? I am sure , he don't even
know what is the meaning of that poem ,he didn't even ask, he has
rejected it without looking into it , what dose this means ? I'll tell
you what it means , he don't have any Idea about the so called errors
he has posted on his page , he is just copying it from unreliable
sources that might have some prejudice and hate toward the Quran .
and that is quite understandable , because a book as important as the
Quran always has enemies from the pagans and *others* whose shameful
deeds have been exposed by it .

Also the Quran is Arabic , and the Arabic is a language spoken by
millions , so it is not something from outer space , and there is
nothing wrong to take an example from poetry in a time where arabs was
using their language at it best , to compare it with Quran . I am sure
the book your copying from have a lot of such examples

Finally take this cold water shower from me and read the following
staments , and compare it to the 13 errors that you claim have found
on the Holy book of the Quran ;

>The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September
> 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible"
>wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors
>which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After
>all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."

50,000 errors , and who saying that , it is you own people
, so Jkatz how do you view the 13 tinny errors descoverd by Newton now
compared to this extraterrestrial number of errors found in the Bible?

isn't that funny ? don't that make everybody laugh !!
but thats not just all of what I have !! read on ...

from Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633 ;
>"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially
>transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted
>in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when
>the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be
> the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the
>hands of scribes and editors"

from Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643 ;
>Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament
>with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at
>present more or less the subject of controversy, and
>interpolations are asserted even in these."

from Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117;
>Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one
>of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders
>of the Trinity was himself driven to admit that:
>"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such
>serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful
>uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

from Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre
and Spottiswoode, p. 3 ;
>After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the
>Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:
>"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely
>a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some
>copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has
>been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions
>or alterations are matters of mere indifference"

The previous statements was quoted from a book called "what did Jesus
really say ?" by Misha'al ibn Abdullah , a 600 page book on the Bible.
written by this Moslem Scholar quoting mostly from the Bible, the
Church, and Christian scholars .

a preview of the book can be found on
<http://web.syr.edu/~msa/docs/jesussay.html>

--------------
Khalid.....
-------------

Alaadami

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

As salaamu Alaykum limuslimeen,

Jazzak Allah Khayr. And to the evango Christians out there I want you to
explain all "50,000 errors" in the Bible and how they aren't really
errors, inshaa Allah after sheep fly (this is a no swine zone) then I can
feel morally obliged to be a Christian. :-) Thank Allah that Muslims
have the Qur'an, however. And I wish to graciously thank all the certain
Christians who posted "contradictions" in the Qur'an. It reaffirmed in me
the Qur'anic belief that Christians want to turn Muslims back into
disbelief, and furthermore their absolute failure to find any
contradictions have further strengthened my iman. See even with the
little knowledge of Arabic Allah has given me, the little logical thinking
skills I have been given, knowledge of the Bible, I found out the only
contradictions are in the minds of a certain people who claim to follow
the Gospel, i.e. the truth will inshaa Allah set you free. Reality, of
course, is much different.

Little hints to the Christians:

1) the Qur'an is in Arabic
2)therefore the contradiction must be in Arabic- maybe you ought to learn
arabic perhaps?
3) Muslims don't consider the bible infallible
4) therefore just because the Bible states something it might have no
bearing upon the Qur'anic view, therefore no internal contradiction, get
rid of Fundamentalist tendencies first
5) translation games are a no no, the real ones being fooled are the
kadhabeen.
6)cast out the plank in your own eye and prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the bible has no internal contradictions, no grammatical errors, and
no interpolations (why does my Catholic bible talk about their being
interpolations Evangelicals- is that some popish invention involving the
horns of the beast coming night to Armageddon as the EU gets into a
coalition with the demonic child of the women sent into the wilderness
whose child is the Antichrist sent to terrorize all peope left except the
evangelicals who are sucked up before the great tribulations as a fourth
of the earth is charred nigh to the End Times before the reign of a
thousand years from the four courners near Meggiddo as the four horseman
charge onward from the "four corners" of " the circle" of the earth
right?- sorry I want to practice making rambling quasi-sentences so
eventually I will inshaa Allah be able to be in the Guiness book of World
records for it).

Abdul-Kareem

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

Dear Fred, it seems that you haven't read the article on which
you busy yourself to comment.

In article <arielE4...@netcom.com>,

phs...@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (D A Rice) writes:

| This whole issue (of "grammatical errors" in the Qur'an) looks to me
| (as a non-Arabic speaker) to not really be relevent. The rules of
| grammar change over time. Grammar is not an absolute -- it is
| something invented by we humans. Just as humans have invented certain
| rules of grammar, we can change those rules if we wish to as well.

And he brings as an example:

| (Is using "spake" good English, or did I make a grammatical error?
| My oh my. Perhaps one of these criticizers of the Qur'an can tell
| me.)

There are certain changes over time. The example above is a morphological
change. But there are other things that never change. I would be very
surprised if the placing of adverbs [before or after the verb] or the
sequence of noun/subject and verb would be "suddenly" reversed ...

And there are things that have changed, I agree [in the English at least]
yet again, it is dangerous to conclude from the English to the Arabic.

But, the fact that some things have changed doesn't mean that everything
was therefore correct one time or the other. And if something is wrong
now, it doesn't become right if it was right 500 years ago will be right
500 years in the future. It is still a mistake at the time it is uttered.

And that is where your whole response falls flat. And Khalid also insists
on overlooking the same thing.

The mistakes listed in the chapter by Mr. Newton are NOT things he has
cooked up himself, but were mistakes recognized by the companions or
early scholars of the Qur'an. They were mistakes at the time the
Qur'an was revealed. That is the whole point.

Let me quote just two of these statements again.

***********

i.e. Aban Ibn 'Uthman and Ibn al-Khatib say it is an error,
but Khalid certainly is able to explain it away and attack
Mr. Newton as an ignorant.

Next example
(the end of the article, that Khalid didn't bother reading it seems):

***********
Some of the above errors are not a new discovery by modern critics.
They were known from the first century of Islam by the closest
followers of Mohammad. It is reported that 'Uthman, after viewing
the first standared copy of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical
errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their
tongues.'[4] 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:

<DL><DT>
In 20:63
<DD>
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."

<DT>
And in 5:69
<DD>
"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."

<DT>
And in 4:162
<DD>
"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."'[5]
</DL>

Two comments need to be made.

First:
Muslims claim that the Qur'an we have in our hands today is what was
originally revealed to Mohammed, with no change to even one letter.
However, there are grammatical errors in today's Qur'an. In facing
these errors, we must decide between one of two choices. Either, the
original Qur'an was revealed containing these errors, or the errors
resulted from mistakes by human scribes as they were copying the
Qur'an. There exist no other possibilities. As the first choice is
unthinkable, the second is the only logical explanation. But that
also means that it is not true that the Qur'an we have in our hands
is the "only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as
revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text and
the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."

Second:
If the above errors were found in an article to be published, these
errors would be corrected. The article, with these errors remaining
in it, could not be hailed as a masterpiece.

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?

****************

Was it recognized wrong at the time of the Qur'an and by the Muslim
authorities or not? But certainly, Khalid is a much higher authority
than the people quoted.

I am not an authority myself. I never claimed it. But I can read and
I can see that this argument has not been answered. Until then, your
claim of Mr. Newton's ignorance will fall on deaf ears on my side.
Show me why you know better than him. So far his arguments have given
me more reason to believe him.

Regards,

Jochen Katz

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

salaamun a'laykum,

I feel called upon to reply to what mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu
(Milind Saraph) wrote:

I have this book (courtesy of a recommendation by
a non-Muslim contributor who frequents these hallowed
pages), and even the brief parts about Dashti which Milind
quotes here should be enough of a warning bell for
observant folks.

He willed that he be "published after his death"...
He was a government official for the Shah...
He gave concessions to the Soviets...
The revolution was unkind to him, and resulted
in injuries which proved fatal...

I know, I know, tis ad hominem (sp?), but I merely
highlight the points of interest about this "defender"
of the faith.

To top it off, the book vaccillates between honoring
the Prophet (PBUH & hf), calling him a prophet, and at
others, Dashti says Muhammad (P) was a canny
strategist, who lived by his own wits and resources.

On the Qur'an, Dashti hops around as well, first
saying it is a unique book and at other places saying
otherwise, as the examples Milind picks up on.

I believe the poor man was playing both sides of the
fence. There are many quotes a Muslim could use to
support his case, as there are quotes for the non-Muslim
to "charge" Islam.

Read it if you must, but thee hath been warned :)
There are better ways of spending one's money
than this.

As to Bagley's beliefs about the invaluability of
said book, well, he may be right. Modern Muslim
scholars really haven't paid as much attention to
these so-called difficulties which Dashti brings
up. Perhaps it's because they rely too much
on the already mountainous amounts of materials
written by the ulemaa' of olden times.

How bad of them :) not floggin a dead horse which
has been buried over a thousand years ago.
For shame!

wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

salaamun a'laykum

First let it be noted that the most difficlut
thing in the world to do is to make others
see when they steadfastly refuse to do so.

This topic about grammatical errors
boggles my mind. Is this what Allah had
revealed *al huda lil muttaqeen* to be? As
a grammar book? Someone is jesting,
and I don't think it's me.

Jochen had written:

}
}Khalid wrote:
}
}>error #2 The word muqiimiin is declined with "fath"for the use of
}>"madh" which means the praise for them

<snips>
}>... will it is quite

}>acceptable and a known issue for the Arabic language usage .
}
}P. Newton responds:
}

And I summarize:
1. it is wrong to appeal to poetry from pre-Islamic period
2. an error in poetry does not justify another error in the Qur'an.
3. we cannot allow poetic license in the Qur'an

Newton further elaborates:

}In Q. 4:162 The Qur'an speaks of people who are 1. firmly rooted in
}knowledge, 2. and they that believe, 3. those who perform prayer.

Newton demands to know: (and I summarize)
1. how come prayer is praised over belief in this
instance, while it is not so in 6 other places which
he helpfully lists.
And he tells us:
2. Ibn al-Khatib agrees with him in the former's
work called al-Furqan on page 43.
3. elevating a far' over a foundation of religion is an
error of logic.
4. Mushaf 'Abd-Allah as _Moqimoun_ declines it
according to Newton's view.
5. it is also declined "correctly" according to
readings of Malik Ibn Dinar and Gahdary and
'Isa al-Thaqafy.
6. "Aban Ibn 'Uthman said it was a scribal error
To top it off for good measure, Newton adds
7. Sa'eed Ibn Gabir had said there are four
"errors" in the Qur'an (grammatical I presume)

It's difficult to know where to begin :)

Newton and partner have delivered their "death
blow" to Islam and Muslims must lie down and
admit defeat. Ooops! Wrong answer!

Although I can't agree with bro. Khalid's
English, I have no doubt in his ability to understand
Arabic grammar. The little that he has shown thus
far in enumerating the errors of those who seeked
the errors of the Qur'an is more than enough for
me. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind.
And I don't have a Web page to erase and start
over because someone found a mistake in MY
list of mistakes.

Without going into the niceties of grammar (a
topic which I "hate" by the way), let us look at this
from a purely rational point of view. Well, as
rational as it gets from a Muslim's point of
view, Jochen :)

Now I'm sure that ibn al-khatib and the others
whom Newton lists as his supporting scholars
were all good men, and they were grammarians
through and through, but let me slide in two
grammarians I have read about, Zamakhshari and
Ar Razi.

FYI, Zamakhshari did author a not little-known
treatise called Al Kashaf, which has been
called by some the greatest work on the Qur'an
from a grammatical point of view.

Both Zamakhshari and Ar Razi have pointed out
that the accusative case used in this instance instead
of the nominative was AN ACCEPTED LITERARY
DEVICE, quite legitimate when the intention is to
STRESS the praiseworthy quality of something.

Therefore, bro. Khalid was not wrong, which was
why Newton seeked to amplify his rebuttal by
demanding to know why salaah is more important
than belief.

First point; I'm sure Newton should have been more
complete in his research and not merely picked
scholars who agreed with his view, while "neglecting"
scholars of the stature of Zamakhshari and Ar Razi.
Methinks, a fish be smelling nigh. But I don't look
into hearts, so I wouldn't presume anyone's
intentions :)

Secondly, prayer is more praised in THIS instance
because when one looks at the asbab an nuzul
(reason for revelation) for this ayah, one sees that
the people referred to for "those who are deeply
rooted in knowledge" are the Jews who had just
embraced Islam, in this case Abdullah bin Salam
(RA), and the part where it says "the believers who
believe" referred to the Muhaajirin and the Anshar,
while the part that interests us, "those constant
in prayer" refers to ALL among THEM who are
ESPECIALLY constant in prayer, THOSE are they
who will be granted a mighty reward. (Tafsir Al
Jalal ain, V.1, p. 406)

It's not too difficult to understand once you stop
grinding that axe. There are more fruitful endeavors
in life than that, you know. Like salaah :)

As to the variations Newton mentions, this is an
accepted fact about the Qur'an. EVERYONE is aware
of the seven accepted readings (qira'at), although three
additional variations (on the seven) exist as had been
correctly pointed out by a non-Muslim contributor some
weeks ago. Therefore it is not at all "strange" that some
scholars may say this or that about a fathah or a
dhammah for this or that word, because they are
free to argue from any one of the seven readings.

In the end, though, its the meaning of the
message that counts.

wassalam and warm regards,
Zaharuddin Fikri

P.S. I didn't get your example about the murder
and movies. Appreciate if you could use another
metaphor for an ignorant person like me.

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

Alslaam alaikum brother Fikri

What you have written was admirable and praiseworthy , and I guess it
shows us all , how this thread turned to prove without no doubt , in
terms of the challenge stated in the ayah 2:23 ; " And if ye are in
doubt as for what we have revealed from time to time to our servant ,
then produce a Surah like thereunto ; and call your witnesses or
helpers (if there are any) besides Allah , if your (doubts) are true
". that no one can stand up to it .

Surah 9:124 " Whenever cometh down a Surah , some of them say : which
of you had his faith increased by it ? yea, those who believe their
faith is increased , and they do rejoice ."
9:125 " But those whose hearts is a disease - it will add doubt to
their doubt "

And indeed it had increased my faith , I was only concentrating on the
grammar aspect of the Ayah but frankly the information you have added
was very educative

Jazzak Allah alfa Khayr

-----------------
Khalid.....
--------------

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

Massou...@sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami) writes:

>But he traded all of it for money, and to please Shah of Iran. He was a cop
>going bad. Most likley, he was helping Bahais to have some argument (not
>that was correct one) in hand to deal with their problem.

["he" refers to Ali Dashti]

I dont know anything about Dashti beyond what is available from the book.
Can someone provide more details about him?

>He had no reputation as scholar in Iran and his book was published under
>the machine gun of Shah.

I dont know which book you are talking about. The book which I am referring
to, "Bist o Seh Sal" was given by Dashti to Bagley in 1975 and it was published
later after his death. Even during Shah's regime, he was concerned about
censorship.

-- Milind Saraph

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 22, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/22/97

Okay, let us then be really careful and work through your answer
step by step since you were obviously not satisfied with the
response so far.

In article <5c43k1$5...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

| Jkatz
|
| Repeating the message you have sent a week ago wont change the fact
| that your friends have failed to showup to backup their claims .
| Therefore admitting what previously have been said ; they don't have
| any idea of what's on their page .

We are going to test this now and see who has no idea about what ...

| Also ,don't try to change the subject here,

like your switching from the Qur'an errors to the Bible errors you mean?

| ... we are

| discussing a certain subject that requires a background in the field
| of Arabic grammar , and if you considered being knowledgable in Arabic

| grammar ...

and

| In article <arielE4...@netcom.com>,
| kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

| It is quit funny , how two non-arabs try to evaluate the Quran

| structure this hard and only come up with 18 grammatical errors
| to prove that Quran is not the word of Allah ,I am totally surprised ,
| because the Arabic grammar is very complex subject of study , even the
| ordinary Arab people themselves nowadays are not fully familiar to
| the grammar of their own language .

Now after you say that ordinary Arab people do not have this background,
one might want to ask in what sense you are an extraordinary Arab person
to qualify for this discussion. But anyway,let us proceed to the details.
I will interweave your critique into the *complete* article, your
response after each of the errors you discuss, so that everybody can
easily judge if your response does have the substance you claim. Here
we go.

The Qur'an: Grammatical Errors
Copyright © 1996 by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton. All rights reserved.
[posted with permission of the author]

Muslims believe that Allah revealed a book to each of Abraham, Moses,
David and Jesus. "But the Book of the prophet Abraham was lost. The
Books of David (the Psalms), Moses (the Torah), and Jesus (the Gospel)
were changed."[1]

It is only the Qur'an that was revealed to Mohammad by the angel
Gabriel that was preserved, and indeed "Not a single word of it has
been changed or lost. It is found today exactly as it was revealed
to the Prophet Mohammed."[2] As such it is not Mohammed's personal
achievement. Rather it is a divine miracle. The prophethood of every
prophet was attested to by divine miracles. It is believed that the
Qur'an is God's miracle confirming the prophethood of Mohammed.

"The only miracle Mohammad claimed was the Qur'an ... The Qur'an

is the only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as
revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text

and the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."[3]

Muslims do believe that the Qur'an is a literary miracle and that it
is unmatched among any other literature. It is not a human masterpiece
but a divine miracle, where every letter and dot was revealed from
heaven, with no difference between what was revealed and what we have
in our hands.

Masterpieces are the work of humans. Miracles are the work of God.
A miracle, any miracle, is superior to the best of masterpieces.
Also miracles cannot be "improved upon" by human efforts since that
would be the same as acknowledging that the miracle, i.e. the work
of God, was flawed.

A masterpiece surpasses other works in one particular area. For
example, a mastepiece of engineering does not necessarily have to
have an aesthetic appeal. Or a masterpiece in art doesn't have to
conform to engineering standards. A masterpiece in flower arrangement
does not necessarily have to smell good.

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.

The First Error
In 5:69
"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the
Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the
Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them,
neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)

"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."

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.

*************************************************************************
Khalid responds:

| error #1
| The word Saabi'uuna has been declined correctly
| after the use of too many of letter "wa" or (and) ,in the
| English language, it is quit acceptable and considered to be a nice
| change to use it in that form .

Jochen asks:

I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the English language since
this is a discussion of Arabic. As far as I can count, there are exactly
the same number of "wa" in each of the verses 5:69, 2:62 and 22:17 and
the sentences are absolutely identical in structure. Hence the number
wa cannot really be a reason. If the switch is correct, does that mean
the other two are wrong?

Let us continue.
*************************************************************************

The Second Error
In 4:162
"But those of them that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the
believers believing in what has been sent down to thee, and
what was sent down before thee, that perform the prayer and
pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day -
them We shall surely give a mighty wage." (Arberry)

"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 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 distinguishe 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.

*************************************************************************
Khalid responds:

| error #2 The word muqiimiin is declined with "fath"for the use of

| "madh" which means the praise for them , do you know how the praise
| works in the arabic grammar , will look it up , and learn !!
| here is another example from the arabic poetry from those days
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| " la yubidun qawmi alazeen homo usd ul udati wa afat al juzuri
| alnazeeleen bekul muaatarakin wa altaiboon maaqeda aluzuri
| >~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| The most important thing to us of the above poetry is the underlined
| words; the poet chose to decline with "fath" when he praised his
| people as great fighters "alnazeeleena" and declined what came after
| the "wa" or (and) with "rafaa" , where Newton and his friend says it

| should be declined the in the same manner . will it is quite

| acceptable and a known issue for the Arabic language usage .

Mr. Newton responds:

The appeal of Muslims to poetry of the pre-Islamic period (al-Jaheliyah)
to explain away the gramatical errors in the Qur'an proves OUR point.

It proves that the Qur'an is EXACTLY of the SAME quality, instead of
being superior. The work of human beings will always contain some
errors. But we would expect the Qur'an to be free from any such
errors if indeed it is letter by letter from God.

In Q. 4:162 The Qur'an speaks of people who are 1. firmly rooted in

knowledge, 2. and they that believe, 3. those who perform prayer.

For any "primitive" or advanced culture the situation is the same.

The grammatical rules are there all the time. When Bible translators
or other linguists who first research a language in order to be able
to reduce it to writing, they DO NOT MAKE THE RULES. They only discover
them. These same rules are then applied to the translation work. The
Arabic grammar has been there before the Qur'an. The rules of what is
correct and what is wrong were the same all along. Only the DESCRIPTION
of the rules in a systematic form for textbooks of grammar came later.

------
Khalid had yet another response, but he failed to show some credentials
why he considers his opinions to be more correct than the judgments of
Aban Ibn 'Uthman and Ibn al-Khatib who have already stated that it is
an error. So far his further response which can be looked up on the
newsgroup has not convinced.

*************************************************************************

The Third Error
In 20:63
"They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)

"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."

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".
This is the third grammatical error.

*************************************************************************

| error#3
| >The word saahiraan should be saahirayn
| will perhaps in your language it should , the usage here for the word
| saahiraan which means the two magicians was based upon a known Arabic
| dialect of that time and have been declined based on it , for a
| purpose only Allah almighty knows . perhaps an indication for the
| place !!! , and again it is grammatically correct .

"only Allah knows"... Basically Khalid agrees that it is a mistake in
regard to the Arabic he knows, but it certainly was correct in regard
to some other dialect of which he sadly doesn't have any knowledge.
Now, with this method each and every mistake disappears. Just write
whatever you want, and then declare the text you wrote to be its own
dialect. Fini. Problem solved. But his conclusion is: it is correct
without any evidence on his side to counter the evidence for the error.
Also, it is well known, even though the Qur'an has been recited in
several dialect earlier, it was later standardised in the Quraishi
dialect BECAUSE IT WAS REVEALED IN THIS DIALECT and hence there
shouldn't be any other strange dialects left in the Qur'an. Or would
you say there are sentences in the Qur'an which are NOT in the form
they were revealed to Muhammad, because the scholars say it was
revealed to Muhammad in the Quraishi dialect? If it is not like it
was revealed that would constitute corruption, right?

*************************************************************************

The Fourth Error
In 2:177
"It is not piety, that you turn your faces to the East and to the
West. True piety is this: to believe in God, and the Last Day ...
to give of one's substance ... and to ransom the slave, to perform
the prayer, to pay the alms. And they who fulfil their covenant ...
and endure with fortitude." (Arberry)

"Laysal-birra 'an-tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal-Mashriqi wal-Maghrib
wa laakinnal-birra man 'aamana billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Akhiri
wal-malaaa-'ikati wal-Kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin: wa 'aatal-maala 'alaa
hubbihii zawilqurbaa wal-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili
was-saaa-'iliina wa fir-riqaab: wa'aqaamas-Salaata wa 'aataz-Zakaata;
wal-muufuuna bi'ahdihim 'izaa 'aahaduu was-Saabiriina fil-ba'-saaa'i
wazzarraaa-'i ..."

In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them
the wrong tense was used, as the sentence begins in the present tense
with the verb tuwalluu, while the other four verbs were written in
the past tense:

'aaman should be tu'minuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu;
'aqaama should be tuqimuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu.

The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic
would be: "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East
and the West; but righteousness is he who believed in Allah and the
Last day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets; and gave his
wealth, ... and performed prayer and paid the alms."

But the English translators have observed the tense, and the verbs
"believed", "gave", "performed", and "paid" were corrected and written
in the present tense. (For example see Arberry, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and
Rodwell's translations).

The fifth error is the wrong declension of the word saabiriina.
It should be declined saabiruuna like the preceeding word
muufuuna.

*************************************************************************

| error #4
| No error at all , it is only the misunderstanding of these tow people
| who might have tried to deal with Arabic language in similar way to
| they deal with the English language , which clearly show , that they
| are not will informed of the Arabic language and that was obvious when
| they tried to ignore the deferences in the use of the time forms ,
| look the next error for more info

Now, the authors carefully explained why those are errors, Khalids
only response is "no it is not" and instead of explaining why it is
correct nevertheless he goes for an ad hominem declaring the authors
to be incompetent. Please, if you have more competence then show this
competence in a solid argument and leave personal attacks on the
authors aside. Is it any wonder that Mr. Newton didn't reply to
such "no it is not an error" statements? There is nothing to reply
to. For Khalid to then complain:

| Repeating the message you have sent a week ago wont change the fact
| that your friends have failed to showup to backup their claims .
| Therefore admitting what previously have been said ; they don't have
| any idea of what's on their page .

That does speak for itself. At least to me.

*************************************************************************

The Fifth Error
In 3:59
"the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness;
He created him of dust, then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was."
(Arberry)

"Inna massala 'Isaa 'indal-laahi ka-masali 'Adam;
khalaqahuu min-turaabin-sum-ma qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun."

The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic
would be: "The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam.
He created him of dust, then He said to him 'Be,' and he is."
The above is Pickthall's translation. Please note that he translated
yakuun (is) as it appears in Arabic, i.e. in the present tense.

The word yakuun ("is" in English) should be kana ("was") to
be consistent with the past tense of the previous verb "said" as it
was corrected by Arberry, Rodwell and Yusuf Ali in their translations
of that verse. This is the fifth error.

*************************************************************************

| error#5
| surprisingly they have admit it themselves , it is a mistake in
| translation to english ,but it should be translated this way Again due
| the deference between the usage of time forms in the two languages you
| are dealing with two languages professors !!
| and you can't apply the English grammar to Arabic text ,again I
| repeat there are a lot of deferences in the use of time forms in the
| two languages . got it ?

You have not read what the authors wrote. It is always helpful to first
carefully read and understand before you respond and cry foul.

Yes, they point out an error of translation ALSO, but it is an error
because it tries to cover up the error in the Arabic by translating it
AS IF it were correct Arabic. But the point he makes is that it is an
error IN ARABIC which should have the same tense in both parts of the
sentences.

*************************************************************************

The Sixth Error
In 21:3
"The evildoers whisper one to another ..."

"Laahiyatan - quluubuhum. Wa 'asarrun-najwallaziin zalamuu..."

The word 'asarru should be 'asarra. The above is a verbal
sentence, and the rule for such a sentence, where the verb comes before
the subject, is that the verb must be in the third masculine singular
form, if the active subject of the verbal sentence is stated in the
sentence. But the verb in the above Qur'anic verse came in the plural
form. See how the above rule was observed in the following Qur'anic
verses: 3:52, 10:2, 16:27, 16:35, 3:42, 49:14.

*************************************************************************

| erro#6
| you say the word 'asarru should be 'asarra because he verb comes
| before the subject , will that is not correct , the subject was
| mentioned in the previous two Ayahs ,smart guys, and it is "alnas"
| which means the people ,check it back and you will be relieved .

It would be strange when Arabic were so completely different from all
other languages I know ... Usually the structure of a sentence is
complete in itself. That is why we even separate sentences from each
other, because they are the smallest complete unit. Obviously the
subject comes in this sentence AFTER the verb and the fact that the
same subject has been mentioned outside this sentence before that
is absolutely irrelevent. Now, this is the only comment on real
grammar that I have made and I will easily admit I am wrong if a
competent Arabic grammarian shows me otherwise. But do take into
account that you do not only have to explain the supposedly wrong
sentence and why it is right, but why you have a different rule for
this one than for all the other ones listed which do follow the rule
mentioned by the authors.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

After that Khalid thought is case was presented convincingly
already and concluded his article with

| ............

|
| and the errors go on like that ,with more emphasis on what we call in

| the Arabic Grammar " alaatf wa almaatoof " which means the use of the
| letter "Wa" (and) , repeating the same mistakes used in the
| inaccurate approach of the two men !!!!

|
| this was a quick look from an Arabic speaking net surfer , so be

| warned , these two people dont really know how the Arabic grammar
| works .

As everybody sees Khalid has shown how Arabic grammar works and with
great ease and competence disproved the foolish critique of Mr. Haqq
and Mr. Newton.

| I couldn't complete the list of the so called errors because of the
| lack of time and the repetition of the alleged errors but it can be

| done even in more details upon request .

Please feel free to give details. So far, the ONLY error you even
gave a detail more than "no it is not" was error two. I would start
giving details for the first six errors before you continue with the
next seven. But in order to not make everybody hunt now for the web
page, here the rest of the article uninterrupted by Khalid's responses.

*************************************************************************

The Seventh Error
In 22:19
"These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord."
(Arberry)

"haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..."

In Arabic, like English words are declined or conjugated with respect to
number. In English there are two numbers: singular and plural. So in
English two men are treated as plural. But in Arabic there are three
numbers: singular, dual, and plural. So in Arabic the verbs and nouns
are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The
verb in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two.
But the verse speaks only of two. So the rules of the dual should be
followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should be 'ikhtasamaa.
So this is yet another error.

The Eighth Error
In 49:9
"If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them."
(Arberry)

"wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu
baynahumaa."

This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is
dual but the verb was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the
verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatala.

The Nineth Error
In 63:10
"O my Lord, if only Thou wouldst defer me unto a near term,
so that I may make freewill offering, and so I may become one
of the righteous." (Arberry)

"... Rabbi law laaa 'akhartaniii 'ilaaa 'ajalin-qariibin-fa-'assaddaqa
wa 'akum-minas-salihiin."

The verb 'akun was incorrectly conjugated. It should be 'akuuna,
i.e. the last consonant must have the vowel "a", instead of being vowelless,
because the verb 'akun, is in the subjunctive. Indeed the previous
verb ('assaddaqa) has been correctly conjugated and is in the
subjuctive. The reason is that in Arabic the present tense is placed in
the subjunctive mood if it is preeceeded by certain words (huruf nasebah).
One of such words is the "causative fa".

The Tenth Error
In 91:5
"By the heaven and that which built it." (Arberry)

"was-samaaa-'i wa maa ba-naahaa."

The word ma in the Arabic language is used for the impersonal. But
the subject of the above verse is God. So the word which should be used
is the Arabic word man (meaning "him who"). Arberry translated that
verse as follows: "By the heaven and that which built it" meaning God.
Pickthall however corrected the impersonal (ma, that which) and translated
the verse as follows: "By the heaven and Him Who built it."

Indeed Pickthall also corrected the two verses that follow:
And the earth and Him Who spread it. Q. 91:6.
And a soul and Him Who perfected it. Q. 91:7.

Yusuf Ali, to get out of the problem, translated the above verse as
follows: "By the firmament and its wonderful structure". So the subject
'God' does not appear at all in his translation of that verse. He gives
his reason for his translation in a footnote saying: The ma masdariya
in Arabic, in this and the subsequent clauses, is best translated in
English by nouns." But the word banaha is not a noun but a verb in
the past tense as translated correctly by Arberry and Pickthall. The
word ma should have been man (meaning "who") and in that context
it should have been "Who" with a capital W.

The Eleventh Error
In 41:11
"Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to
it and to the earth, 'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said,
'we come willingly.'"

"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna
ta'e'een."

Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said"
is accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing"
at the end of the verse is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at
variance with the rule that the adjectives should match their nouns
in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural, should
be ta'e'aat which is used for feminine dual.

The Twelfth Error
In 7:56
"The mercy of God is near."

"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."

The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate
should match the subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in
gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is the predicate of
rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each
other in gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata
is feminine in Arabic and so the word qaribun (which is masculine)
should instead be qaribah (its feminine form).

This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example,
in 9:40 we read: "Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya." Here both Kalemat
and heya are feminine. To say instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la"
would never be correct. That would be just as wrong as saying: "... inna
rahmata Allahi qaribun min ..."

Error 13
In 7:160
"We divided them into twelve tribes."

"wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."

Instead of asbatan it should read sebtan.

In the Arabic it literally say "twelve tribes". That is correct in English
but not correct in Arabic. In Arabic it should say twelve tribe because
the noun that is counted by a number above ten should be singular. This
rule is observed correctly for example in 7:142, 2:60, 5:12, 9:36, 12:4.

The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully
intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words,

unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal
meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the

concords of gernder and number; illogically and ungrammatically
applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates
which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ...
To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the
normal rules and structures have been noted...
('Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad,
Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, California, 1994, pages 48,50)

Hence, the above are just a small sample and more are to come.

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

Two comments need to be made.

First:

Muslims claim that the Qur'an we have in our hands today is what was
originally revealed to Mohammed, with no change to even one letter.
However, there are grammatical errors in today's Qur'an. In facing
these errors, we must decide between one of two choices. Either, the
original Qur'an was revealed containing these errors, or the errors
resulted from mistakes by human scribes as they were copying the
Qur'an. There exist no other possibilities. As the first choice is
unthinkable, the second is the only logical explanation. But that
also means that it is not true that the Qur'an we have in our hands
is the "only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as
revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text and
the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."

Second:

If the above errors were found in an article to be published, these
errors would be corrected. The article, with these errors remaining
in it, could not be hailed as a masterpiece.

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 following notice accompanied a very respectable piece of Islamic
software called the Alim, 1992.

NOTICE!!!
The Arabic Qur'an has some errors which will be remedied very
shortly in a maintenance release.
....
NOTICE !!!

The Arabic Qur'an refered to in the above notice is the one provided
in the Alim software package.

No doubt many learned people have gone over this Arabic Qur'an to
check it for mistakes, like any good publisher would do. If even
with the advanced technology they have, there are still errors in it,
how can we have any confidence that the first edition of the Qur'an
in a time when very few people can read and write Arabic, was written
down error free? Mohammad himself said "we are a nation that does not
know how to write or do accounting." And the Muslim in early Islam
used to set free some Jews among their war captives if they would in
turn teach a few Arabs how to read and write Arabic.

References:
1. Teaching of Islam, Islamic Council of New South Wales, p.15.
2. Teaching of Islam, Islamic Council of New South Wales, p.18.
3. Introduction to Pickthall's translation with transliteration,
the Burney Academy, Hyderabad, p.xxiv.
4. Al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib,
Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.90
5. Al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib,
Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.91

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 23, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/23/97

Jkatz

When will you understand ? you are not the person I should be
discussing this subject with , you are only speculating ,and all the
33k message you'v sent didn't add anything to the matter . mr. Newton
and his friend did not show up and all we have is someone who is
taking the whole thing as a personal issue .

Anyway I have decided to respond in this time hope that you will be
able to stand up for the challenge that awaits you at the end of this
meesage .

---------------------------------------------------------------
you said :

>one might want to ask in what sense you are an extraordinary Arab person
>to qualify for this discussion.

have anyone heard me saying anything extraordinary , and yes I am
qualified to discuss this subject simply because I know the Arabic
grammar and I know the Quran , but the question is are you qualified
to be in this discussion ?

>"The only miracle Mohammad claimed was the Qur'an

Not true ,there were a lot of other miracles , put the author has
decided to blow the whistle by showing us that he is not will
informed in the topic of the Quran and Islam .

>| error #1
>| The word Saabi'uuna has been declined correctly
>| after the use of too many of letter "wa" or (and) ,in the
>| English language, it is quit acceptable and considered to be a nice
>| change to use it in that form .
>
>Jochen asks:
>
>I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the English language since
>this is a discussion of Arabic. As far as I can count, there are exactly
>the same number of "wa" in each of the verses 5:69, 2:62 and 22:17 and
>the sentences are absolutely identical in structure. Hence the number
>wa cannot really be a reason. If the switch is correct, does that mean
>the other two are wrong?

No body have said anything a bout English here , I just said that the
letter "wa" in Arabic means (and) in English , so read carefully
before you reply .

you are only speculating , when you use the letter "wa" repeatedly in
a single sentence then it is ACCEPTABLE to change the sound of one the
words used in the process of "alaatf" or the way it is declined , in
condition that the " ataaf " in the sentence is based on "dhameer" ,
or words such as "alaziina"

like in this example : " innee wa Zaidoon qaimaan " ; the word "innee"
has a letter of "nasb" yet in this example we see the word "Zaidun"
is declined with "rafaa" because the process of "alaatf" is based on
the "dhameer" "innee". and in this case it is allowed to decline the
word Zaid either by "rafaa" or "nasb" again because it was based on
"dhameer" .

to conclude my point ; consider the same example but this time without
the " dhameer " : inna Zaidan wa Aamroo qaimaan .
in this case the word Zaid cannot be declined with "raffaa" because
it is not based on any " dhameer" therefore it can only be declined by
"nasb".

So the same rule apply to the Ayah , and the word Saabi'iina can be
declined either way , therfore no grammatical error

>The Second Error
I'll pass this one because it have been fully answered by brother
Fikri

>The Third Error

>"only Allah knows"... Basically Khalid agrees that it is a mistake in
>regard to the Arabic he knows, but it certainly was correct in regard
>to some other dialect of which he sadly doesn't have any knowledge.

more guessing work and speculation , saying it is based on other
dialect that dose not mean based on a deferent language , I'll give
you the details and I surely hope that you will be able to understand
what I am saying .

there have been a lot of debate over this sentence between Arabic
scholars and most of the debate was on the letter that came after the
verb qaaluuu wither it is the letter "inna" ,stressed ,or it is the
letter "inn", not stressed, and both have different meaning but
written the same way .

scholars who have chosen the stressed "inna" plus declining "haazaani"
with " rafaa" said it is based on an Arabic dialect that have been
used by "Kinana" a will known Arabic tribe who uses "alef alithnain" ,
the letter "alef" in words which carry the meaning of dual number, "
as the most appropriate one .

And kinana tribe used to decline "alef alethnain " in one fixed way
look at this example :

they are saying : "atani alzaidan" "raaytoo alzaidan" "marartoo
belzaidan" notice the word "zaidan" is declined in one fixed way where
it is declined differently by the people of Mecca and Madina

here is another example from Kinana poetry :

[fattraqa ittraqoo shoojaa wa low ra'aa
m'saghan le na'bahoo shoojaa lasamama]
> ~~~~~~~~
the word le' nab-a-hoo consists of two parts , the letter "le" which
is a letter of "jarr" and the noun "nab-a-hoo" which means his two
canine tooth ,in a case which we call in Arabic grammar as " aljarr
wal mujroor" and the noun in this case should be declined with "jarr"
,and would be said "le'nab-ai-hee" in Mecca's dialect , but as I said
earlier with Kinana delict the "alef alethnain " is fixed in every
form thus in the Ayah

"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani "

if you are interested on what the other scholars said , don't hesitate
I would be very happy to give more explanation , more details.

>The Fourth Error
>In 2:177

>In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them

>the wrong tense was used, as the sentence begins in the present tense
>with the verb tuwalluu, while the other four verbs were written in
>the past tense:

First of all we don't call it a "verse" it is "Ayah" , secondly as I
told you there is no error at all , if the tense was broken we will
notice that while we are reading it but again I repeat my respond ;
you cant judge the quran structure as if it was another instance of
the English grammar , furthermore I tried my best to find any source
or any indication or any thing mentioning that thier might be some
defrences between scholars on this issue but came out with nothing
,zero , nil . it is only a fabrication ,I believe was caused by
attempting to compare betwwen the English and the Arabic grammar.

>But the English translators have observed the tense, and the verbs
>"believed", "gave", "performed", and "paid" were corrected and written
>in the present tense. (For example see Arberry, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and
>Rodwell's translations).

Then why don't you sue them ? any way the meaning is the same in both
the Quran and it's translation in English , and be calm there is
nothing in the Quran that need to be corrected . As I said there are a
lot of deference in the use time forms in sentences in both languages
and what could be applied to this language not necessarily can be
applied to the other , I wonder why do you see this as hard to
comprehend.

>The Fifth Error
already have been answered. anyway you have added ;

>Yes, they point out an error of translation ALSO, but it is an error
>because it tries to cover up the error in the Arabic by translating it
>AS IF it were correct Arabic. But the point he makes is that it is an
>error IN ARABIC which should have the same tense in both parts of the
>sentences.

That is a good title for another hoax ;
do you think changing "is" in Arabic to "was" in English is a big deal

as far as we are concern the translators had conveyed the meaning of
the Quran in this enstance as best as they can , the English
trenselation is not the Quran it is only the meaning of the Quran it
is only a transelation , the Quran have only been revealed in Arabic ,
not in English , that is an important point you have to understand .

Again there are a lot of deference in the use of time forms in the two
languages , and I believe this is the best way to translate the phrase
"kun fa yakoon" .

>The Sixth Error

No need to add anything more

>The Seventh Error

>So in Arabic the verbs and nouns
>are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The
>verb in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two.
>But the verse speaks only of two. So the rules of the dual should be
>followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should be 'ikhtasamaa.
>So this is yet another error.

For your information , the word "Khismani " , which have been
translated as the two disputants, dose not mean two men here ,it means
the believers and the nonbelievers and you can't use for all of them
the word "'ikhtasamaa" which is used for dual number , clear enough ?

>The Eighth Error

> "If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them."
> (Arberry)
>
> "wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu
> baynahumaa."

>This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is
>dual but the verb was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the
>verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatala.

again the word "taaa-'ifataani' which means two parties can not take
the verb "eq-tatalaa" because it means that there are more than two
men who are in fight it can mean two nations two countries two
armies etc. and that requires plural number not a dual number .

It would be a must to change the verb from plural to dual number if
the sentence was like this ;

wa 'in-rajulani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalaa
If two men of believers fight, put things right between them.

## END
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jaktz ; here my humble request for you

if you can explain to me in more details the so called error number 9
I'll continue answering the remaining five alleged errors . prove to
us that you know what you are writting !! and I wil be very
delighted to contiue discussing this subject with you .

------------------
Khalid....
----------------

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

salaamun a'laykum

Jochen Katz had written much prose to "refute"
bro Khalid's refutation of Newton and Co.

By the by, I would have thought this discussion was
exactly an area where the Qur'an-Only folks could
have pitched in for the cause and "defend" the Qur'an
against the dis-believers :)

I fear, in this instance, Jochen, you may be in slightly over
your head. It has been my understanding that Arabic
grammar is a life-long OBSESSION, and it was for this
subject that the saying "only fools rush in
where angels fear to tread" was coined. Really.

Although I guess that would make me a "fool." :)

I can only repeat my earlier assessment that IMO
Khalid knows what he is talking about in terms of
grammar, and it is only his "handicap" with the
English language that is causing such a confusion
in Jochen's mind.

Arabic as a language, has often been described
as a "feeling." The best orators are able to
instill in their audience, a "taste" of the beauty
of the words they have chosen. I have said
before, Arabic is such that Arabs call non-Arabs
al Ajam, meaning those who have blunt hearts. This
is because the Ajam is unable to "feel" and "taste"
the Arabic words he hears, as opposed to the
Arab who is able to do so.

Those with such qualities in their souls
fell like flies before the sway of the Reading. This
is an historical fact.

[for those who didn't understand my
reference above, the Reading is another name
for the Qur'an]

By this I do not mean that ALL Arabs are so
gifted, but it is undeniable that the majority
of the people addressed by the Qur'an in 6th
century Arabia were so.

The challenge to "produce a surah like it", was
issued not to English speaking missionaries
with Internet Web pages of the 20th century,
but to 6th century Arab poets whose works are
the epitome of Arab literary scholarship (other than
the Qur'an of course) to this day.

That those people failed to accept the challenge,
much less overcome it is undeniable history.

At points in your article, you make mention of
dhamir, Jochen. I could not follow whether those
were your words or Newton's mingling all over, but
the general purport was you were arguing why
21:3 had a different referent. And this is all
about dhamir.

Dhamir is used to shorten a phrase. Eg, hum in
a 'adda llAhu laHUM magh firah has replaced approx.
twenty or so words in Surah Al Ahzab, ayah 35 which
would need to be used if not for this dhamir.

And this question of dhamir is a whole treatise
in itself, Jochen. Philologists can spend years
debating on why the -hi in ilaihi of al Baqarah ayah
178 should refer back to the afi' (the one who
gives forgiveness) and what are the sign-posts
why this should be so. Well, maybe I exaggerate.

Also, at times the dhamir is placed before the
referent object e.g. surah Ta Ha, ayah 67, where
the nafsihi is BEFORE the named person, Musa AS.

Therefore as to Khalid's curt explanation of the
referent to al nas several verses behind, is actually
absolutely correct. Anyway, this has been the
understanding of some of the grammarians whom
I have heard of. That it is not Newton's and Co.
(or their reference scholars) is of no consequence
to the meaning or applicability of the ayah for us.

It IS tiresome to go through the entire list
which you have so helpfully copied out
from their web site. At least it has given that
piece of work an airing. I don't know whether
that will help its "smell" any, though :)

I would suggest getting some REAL Arab
grammarians to look at it if you are not
satisfied with my ill-informed reasonings. One way
is to publish it as an Arab web page, complete
with marks and such for the proper refutation
by more competent people.

Pitting linguists like Newton and co. against
ignorant people like me is not a fair fight.

Warm regards,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/24/97

In article <5c9hrt$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
bmte...@acs6.acs.ucalgary.ca (Basem Mesbah Temraz) writes:

| I find the whole issue that the Quran violates Arabic grammer to
| be funny since Arabic grammer itself is based on the Quran, and
| was formulated a long time after the death of the prophet.
|
| Did it not occur to you that if the mentoend verses did violate
| grammer that someone at the time of the prophet would have at
| least mentioned it or at least questioned it. We never hear of
| people leaving Islam, at the time of the prophet (PBUH) because
| of the grammer erros in the Quran.. nor has any Infidels at his
| time ever mentioned it when refuting him.

Dear Basem,

The first of your comments was already answered twice in this thread.
Let me just cut and paste this again.

-------
e.g.

-------

Do you think the Arabs before Muhammad were leading their conversations
in a language lacking rules of grammar? No, every language has clear
rules and it is obvious to most what is a correct and what is an incorrect
construction. And it is obvious even to illiterate people, because this
is something we learn more or less automatically. We might not be able to
explain it. That comes with formal schooling. But the rules of grammar
do not depend on the existence of a written textbook.

And again, cut and paste, in regard to your second question:

--------

Some of the above errors are not a new discovery by modern critics.
They were known from the first century of Islam by the closest
followers of Mohammad. It is reported that 'Uthman, after viewing
the first standared copy of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical
errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their
tongues.'[4] 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."'[5]

[4. Al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib,

Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.90
5. Al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib,

Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.91]

----------

Obviously, Uthman and Aisha were well aware that there are errors in
the Qur'an which only makes sense if they knew what is correct and what
is incorrect Arabic.

Why was this no reason for the companions to apostacize? Well, they
interpreted it to be scribal errors and not to be from Muhammad [or
even Allah] himself. Hence for them the error was not in the *real*
Qur'an but in the copying process.

Today, Muslims make higher claims about the Qur'anic text than any of
the early companions and scholars ever made. Today Muslims claim:

"So well has it (the Qur'an) been preserved both in memory and in writing,
that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was
revealed to the Prophet. _Not_even_a_single_letter has yielded to corruption
during the passage of the centuries. And so it will remain forever, by the
consent of Allah." (The Holy Qur'an, English Translation of the Meanings
and Commentary, King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, Preface, p. v)

If Muslims make such outrageous and obviously false claims, they don't
have to wonder if that is met with critique.

I do not reject the Qur'an as being from God because it has grammar
errors. If the content is basically preserved. That is good enough for
me and then I will decide acceptance or rejection based on its *content*.

What then is this grammar errors thing all about?
Muslims claim that the Qur'an to be superior to the Bible
on grounds that it is the only 100% preserved book which is proven
wrong by many facts - these grammar errors being one of them.

I hope that clears up why I do have some minor interest in these,
as well as why early Muslims did not reject the Qur'an based on these
errors.

As far as I am concerned, it would be much more pleasant if we could come
to the stage where Muslims acknowledge these problems with the Qur'an on
the formal level, and that the two books of Qur'an and Bible aren't so far
apart in these outward things anyway. Then we might be able to progress
and actually talk about the important things which concerns the content
of the books. THAT is the place where I have my personal reasons to reject
to Qur'an. God willing, I will post a series of questions on this issue
during February.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz

AbdulraHman Lomax

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

as-salamu 'alaykum.

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

>For any "primitive" or advanced culture the situation is the same.
>The grammatical rules are there all the time. When Bible translators
>or other linguists who first research a language in order to be able
>to reduce it to writing, they DO NOT MAKE THE RULES. They only discover
>them. These same rules are then applied to the translation work. The
>Arabic grammar has been there before the Qur'an. The rules of what is
>correct and what is wrong were the same all along. Only the DESCRIPTION
>of the rules in a systematic form for textbooks of grammar came later.

This is highly misleading. Arabic was mostly an unwritten language
before the Qur'an. Yes, such a language has "rules," but a speaker of
the language was quite free to alter the rules in order to convey some
shift in meaning, or simply because he liked the sound of it.

A poet might take even more liberties.

Part of the problem here is that:

(1) The Arabic of the Qur'an is itself the standard for written
Arabic.

(2) Muslim apologists have praised the perfection of the language of
the Qur'an, implying perfection according to a standard which was
itself largely based in the Qur'an itself.

(3) This leads to the reaction we are now seeing.

If a poet writes, "the dog run fast," is this an error? We might say
that it is a grammatical error, but, in fact, there is only a certain
mismatch between the phrase and our expectations from the rules of
grammar. A poet may *use* this expectation to cause certain reactions
in the mind of the listener, and if the usage is deliberate and
effective, it is legitimate to call it an error?

>Do you think the Arabs before Muhammad were leading their conversations
>in a language lacking rules of grammar? No, every language has clear
>rules and it is obvious to most what is a correct and what is an incorrect
>construction.

It is obvious to most that a particular construction is what they are
accustomed to ("correct") or is otherwise ("incorrect.") But the
Qur'an is full of unexpected phenomena. Sentences that begin and are
not

and other examples as well.

>And it is obvious even to illiterate people, because this
>is something we learn more or less automatically. We might not be able to
>explain it. That comes with formal schooling. But the rules of grammar
>do not depend on the existence of a written textbook.

This is, more or less, true, but languages are also constantly in
flux. And rules of grammar are not like laws of physics, observer
invariant, and for every rule there are usually exceptions. Take a
look at Wright's A Grammar of the Arabic Language. You'll see in large
print a rule of grammar, then sometimes several pages of exceptions.

>Some of the above errors are not a new discovery by modern critics.
>They were known from the first century of Islam by the closest
>followers of Mohammad. It is reported that 'Uthman, after viewing
>the first standared copy of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical
>errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their
>tongues.'[4] 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:

This does raise an interesting possibility. One of the other writers
in this thread raised the issue of readings other than Hafs. The
reported comment of 'Uthman, RA, would imply that these verses were
read correctly. But there were six or seven 'Uthmanic copies. Did they
all contain the alleged errors? If so, why?

Further, "reading it correctly with their tongues" implies that these
verses were, in fact, being read correctly, in spite of the scribal
errors. So we would need to look at the range of readings that exist
for a particular verse.

>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."'[5]

I tried looking up these verses in the Tashkent mus-haf. Only the
first is present in this damaged text. Yes, there, as in standard
Hafs, the normal accusative of the dual, hadhayni, expected because of
the particle "inna," is instead the nominative, hadhaani. How would it
read if "correct"? "inna hadhayni la saahiraani." The first dual is in
the accusative and the second is nominative. It's a bit of a
tongue-twister. Further, it is a report of what a person said.

Now, I will set aside for a moment the question of what language the
reported speaker was using. I pretty much doubt that it was Arabic at
all. If an author reports a speech in dialect, and the dialect
includes grammatical errors from the point of view of some other
dialect, viewed as "standard" or "correct," is this an error?

This, by the way, is the same alleged error as the sabi'uwn anomaly.
It involves the use of a nominative in place of an accusative after
inna.

Going back and quoting Newton quoted by Katz:

***begin quote***
P. Newton responds:

The appeal of Muslims to poetry of the pre-Islamic period
(al-Jaheliyah)
to explain away the gramatical errors in the Qur'an proves OUR point.
It proves that the Qur'an is EXACTLY of the SAME quality, instead of
being superior. The work of human beings will always contain some
errors. But we would expect the Qur'an to be free from any such
errors if indeed it is letter by letter from God.

***end quote***

This is a thoroughly obtuse comment. It is true that some obsessive
schoolteacher might mark as an error a brilliant poem from a student.
This is the state of the world, and it has ruined whole generations of
students. Newton persists in calling a form which has multiple clearly
intentional instances in the literature of a language an "error."

But note that the source of Newton's objection is the expectation that
the language of God would be free from linguistic anomalies. Where
does this expectation come from? Largely, it comes from the
extravagance of *Muslims* in describing the language of the Qur'an.
That language *is* miraculous, but the attempts I have seen to reduce
the miracle to grammatical perfection or, in the case of the
Khalifites, numerical perfection, have generally been flawed at root.

It is, in fact, circular to argue that the grammar of the Qur'an is
"perfect," since the Qur'an has been the standard of classical grammar
for fourteen hundred years.

Let's just say that the language of the Qur'an impressed those who
knew the language well, and it continues to impress this particular
Muslim who reads it daily in that language.

>Obviously, Uthman and Aisha were well aware that there are errors in
>the Qur'an which only makes sense if they knew what is correct and what
>is incorrect Arabic.

Yes. But I would add the caveat that we do not know if the hadith is
authentic.

>Why was this no reason for the companions to apostacize? Well, they
>interpreted it to be scribal errors and not to be from Muhammad [or
>even Allah] himself. Hence for them the error was not in the *real*
>Qur'an but in the copying process.

That is how I would read the hadith.

>Today, Muslims make higher claims about the Qur'anic text than any of
>the early companions and scholars ever made. Today Muslims claim:

Yes.

>"So well has it (the Qur'an) been preserved both in memory and in writing,
>that the Arabic text we have today is identical to the text as it was
>revealed to the Prophet. _Not_even_a_single_letter has yielded to corruption
>during the passage of the centuries. And so it will remain forever, by the
>consent of Allah." (The Holy Qur'an, English Translation of the Meanings
>and Commentary, King Fahd Holy Qur'an Printing Complex, Preface, p. v)

Many times I have pointed out the folly of this claim in
soc.religion.islam. Now, "corruption" is a very strong word. Perhaps
we could agree that the text has not been "corrupted." But there are,
most certainly and without doubt, known variations in both the written
texts and the recited text. They are quite small, often being on the
level of the alleged "errors" reported above.

How many poor people should one feed who is making expiation for
inability to fast? Hafs has "miskiyn," singular, Warsh has "masAkiyn,"
plural (the plural alif is upright fetha, so this variation does not
appear in the 'Uthmanic skeleton text).

>I do not reject the Qur'an as being from God because it has grammar
>errors. If the content is basically preserved. That is good enough for
>me and then I will decide acceptance or rejection based on its *content*.

Nor do I accept the Qur'an because of its alleged grammatical
perfection. But I would caution Jochen in his assumption that there
are "grammatical errors" in the Qur'an. Rather, there are forms which
do not follow the ordinary rules of grammar. To call these "errors" is
to make certain prejudgements about language and the intention of the
author. Jochen should know better; he should know that his insistence
on this term only inflames most Muslims, and he should use more
cautious language. Perhaps, when Muslims sin against the Bible, he
should turn the other cheek....

>What then is this grammar errors thing all about?
>Muslims claim that the Qur'an to be superior to the Bible
>on grounds that it is the only 100% preserved book which is proven
>wrong by many facts - these grammar errors being one of them.

Of course, if relative preservation is the standard, the Qur'an wins,
quite handily. A few variations vs. a much larger number, cutting much
more deeply.

But it is not the standard, and there is, in fact, no promise in the
Qur'an that "every letter" would be preserved in the written text.

AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@ioa.com
P.O. Box 5123
Asheville, NC 28813

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/25/97

za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes:

>The challenge to "produce a surah like it", was
>issued not to English speaking missionaries
>with Internet Web pages of the 20th century,
>but to 6th century Arab poets whose works are
>the epitome of Arab literary scholarship (other than
>the Qur'an of course) to this day.

But many Muslims go beyond this and insist that this challenge is in some
sense "context free" and has not been met.

>That those people failed to accept the challenge,
>much less overcome it is undeniable history.

How many contemporary Arab poets tried to accept this challenge? I asked
this on SRI and spent some time in library. I could not find anything.
I posted a short article on SRI "Tahaddi and Ijaz", I am sending it you
by email.

Needless to say I will appreciate any references.

Thanks,

-- Milind Saraph

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/26/97

Mr. Newton's answer to Mr. Lomax.

In article <5cdpee$s...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
mar...@ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:

>If a poet writes, "the dog run fast," is this an error? We might say
>that it is a grammatical error, but, in fact, there is only a certain
>mismatch between the phrase and our expectations from the rules of
>grammar. A poet may *use* this expectation to cause certain reactions
>in the mind of the listener, and if the usage is deliberate and
>effective, it is legitimate to call it an error?

Mr Lomax has misrepresented all the work of the poets he read. Can he
please quote a real situation where a poet wrote something like
"the dog run fast"?

We might find something like that in our surrealistic, elastic,
undisciplined generation, but would expect that from any earlier
work of poetry and surely not from a divinly inspired book that
boast of its uniquness.

Even if a poet resorts to such a trick, he is doing it because he
is stuck and can not balance his poem. This should not be so with
the maker of languages.

Finally he is appealing to a human standard (a poet) but here we are
talking about a divine standard.

But Mr. Lomax is not far off the mark when he finally admitted

> ... But there are,

>most certainly and without doubt, known variations in both the written
>texts and the recited text. They are quite small

The above should read:

But there are, most certainly and without doubt,

known (grammatical) variations (errors) in both the written texts
and the recited text. They are quite small (but they cannot be denied).

P. Newton

C2411 (Raef)

unread,

Jan 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/28/97

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote in article
<5ch5r6$h...@shell3.ba.best.com>...

> Mr. Newton's answer to Mr. Lomax.
>
>

> But Mr. Lomax is not far off the mark when he finally admitted
>
> > ... But there are,
> >most certainly and without doubt, known variations in both the written
> >texts and the recited text. They are quite small
>
> The above should read:
>
> But there are, most certainly and without doubt,
> known (grammatical) variations (errors) in both the written texts
> and the recited text. They are quite small (but they cannot be denied).
>
> P. Newton
>
>

with all the respect to Lomax he is entitled to his own views.
He certainly does not represent the muslim Ummah.
He, I and you are certainly no scholar on the sciences of the Quran.

If you are fishing for weak muslims who no little about thie faith
to catch and convert you will hardley find any.

But if you are seeking the truth. Then you are beating round the bush.

Any way I am not against having you on SRI or any other Islamic group like
some netters have declared, on the contrary having you is a pleasure.
It makes the groups more interesting and more active to find the truth.
the truth which is of course Islam.

The QURAN HAS NO ERRORS if the whole nation of Islam
said there might be errors they are wrong. You know why because
Allah said so.

If there are things that seem to be wrong it is our lack of knowledge.

Until recently many unexplained things were in the Quran and then Allah
sent the
great Scholar Mohammad Metwali AlShaarawi who is the scholar in Arabic as
well
as the Quran this era. Now you should listen to his explanations. May some
of the
people who have doubt about a certain issue in the lingutitic science of
the Quran
should direct his question to him.

In every age and time Allah sends a scholar accroding to the need of the
age and
in accord with his wisdom. Allah does not act on our hastineys

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

salaamun a'laykum

On 25 Jan 1997 12:12:54 -0800, mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph)
wrote:

>How many contemporary Arab poets tried to accept this challenge? I asked
>this on SRI and spent some time in library. I could not find anything.

<<challenge referring to that of producing a surah or ten surah
like the Qur'an vide 17:88, 11:13, 10:38 & 2:23>>

Almost all contemporary poets of Muhammad's time
(PBUH & hf) tried and failed. If you can get a hold
of a list of names of pre-Islamic poets, any one of
those people would have tried.

The thing to remember is this; if any of them HAD
been successful, we'd known about it by now (!) and
there wouldn't be this thing called Islam :)

The challenge was not rhetorical but an actual one
made to all and sundry. It was first issued while
Islam was still in Mecca. Still under oppression, and
with very few followers.

Not really the best of circumstances for a phony prophet
to be mouthing off challenges.

Even Jesus AS warned those he cured NOT to tell
others of what he had done, at least in the beginning
of his ministry. Agreed, not the same thing, but the
element of secrecy was there.

I hope that clears up why it is not necessary
to know the exact detailed identities of those who
tried to rise to the challenge and failed. It's historically
moot.

wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Jochen Katz

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

In article <5cn9nt$8...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes in response to

| Milind Saraph's question:

| >How many contemporary Arab poets tried to accept this challenge? I asked
| >this on SRI and spent some time in library. I could not find anything.
| <<challenge referring to that of producing a surah or ten surah
| like the Qur'an vide 17:88, 11:13, 10:38 & 2:23>>
|
| Almost all contemporary poets of Muhammad's time
| (PBUH & hf) tried and failed. If you can get a hold
| of a list of names of pre-Islamic poets, any one of
| those people would have tried.

This is one of these absolutely inverifiable and unhelpful claims.
I imagine you must have learned about this "somewhere", right? I am
sure many would appreciate if you could be more specific. The Muslims
in order to be able to point with thorough references to evidence FOR
this claim, the non-Muslims interested in investigation of this claim
for the opportunity to research this issue. Fuzzy claims don't help
any group and I have seen so many unsubstatiated claims from many
religious groups, including Christians, that I am just not going
to believe anything anymore without some evidence to back it up.

If there were so many, surely you can give me *some* names and their
attempts which must have been preserved in order to show their
inferiority, right? If not, why not? If there is nothing left then
you are arguing from silence.

| The thing to remember is this; if any of them HAD
| been successful, we'd known about it by now (!) and
| there wouldn't be this thing called Islam :)

| The challenge was not rhetorical but an actual one
| made to all and sundry.

Whily your way of evidence-less claims is rethorical because
you prevent any investigation of it.

| It was first issued while
| Islam was still in Mecca. Still under oppression, and
| with very few followers.

But afterwards, the Muslims soon had the absolute power and could
have easily eradicated all evidence they didn't like.

So, at the beginning while Mohammad's power was small, there wasn't
much of a motivation to put in the effort, and after Muhammad was
powerful, it became dangerous to do so.

| I hope that clears up why it is not necessary
| to know the exact detailed identities of those who
| tried to rise to the challenge and failed. It's historically
| moot.

I do not understand this point. It is very relevant if you are
not satisfied with arguments from silence. But in case you want
to dig yourself into this question of the challenge, I have
collected some articles on the challenge as well as some texts
to be this challenge and issue now the challenge to explain
why these are not meeting the challenge or otherwise admit
defeat.

A still healthily growing collection is to be viewed at:

http://www.math.gatech.edu/~jkatz/Islam/Quran/Miracle/

and any you is most welcome to contribute further articles
and texts in addition to those already there.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz

Milind Saraph

unread,

Jan 29, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/29/97

za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes:

>Almost all contemporary poets of Muhammad's time >(PBUH & hf) tried and
>failed. If you can get a hold of a list of names of pre-Islamic poets,
>any one of those people would have tried.

None of the references I have checked so far support this. What basis
do you have to claim this, apart from your "common sense"?

>The thing to remember is this; if any of them HAD been successful, we'd
>known about it by now (!) and there wouldn't be this thing called Islam :)

While we are talking possibilities without any evidence whatsoever, it
is also possible that some were successful and lost their lives because
of it. Afterall history is written by victors.

>Even Jesus AS warned those he cured NOT to tell others of what he had
>done, at least in the beginning of his ministry. Agreed, not the same
>thing, but the element of secrecy was there.

What do you mean by "element of secrecy" as far as challenge is concerned?
This is the first time I am reading about this.

>I hope that clears up why it is not necessary to know the exact detailed
>identities of those who tried to rise to the challenge and failed.

No, it does not. You have asserted many things without any supporting
evidence. I would appreciate references backing these assertions.

-- Milind Saraph

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

salaamun a'laykum

---------------
[N.B. I'm answering two posts at once, so
J stands for JKatz's statements and M stands
for Milind Saraph's]
---------------

Now you see why I always tell everyone I'm no
scholar. People always want references :) It's
not like sri or the Net is the ONLY life I've got :)

IMO, time spent here is to discuss and learn,
not pore over books just so as to please people
who ACTIVELY don't want to believe anything anyway
(and I think everyone knows who I mean <g>).

Basically it's a return-to-investment thing for me
(that's my secular business training side talking).
I know no matter what proofs I bring, for some
people it's never enough. Sometimes it's difficult
to judge when someone is seriously looking for
information to learn, and when they are just
being pesky <g>

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

and then

mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) wrote:

<<basically the same argument against me>>

[J]

}This is one of these absolutely inverifiable and unhelpful claims.

How sad! :( Here I was trying to be "helpful" and Jochen says
I'm being unhelpful.

[M]

} What basis
}do you have to claim this, apart from your "common sense"?

Even my uncommon "common sense" is being
questioned. How sad! :(

I thought my statements were reasonable, i.e
based on reason :)

[J]

}I imagine you must have learned about this "somewhere", right? I am
}sure many would appreciate if you could be more specific. The Muslims

}in order to be able to point with thorough references to evidence FOR

}this claim, the non-Muslims interested in investigation of this claim

}for the opportunity to research this issue.

Why would non-Muslims want to investigate this claim? Is
it to have one more evidence against Islam :), or to become
Muslims?

If the former, then it is mischievous. And utterly futile
to bring ANY sort of evidence.

If the latter, see (much) further below.

Research with no goal in mind is silly. Or so I
think <g>

[J]

}Fuzzy claims don't help

But "fuzzy" claims are my speciality! :) I'm no scholar
as I have always testified for myself <g>

[J]

}any group and I have seen so many unsubstatiated claims from many
}religious groups, including Christians, that I am just not going
}to believe anything anymore without some evidence to back it up.

My faith in Islam does not rest on "rational" evidence. As
I'm sure Jochen's faith in his religion doesn't either :)

Otherwise he'd probably find more things wrong with
what he's believing in now, than what he seeks to "attack."
(Notice the "attack" is in inverted commas :) )

Oh! but I shouldn't mock-make. I apologize, I do tend
to get carried away at times. I know, I know, mock-making
is NOT the way to gain thawaab :)

[J]

}If there were so many, surely you can give me *some* names and their
}attempts which must have been preserved in order to show their
}inferiority, right? If not, why not? If there is nothing left then
}you are arguing from silence.

It is so difficult to not mock-make when one
is faced with statements such as the above
though :)

}| It was first issued while
}| Islam was still in Mecca. Still under oppression, and
}| with very few followers.

[J]

}But afterwards, the Muslims soon had the absolute power and could
}have easily eradicated all evidence they didn't like.

[M]

} Afterall history is written by victors

True, true. The history of Christianity bears out these
statements rather well. Oops, but I'm off-topic.

But let me explain. The moral of that statement was,
what is said about one religion can be applied to others
rather more comfortably.

The problem with issuing such charges
against Islam is we have the science of
rijaalul hadis (history of men, i.e. traditionists)
which in effect screens out known forgers
and liars. This science carries over into
verifying the validity of statements by scholars
and theologians.

In words of simple meaning, we check
where we get our stories from. No other
religion has this "transmitter-verification"
system.

And !please! don't ask me for references :) If
you don't know this, you shouldn't be here <g>

As to the charge that past Muslim scholars consciously
"hide" evidence, that's really the topic of another thread.

As to the applicabiltiy of that charge on this thread,
methinks if you haven't found ANY reference to those
who wanted to imitate the Qur'an, you haven't really gone
to the sources. The Arabic sources, that is. Like asSuyuti's
al Itqan, or asShobuni's at Tibyan, ar Rafi'i's al
I'jaz, etc.

}>Even Jesus AS warned those he cured NOT to
}>tell others of what he had
}>done, at least in the beginning of his ministry.
}>Agreed, not the same
}>thing, but the element of secrecy was there.

[M]

}What do you mean by "element of secrecy" as far as challenge
}is concerned?
}This is the first time I am reading about this.

Sorry. In my haste to be un-scholarly I pointedly
left aside several "coaches" in my train of thought
for that statement :)

It's just that I dislike writing long paragraphs
as it makes one's post rather tedious to read, don't
you think and that's why I abbreviate some times. Quite
un-scholarly, if I do say so myself :)

I meant that Jesus AS, at a similar juncture
in his ministry i.e. when he was not in a position
of power (although to think of it he was never
in a position of worldly power at any time), seeked to
keep his (God-assisted) abilities a secret to
others for whatever reason (if we are to believe
the Gospels).

[N.B. That worldly power comment was not to disparage
as Muslims are not allowed to do such a thing about
true prophets of Allah.]

However, Muhammad (PBUH & hf) saw fit
to announce the challenge (which vexed his
opponents in those days, as it continues to
vex a certain C missionary to THIS day <g>)
rather publicly. A study of the period of
revelation of those aayaah will bear this
out (and you can do your own research
on that one! <g>).

And I did say, it was NOT the same thing,
in that it is not an analogy to the challenge as
a challenge, but an analogy to the fact that
a prophet in a position of "powerlessness"
does not gad about announcing this or the
other to his opponents, where his opponents
can "swat him like a fly" (nau'dzu billahi min
dzaliik).

See how many "coaches" I can shunt
out of the way when I really try ;>

Be that as it may, as I was walking by my
desk, I tripped and a book fell open to this page
where it just so happened to list down some
names for your edification :) Marvellous how
these things happen, don't you think?

----------------

Abul Walid, one of the best Arab poets was sent
by the Quraish to counter Muhammad's daa'wa
(P), and when the Qur'an was read out to him, he came
away and said to his people, "I have never heard
such beautiful words; those words were not poetry,
not magic and not sooth-sayings. Not the words of
a man, it is too high (in eloquence) and none can
overcome it." (cited in Knowing the Qur'an, Drs. Ruslan
Adjun, P.104, Pustaka Al Mizan, 1986).

This was also reported in Tareekh (history book) and
can also be found in hadith. If you don't believe
in hadith, well, as the British would say, "HARD
CHEESE!" :)

There have been similar (in meaning) ahadith quoted
by the more scholarly participants on sri on this and
other threads discussing the virtues of the Qur'an. If
that doesn't satisfy as regards to mutawwatir (oft-quoted
and many-sourced) status, well.... "HARD CHEESE!"
again.

The following cited in History of Al Qur'an, Prof. Dr.
Abubakar Aceh, pp. 57-61, CV Ramadhani, 1989
6th Edition.

1. Musaylimah Al Khadhab
Descended from the Bani Hanifah in Yamamah. He
wrote several passages (which he calls surah) about
plants, goats, elephants, and singing frogs.

Jahiz in his book al hayawan, said after reading
Musaylimah's effort about the frogs: "I do not understand
what drove Musaylimah's soul to speak of frogs and such!
How despicable this thing he claims came upon him
by Allah's revelation!"

A sample can be found from Jochen's page, if I'm
not mistaken :)

2. Abhalah bin K'ab aka Aswad
Descended from the Ausi. He claimed an "angel"
wearing a burnoose came to him with revelation, so
that he came to be known also as Zul Himar (the one
with the burnoose).

Abhalah was a great poet and orator of the times. He
was known in Yemen as a sooth-sayer.

He was killed exactly one day before the death of
Muhammad (P).

3. Thalhah ibn Khuwailid Al Asadi
Before his claim to prophethood, he was a renowned
warrior. He even visited the Prophet (P) in the ninth
year Hijrah with Asad binti Khuzaimah and proclaimed
his Islam to the Prophet (P).

He claimed to be visited by an angel called Zannun, whom
he took for Jibrael AS.

Some of his efforts are to be found in Mu'jamul
Buldan.

Abu Bakar (r) was vigorous in his efforts to stamp out
this heresy, and sent Khalid bin Walid (r) to attack
Thalhah with the aid of 700 warriors from Uyainah of
the Bani Farazah. During this battle, Thalahah was defeated
and immediately proclaimed his Islam.

He was eventually martyred at Qadishah.

4. Sajah binti Haris bin Suwaid
Descended from the bani Tamim. She was an Arabist
of renown, and was a former Christian. She claimed
prophethood during Abu Bakar's caliphate (r) and
competed with Musaylimah in "prophethood".

Her "career" took a nosedive when she claimed to
have received revelation that she should marry
Musaylimah.

The book Al aghani recorded that among the
revelations she received was that the earth
be divided into two: one half for her, and the other
half for the Quraish (i.e. the Muslims).

When her prophethood failed, she converted
to Islam and ended her days as a good
muslimah.

5. An Nazar
He never claimed prophethood, but averred that
his writings were the equal to the Qur'an. He created
several passages on the subject of Persian history, but were
"overlooked" (i.e. rejected) by all the linguists of the time.

6. Ibn Muqaffa
A much admired linguist, his work called ad Durarul
Yatimah was regarded by some to be a reply to the
challenge of the Qur'an. However, Mustafa Sadiq Raf'i'
in his book I'jazul Qur'an (Egypt, 1928) concluded that
this was untrue, and it was his opinion that Ibn Muqaffa
never intended it to be any such thing.

It was reported that Ibn Muqaffa had torn up some
of his own works when he heard some Qur'anic aayaah
recited which showed him the real comparison between
his efforts and that of the Qur'an.

7. Qabus bin Washamkir
No details supplied.

8. Ibn Ruwandi aka Abulhasan Ahmad bin Yahya
His father, Yahya was a Jew before embracing Islam. Ibn
Ruwandi was one of the mu'tazilite sect, and he authored
over 114 books, such At Taj, Faried, QaDHibuzzahab,
al Marjan, az Zamarradah and Na'tul Hikmah.

9. Al Mutannabi aka Abu Thayyib Ahmad bin Husein
Al Ju'fi
Born in Kufah, Iraq in 915 Common Era. Died 955 CE.

He claimed prophethood while in Badiyah Samawah, a
place between Kufah and Sham. Most of his followers
were of the Bani Kalb.

10. A'la al Maari
Many thought that he tried to accept the challenge of
the Qur'an through his work al Fusuul wal Khayat fi
Majarrati Suwari wal Ayat.

It was reported that he wrote a letter where he admitted
that he gave up and tore his own creations upon hearing
some portions of the Qur'an being recited.

Said letter is not in my hands to show you, unfortunately.

--------------

If the above has been helpful in any way towards
your seeing the truth of Islam, then your guidance
only comes from Him, your Creator and mine.

If instead, any of the above has increased your
disbelief in the message of Islam, then it is
only your choice, and none but yourself can be blamed
when the Day of Reckoning comes, where no
soul shall be burdened with other than from the
results of his own actions.

May Allah guide those who wish to see.

wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Benelyas

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

Mr Katz,

I am absolutely tired of your constant unidirectional thinking. You are
desperate to prove that Islam is not a religion worhty of following. Many
before you have tried. They, However, failed. To your chagrin, Islam
continues to be one of the worlds most prominent religions. Why don't you
try to build bridges to other faiths following jesus example. let's work
togther and cooperate on what we agree upon. The rest, to each his own.
Your tactics will not win you any converts, trust me. Hatered, malice,
propaganda will only hurt its perpetrator. so stop being a fanatic and get
with it!

Benjamin Benelyasar
(a jew)

AbdulraHman Lomax

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

as-salamu alaykum.

I believe that I have generally answered the charges of grammatical
error in the Qur'an in another post, pointing out that the mere
existence of an anomaly does not prove error. Unless one is a
"schoolmarm," to borrow a slightly offensive term from Br. Haddad.

Teachers are charged with the task of educating their students in the
norm. For this reason they will call an anomalous usage an "error."
Some of us go through life believing that what we were taught in
school is the absolute truth. No, they were teaching us "standard"
English, and from *that* point of view the anomalous usage, unless it
is established by consensus, is wrong, and if I used it intending to
use standard English, I was wrong. But if my usage were intentional,
for some desired effect, it would not be wrong, though it would be
non-standard, and I ain't gonna to be treated this a way.

I have started to follow with some interest the debate over the use of
"Ebonics" in the Oakland California school system. Ebonics is a trendy
term for African American vernacular English. It turns out that
Ebonics has its own grammatical rules. For example, in standard
English, we say, "his, hers, theirs, yours, ours, mine." In Ebonics,
the first person singular form is "mines" or "mies" at least that was
claimed on National Public Radio. Ebonics actually is more regular
than standard English.

Is Ebonics wrong? What if, for some reason, Allah were to reveal a
part of the Qur'an in a non-standard dialect? By what standard would
we say that it was wrong, an error?

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

>The mistakes listed in the chapter by Mr. Newton are NOT things he has
>cooked up himself, but were mistakes recognized by the companions or
>early scholars of the Qur'an. They were mistakes at the time the
>Qur'an was revealed. That is the whole point.

The anomalies listed are places where early scholars recognised a
non-standard usage. Written languages in a literate culture tend to
crystallize and simplify, compared to oral languages, where the rules
can shift and bend a lot. Look at English before Shakespeare. As the
rules crystallize, a non-standard usage that might otherwise pass
almost unnoticed comes to grate on the ears. Now, Arabic as a written
language pretty much crystallized with the Qur'an. What these
anomalies boil down to is a certain apparent inconsistency in the
Qur'anic grammar. Now, Arabic, like English, is full of exceptions to
rules. These exceptions are not mistakes, in fact, if an exception is
established, it may be a "mistake" to fail to follow the exception. An
example in English is that first person singular "s" mentioned above.

What one can get from a careful examination of the alleged "errors" is
that apparently Allah, SWT, has not followed the rules developed by
later grammarians from his Book. Now, what does this mean?

The knowledgeable say, "it is from Allah, all of it."

Khalid...

unread,

Jan 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM1/31/97

More than a week have passed and Jkatz have failed to explain one of
the so called grammatical errors that have been claimed by Mr Newton
and blindly accepted by our fellow here !! , in an indication that he
is only a talky person who don't know anything of the claims he is
posting .

Making allegations and then failing to back it up in a rational
discussion is a sick joke . all the discussion in this manner is only
a waste of time , and does not return any profit .

I don't care what Jkatz goals are , as far as i'm concerned he have
proven one thing , and that is his failure , and I'm sure that the
time he and his friends , Newton and Rafiqul-Haqq , had was more than
enough , therefore to me this discussion is over .

Note: Newton and Rafiqul-Haqq didn't show up at all in any time , that
is after more than 2 weeks of expressing their willingness to discuss
this subject in the public , they didn't show up in this group or any
other group who says otherwise is a liar .

---------------
Khalid.....
---------------

AbdulraHman Lomax

unread,

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97

AS-salamu 'alaykum.

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Mr. Newton's answer to Mr. Lomax.

>In article <5cdpee$s...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
>mar...@ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:

>>If a poet writes, "the dog run fast," is this an error? We might say
>>that it is a grammatical error, but, in fact, there is only a certain
>>mismatch between the phrase and our expectations from the rules of
>>grammar. A poet may *use* this expectation to cause certain reactions
>>in the mind of the listener, and if the usage is deliberate and
>>effective, it is legitimate to call it an error?

>Mr Lomax has misrepresented all the work of the poets he read. Can he
>please quote a real situation where a poet wrote something like
>"the dog run fast"?

Okay, I'll work on it. My library is a bit deficient on poetry, but
I've got some books of Bob Dylan's songs. That ought to do.

Meanwhile, I am flattered that by a few words I can "misrepresent all
the work of the poets" I have read. Notice that Newton is making quite
a tall claim: that no poet has ever deliberately violated grammatical
expectations.

>We might find something like that in our surrealistic, elastic,
>undisciplined generation, but would expect that from any earlier
>work of poetry and surely not from a divinly inspired book that
>boast of its uniquness.

Darn. That rules out Bob Dylan. But what if Dylan is divinely
"inspired." Certainly I know a lot of people who have thought that.

"I'm a poet. I know it. Hope I don't blow it."

Notice that the subject of the verb "hope" is missing. Of course, this
is colloquial.

"If dogs run free, then why not we, across the swooping plain ....
If dogs run free, then why not me, across the swamp of time ...."

The first of these lines is the first line of the song "If Dogs Run
Free." My formal grammar in English is weak: I know grammar by usage
rather than by rules. But it appears to me that he has used the
nominative 'we' in place of the expected accusative 'us.' Or one might
argue that the 'we' is correct but the 'not' should be 'don't." But
then the "me" in the second sentence would be incorrect.

If I were writing, attempting to stay within the bounds of standard
English, I would have a lot of difficulty with this bit of text: "If
dogs run free, then why don't we..." so far, it still scans. "If dogs
run free, then why don't I." It works, but it does not keep the
parallel rhyme that Dylan was apparently looking for in this poem.

But a creative poet cuts the Gordian knot of the rules of language,
and instead *uses* language and rules (including variations from
normal expectations such as puns and "incorrect" grammar) to produce a
desired effect. Obviously, if he does not follow *any* rules, he will
fail in communication.

> Even if a poet resorts to such a trick, he is doing it because he
>is stuck and can not balance his poem. This should not be so with
>the maker of languages.

This presumes that the perfection of God is perfectly reflected in his
creation. However, he always leaves a sign in his creation that it is
he who is perfect, and not the creation.

All this is in discussion of a set of broken rules in the Qur'an. Now,
the Qur'an did not explicitly state the rules of grammar; they were
inferred, later, by the grammarians. Uneducated speakers of a language
are often unable to state the rules of the language, they just know an
anomaly when they see it, and they may call the anomaly incorrect, or
recognise that the one who has spoken it is speaking another dialect.

The anomaly that comes to mind is the use of an accusative for one
item in a list of items in the nominative. Obviously, this is an
anomaly. but there *is* more than one example of such case
substitution in the Qur'an. Others have pointed out how such a case
substitution may have an emphatic effect.

In such a list, the variation is essentially a substitution of a ya
for a waw. It does not change the rhythm. It would be effortless to
make the substitution.

And it does stand out, quite obviously. So we *must* conclude that
this anomaly has been deliberately preserved. If it is a copyist
error, it must be an error in the 'Uthmanic text, and its preservation
would be proof of the care with which that text was preserved. But I
do wonder at the concept of such an error, reproduced across the six
or so copies produced by 'Uthman (R.A.) for distribution. There are
those (non-Muslim) scholars who speculate that the hadith regarding
the compilation of the Qur'an by 'Uthman are later inventions; Burton,
I think, would assert this. If, instead, there was a single master
text compiled by those who knew the Qur'an and then all copies
descended from that, this would explain the matter.

Of course, in the traditional story, there *was* such a single text,
the Abu Bakr rescension, but the preparation of the 'Uthmanic copies
from it was reportedly supervised by the same person who compiled the
Abu Bakr text, so it would be odd for him to consider himself
constrained to preserve a copyist error.

Instead, I take the traditional position and read the text as I have
received it and do not question these details. In other words, I
accept the creation as I find it. "If you think you see a flaw in the
creation of God, look again. Your sight will return to you amazed."

>Finally he is appealing to a human standard (a poet) but here we are
>talking about a divine standard.

Odd that the non-Muslim is insisting on a divine standard for
language....

Arabic is a *human* language, but Allah has chosen it to convey his
message. *Who is talking about a divine standard?"

All the standards mentioned so far have been *human* standards. It is
humans who develop the rules of grammar. Allah, of course, is the
cause of all things, but grammar he creates through us. Grammar is a
collection of rules, and Allah is not bound by any rule except mercy.

>But Mr. Lomax is not far off the mark when he finally admitted

>> ... But there are,
>>most certainly and without doubt, known variations in both the written
>>texts and the recited text. They are quite small

>The above should read:

>But there are, most certainly and without doubt,
>known (grammatical) variations (errors) in both the written texts
>and the recited text. They are quite small (but they cannot be denied).

I was not writing about grammatical variations, I was writing about
textual variations between manuscripts of the Qur'an. Newton's
substitution of the term "error" for "variation" is gratuitously
offensive, and is hardly objective, absent a specific definition of
"error" for use in this context.

Because it dampens the polemic, such a definition has not been
offerred. Polemicists prefer to maintain the accidental meanings of
words. "Anomaly" is objective, "error" implies a defect in intention
or realization; it implies a lack of knowledge or an inability to put
the knowledge into practice.

Let me put this another way, speaking to a non-Muslim. Suppose that
Allah intended to put a sign in the Qur'an that it was *not* from him.
Perhaps, in this line of thought, he put a grammatical anomaly in the
Qur'an as a message to this effect. But if this is the case, then it
would not be an "error." Rather it would be a deliberate sign.

However, he never promised that the grammar of the Qur'an would
conform to our expectations, and, in fact, the Qur'an is full of
surprises and unexplained quirks. A.L.M. this is the book, no doubt
about it.

AbdulraHman Lomax

unread,

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97

as-salamu 'alaykum.

kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) wrote:

>Note: Newton and Rafiqul-Haqq didn't show up at all in any time , that
>is after more than 2 weeks of expressing their willingness to discuss
>this subject in the public , they didn't show up in this group or any
>other group who says otherwise is a liar .

I do wonder of moderator Hashem agrees with what moderator Hampton has
said about the use of the word "liar" in posts on s.r.i., or if he
merely overlooked it here....

There have been posts from Newton, in particular, here, though they
were forwarded by Jochen Katz. I have a response to one in queue
waiting to be finished. Does my acknowledgement of this make me a
liar?

And may the curse of Allah be on the liars.

Ahmad Hashem

unread,

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97

Assalamu alaikum AbdulraHman,

>>Note: Newton and Rafiqul-Haqq didn't show up at all in any time , that
>>is after more than 2 weeks of expressing their willingness to discuss
>>this subject in the public , they didn't show up in this group or any
>>other group who says otherwise is a liar .
>
>I do wonder of moderator Hashem agrees with what moderator Hampton has
>said about the use of the word "liar" in posts on s.r.i., or if he
>merely overlooked it here....

As I view it, the word "liar" is not appropriate if used against a
specific individual(s) and/or without evidence/backing. Saying that
"anyone who says otherwise is a liar" does not strike me as an attack
against a specific individual. Further, the statement is backed by a
premise that is explicitly stated -- one that was questioned by you in
fact.

Salaam,
Ahmad Hashem

Milind Saraph

unread,

Feb 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/1/97

za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes:

>People always want references :) It's not like sri or the Net is the
>ONLY life I've got :)

People want references because they are not scholars. Yes, everyone has
a life outside the NET and if you want to back off this thread, it is OK
with me.

>IMO, time spent here is to discuss and learn, not pore over books just so
>as to please people who ACTIVELY don't want to believe anything anyway
>(and I think everyone knows who I mean <g>).

I agree this is a place to discuss and learn. However if you wish to
go beyond the superficialities, you need to refer to scholarly works.
Assuming you are referring to me, what makes you think that I am not
a believer of some kind. Not that I am saying that I am -- or for that
matter that I am not. It is not relevant.

>Sometimes it's difficult to judge when someone is seriously looking for
>information to learn, and when they are just being pesky

Generally it is not possible to judge a poster's motives, so why not
just focus on substance of the discussion.

>>What basis do you have to claim this, apart from your "common sense"?

>Even my uncommon "common sense" is being questioned. How sad! :(

To be honest, I am not questioning your "common sense." When I heard
this challenge repeated a number of times, I expected there to be dozens
of attempts.

>Why would non-Muslims want to investigate this claim? Is it to have one
>more evidence against Islam :), or to become Muslims?

Why not? Why shouldn't non-Muslims learn about Islam? Surely, if
non-Muslims are misrepresenting or are giving out erroneous information,
you can correct them.

>My faith in Islam does not rest on "rational" evidence.

I understand that and I have not suggested otherwise.

>In words of simple meaning, we check where we get our stories from. No other
>religion has this "transmitter-verification" system.

This is "best effort" by humans. Short of a divine guarantee, this can
never be perfect as humans are fallible.

>As to the applicabiltiy of that charge on this thread, methinks if you
>haven't found ANY reference to those who wanted to imitate the Qur'an,
>you haven't really gone to the sources. The Arabic sources, that is.
>Like asSuyuti's al Itqan, or asShobuni's at Tibyan, ar Rafi'i's al I'jaz,
> etc.

I am limited by whatever is available in translations at our library. That
is why I posted my article on SRI, so others can comment on it and point
me to more references.

Incidentally, yours is the first post whch has provided references/details
on the subject. I tried to find translations of Soyuti's works.

>It's just that I dislike writing long paragraphs as it makes one's post
>rather tedious to read, don't you think and that's why I abbreviate some
>times.

Verbosity is no virtue but abbreviation at the expense of coherence is
certainly a "vice." (:-)).

> ... but an analogy to the fact that a prophet in a position of

>"powerlessness" does not gad about announcing this or the other to his
>opponents,

Were all the "challenge" verses revealed in Mecca? Something to check.

>(cited in Knowing the Qur'an, Drs. Ruslan Adjun, P.104, Pustaka Al
>Mizan, 1986).

...

>The following cited in History of Al Qur'an, Prof. Dr. Abubakar Aceh,
>pp. 57-61, CV Ramadhani, 1989 6th Edition.

I dont have access to these references (as you say HARD CHEESE). I will
pay for postage and copying if you can copy the relevant pages and send
them to me.

In the following you seem to be mixing up between those claimed to be
prophets and those who tried to accept the challenge. I am interested
in the latter not the former.

>1. Musaylimah Al Khadhab

I referred to him in my article. According to Paret, these could be
later inventions to brand him as a clumsy imitator.

>2. Abhalah bin K'ab aka Aswad

>He was killed exactly one day before the death of Muhammad (P).

Why was he killed? He claimed to be a prophet but did he try to accept the
challenge?

>3. Thalhah ibn Khuwailid Al Asadi

Did he try to accept the challenge? From your description it does not
seem so.

>4. Sajah binti Haris bin Suwaid

Did she try to accept the challenge? From your description it does not
seem so.

>5. An Nazar
>He never claimed prophethood, but averred that his writings were the
>equal to the Qur'an. He created >several passages on the subject of
>Persian history, but were "overlooked" (i.e. rejected) by all the
>linguists of the time.

OK, here seems to be a legitimate candidate.

>6. Ibn Muqaffa

As you say, it is doubtful.

>7. Qabus bin Washamkir No details supplied.

>8. Ibn Ruwandi aka Abulhasan Ahmad bin Yahya

Did he try to accept the challenge? From your description it does not
seem so.

>9. Al Mutannabi aka Abu Thayyib Ahmad bin Husein

Did he try to accept the challenge? From your description it does not
seem so.

>10. A'la al Maari

I have included him in my article. Paret doubts whether Marrari intended
his work to be an imitation.

You have provided 10 names, of those I was aware of only Marrari and
Musaylimah. An Nazar is an addition. From your description of the rest
it is not entirely clear whether they tried to accept the challenge. As
you say some of them claimed to be prophets. In many societies it was
dangerous to do so.

-- Milind Saraph

Milind Saraph

unread,

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97

Massou...@sdsu.edu (Massoud Ajami) writes:

>These four people gave theirself one year to come on with something to
>invalidate Quran, ....

>But when 11-46 was sent to the prophet and he read it to the people, all the
>great of language scholars ordered to bring down the seven hangings for the
>purpose of not being embarrassed!!

Thanks for providing this information. I would appreciate if you can provide
reference for these names/incidents.

-- Milind Saraph

Khalid...

unread,

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97

On 1 Feb 1997 16:45:26 GMT, mar...@ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) wrote:

>There have been posts from Newton, in particular, here, though they
>were forwarded by Jochen Katz. I have a response to one in queue
>waiting to be finished. Does my acknowledgement of this make me a
>liar?
>
>And may the curse of Allah be on the liars.
>

Mr Lomax

Jkatz after conveying an email he recieved form Newton said in article
.<5c33kn$h...@shell3.ba.best.com>
>Mr. Newton will be most willing to respond to your further details if
>you chose to carry on this discussion in this forum. As you see from
>the above quotes, Muslim scholars have already admitted that those
>are errors in the text of the Qur'an. This was not Mr. Newton's
>personal idea.

after that I didn't hear any thing from Newton directly or indirectly,
And in case if you don't know the background of this thread it all
started in <news:alt.religion.islam > and have been shifted here as
the most appropriate place for such a discussion in hope that Newton
would participate in the discussion , but mr. Newton did not show up
in any other posts , I hope this can clear up the confusion in your
mind .

Also if you thought what was in Jkatz article
<5c6u29$c...@shell3.ba.best.com> was a respond from Mr Newton then you
are wrong , it was a copy of the grammatical errors page , nothing
more .

So if you can tell me where I can find mr. Newton respond I would be
very happy to look at it , and apologize , if there were any respond
from mr Newton and perhaps my server don't have it , then I would
appreciate it if you can send it to me .

you are making me confused !!!

--------------
Khalid....
-------------

Khalid...

unread,

Feb 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/2/97

Brother Lomax

Thank you for sending me the response of mr. newton , I must have
unintentionally overlooked it , I thought it was only a response from
Jkatz because * and I am shocked* it doesn't represent a person who
should at least have some information on the subject of the Arabic
grammar .

Anyway that does not make me right , therefore I am apologizing to you
as I said and I repeat I didn't planned to overlook Newton response ,
which came in article id<5ch5r6$h...@shell3.ba.best.com> as you can see
it is hard to know who is saying what !

I finally hope that you haven't ended your message with that kind of
"duaa"

And Ramadan kareem to you

--------------
Khalid...
---------------

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97

salaamun a'laykum

mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu (Milind Saraph) wrote:
[I wrote:]

}>In words of simple meaning, we check where we get our stories from.
No other
}>religion has this "transmitter-verification" system.
}
}This is "best effort" by humans. Short of a divine guarantee, this
can
}never be perfect as humans are fallible.

Ah but the "divine guarantee" IS in the Qur'an :) So
fallible humans have been verified by the ISNAD system
as well as received the guarantee that what they have
transmitted is actualy what was revealed.

But we can go back and forth on this human fallibility
until the skies drop down. There has to be a point where
one has to stop somewhere and say Yes, I believe this
is as honest as it gets. Or no, this is plain dishonest
and I don't want no part of it.

Either way, it is a choice one has to make. And no
self-respecting Muslim is going to force anyone to pick
either one.

As to the divine guarantee as guaranteed by the
Qur'an itself, well some have said, how can something
testify for itself. To a point this is true, and this is where
"blind" faith kicks in. Or perhaps someone can explain this
better than I can :)

However, to put it another way, the divine nature of
the Qur'an is explainable by other means as well, which
go beyond its grammatical eloquence. So one still comes
back to square one: at which point is enough evidence,
enough?

}I am limited by whatever is available in translations at our library.
That
}is why I posted my article on SRI, so others can comment on it and
point
}me to more references.

A very good point and if you feel you've been hard done by
by my remarks, please accept my sincerest apologies. As you
say, motives are difficult to gauge here in Usenetworld. And it is
often "easier" to impute "bad" motives on others than oneself.
But questions asked forthrightly and plainly are seldom unanswered.
Least not so far as I've seen on sri.

}
}Incidentally, yours is the first post whch has provided
references/details
}on the subject. I tried to find translations of Soyuti's works.

Strange you say this. Normally there's a bunch of
knowledgeable people with the right kind of info
on sri. Perhaps as I alluded to above, your question
was not clear.

I don't think there is any English translation of Suyuti, btw.

}Verbosity is no virtue but abbreviation at the expense of coherence
is
}certainly a "vice." (:-)).

I shall try to remember this.

One sometimes assumes the other persons reading
one's "rantings" knows or has background
info on what one "rants" about. It's unfair to bore
readers, and some think one is trying to show off.

}I dont have access to these references

It would be of singularly little use to you unless
you translate foreign languages :)

I had to translate them into English if you'd notice
the poor grammatical structure of my message. The
exact topic of this thread too :)

}In the following you seem to be mixing up between those claimed to be
}prophets and those who tried to accept the challenge. I am
interested
}in the latter not the former.

The false prophets had claimed they received revelations ala
the Qur'an. That was why they were included.

}
}>1. Musaylimah Al Khadhab
}
}I referred to him in my article. According to Paret, these could be
}later inventions to brand him as a clumsy imitator.

Paret may have prejudicially believed so. One must remember
the early Orientalists started their research with the hypothesis
that the Qur'an was recorded by Muhammad. It is not too difficult
to come up with rationalizations of this or the other.

Besides, it would be easier to just relegate him to the
backwaters of history and no one woudl notice. To say
that the Muslim scholars deliberately concocted writings
on his behalf is rather stretching it, I think.

Unless if they had something to hide. oooh, a conspiracy...
<g>

}
}>2. Abhalah bin K'ab aka Aswad
}
}>He was killed exactly one day before the death of Muhammad (P).
}
}Why was he killed? He claimed to be a prophet but did he try to
accept the
}challenge?

No further details other than what I had written.

}
}>3. Thalhah ibn Khuwailid Al Asadi
}
}Did he try to accept the challenge? From your description it does
not
}seem so.

I wrote that some of his efforts are recorded
in the mu'jamul buldan. So yes, he did accept the challenge.

As to where you can get a hold of this book, I understand
there is some kind of bibliography of Arabic works collected by
some German scholar whose name I can't recall at the moment.

}
}>4. Sajah binti Haris bin Suwaid
}
}Did she try to accept the challenge? From your description it does
not
}seem so.

The book al aghani recorded that she did receive
revelation although there is no explicit mention
of whether those attempts were also recorded
in it. I presume so, but my access to that original
source is unfortunately, limited too :(

}>6. Ibn Muqaffa

}>8. Ibn Ruwandi aka Abulhasan Ahmad bin Yahya

}>9. Al Mutannabi aka Abu Thayyib Ahmad bin Husein

Apparently no actual attempts were made but the
intention was there. Which lends credence to
the assertion that part of the i'jaz relates to
NOT EVEN being able to do it.

}>10. A'la al Maari
}
}I have included him in my article. Paret doubts whether Marrari
intended
}his work to be an imitation.

As I said, he too tore up his effort, so he did intend to try.

}You have provided 10 names, of those I was aware of only Marrari and
}Musaylimah. An Nazar is an addition. From your description of the
rest
}it is not entirely clear whether they tried to accept the challenge.
As
}you say some of them claimed to be prophets. In many societies it
was
}dangerous to do so.

Have you read the Bible? Although NOT a proof
in any sense of the word or as believed by Muslims
anyway, there is a saying attributed to Moses AS
wherein he said, "and the false prophet, he shall be
killed" or something along those lines. Now, if we
hold that as a criteria, does this tell you something?

This is why Jesus AS could not have been killed, or so
some have argued, because then he would've been
a false prophet. Which is untrue, as he was a true prophet.
And that's why Muhammad (PBUH & hf) died a natural
death.

As for these others who claimed prophethood....

Bear in mind I'm deliberately shunting aside some
"coaches" on the train of thought here because I
think you're more than capable of filling in the blanks.

But yes, you're right that no explicit mentions were
made as to their attempts. Presumably they did
try but they didn't leave anything behind.

}
}-- Milind Saraph

wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Jochen Katz

unread,

Feb 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/3/97

In article <5d2q94$k...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

| Brother Lomax
|
| Thank you for sending me the response of mr. newton , I must have
| unintentionally overlooked it ,

good that you have realized your error in your mock message before
I would have responded. So I don't have to dwell on this.

| I thought it was only a response from
| Jkatz because * and I am shocked* it doesn't represent a person who
| should at least have some information on the subject of the Arabic
| grammar .

Mr. Newton has replied and will continue to reply, but there are people
who have actually to care for more than just grammar [family for example]
so that it might take a few days longer.

Furthermore, have you ever wondered why only non-Arabs have come to
your aid in this discussion? Could it be that the Arabs on this
newsgroup could very clearly see that Mr. Newton is right while you
are wrong in your responses to these grammar errors? Maybe they didn't
want to contradict you publically, but neither did they want to speak
against the clear rules of Arabic grammar. So they just kept quiet.
Just a personal thought on this observation.

Anyway, the problem is that this issue is highly emotional and
potentially dangerous for Mr. Newton, and for this reason he wants
to make sure nobody knows where he is. That is the reason I am
forwarding his responses for him. His email header [configuration/
software] gives away too much info at this time -- but we are working
on it and hopefully he will be able to post himself in the near future.
So far, a forwarded response is a response just as well.

Best regards,

Jochen Katz

C2411 (Raef)

unread,

Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97

Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote in article

<5d5290$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>...

> In article <5d2q94$k...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
> kh5...@emirates.net.ae (Khalid...) writes:

[Deleted Text]

>
> Furthermore, have you ever wondered why only non-Arabs have come to
> your aid in this discussion? Could it be that the Arabs on this
> newsgroup could very clearly see that Mr. Newton is right while you
> are wrong in your responses to these grammar errors? Maybe they didn't

> want to contradict you publicly, but neither did they want to speak

> against the clear rules of Arabic grammar. So they just kept quiet.
> Just a personal thought on this observation.

[Deleted Text]

> Jochen Katz

Now you are fishing in a still water.

Knowledge is not confined to a sect, race or tongue.

Many non-Arabs through history have always proven to be better at
the Islamic and Arabic sciences.

Arabs are there and they have also good knowledge of their language and
religion.

the fact is that most do not have a good command of English and fey have
access
to the Internet.

Our moslem brothers in India, Pakistan and other places are ahead of us in
the command of English and on using the Internet.

But do not worry too much you are not here dealing with khalid, khan,
Lomax, Rice or the others you are really dealing with the inner deep voices
inside you. And they will be answered and what you are doing is great favor
to many Muslims by allowing others to answer for then questions that have
always needed answers for but for the lack of books, and communications
they never got it.

But now with Internet entering every house, any one any where can ask and
get the answer almost immediately. what a wonderful world.

It is true what the prophet said, Islam will enter every house either
raising it or lowering it. (excuse my poor translation).

Peace.

Zaharuddin Fikri

unread,

Feb 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/4/97

salaamun a'laykum

I had wrote:

}As to where you can get a hold of this book, I understand
}there is some kind of bibliography of Arabic works collected by
}some German scholar whose name I can't recall at the moment.

Carl Brockelmann's Geschichte der Arabischen Literatur (pub.
1949) or the newer Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums
(pub. ?) by Fuat Sezgin.

wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri

Khalid...

unread,

Feb 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/5/97

On 3 Feb 1997 16:03:44 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:

> Mr. Newton, and for this reason he wants to make sure nobody knows where he is.

Jkatz

I don't have any bad feelings towards you, but again you are
speculating on irrelevant issues here , and if I may say I never heard
you sound so weak in you'r justifications as you sound in this
message .

Ramadan mubarak
--------------
Khalid....
--------------

Milind Saraph

unread,

Feb 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/6/97

za...@ibm.net (Zaharuddin Fikri) writes:

>Ah but the "divine guarantee" IS in the Qur'an :)

Does the Quran guarantee that the verification system employed later to
put together the Quran is free of error?

>A very good point and if you feel you've been hard done by
>by my remarks, please accept my sincerest apologies.

Thanks. Not really necessary.

>But questions asked forthrightly and plainly are seldom unanswered.
>Least not so far as I've seen on sri.

I disagree and will leave it at that.

>But yes, you're right that no explicit mentions were made as to their
>attempts. Presumably they did try but they didn't leave anything behind.

This is where I disagree. A reasonable interpretation may be that the
challenge was a rhetotical device.

-- Milind Saraph

omar...@aol.com

unread,

Feb 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM2/8/97

In article <5d5290$2...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Jochen Katz
<jk...@math.gatech.edu> writes:

>Furthermore, have you ever wondered why only non-Arabs
have come to >your aid in this discussion? Could it be that
the Arabs on this >newsgroup could very clearly see that
Mr. Newton is right while you >are wrong in your responses
to these grammar errors? Maybe they didn't >want to contradict

you publically, but neither did they want to speak >against the

clear rules of Arabic grammar. So they just kept quiet.
>Just a personal thought on this observation.

The above is a very bold, yet very naive, statement from
Jochen Katz. Combine naivety with boldness, and add
some rancor, what do you get?:)
Maybe the Arabs, defined by those who speak Arabic,
don't feel the need to refute someone who doesn't speak
Arabic. The Grammar Mr Newton refering to is taught in
modern 9th grade Arabic schools. Yet he is Judging the
Quran by it.

>From another angle, the "Arabs" also are able to read and
compare the Bible in Arabic ( which is not less than any other
Bible translation, since that is all you have) with the Quran
in its original language. Needless to say, the Bible, or any
other book in that matter, doesn't stand the chance to
be compared with the Quran, even christians well vouch for
that, linguestic wise. Of course, the Quran lose its linguistic
grandiose when translated.

In spite of that, the Arabic speaking are the minority among the
Muslim world. Isn't that amazing?

Peace

0 new messages