-
Is The Quran Infallible ABDUL AL FADI (PART 1)
1:A Feminine Subject with a Masculine Predicate
Question108:We read in Sura al-Araf (7:56): “(Surely the mercy of God is nigh).”
اِنَّ رَحۡمَتَ اللّٰہِ قَرِیۡبٌ مِّنَ الۡمُحۡسِنِیۡنَ Sura al-Araf (7:56)
In this verse, the Arabic for “nigh” is qaribun. This predicate is masculine while the subject Rahman (“mercy”) is feminine. Had the Qur1an preserved the agreement between the subject and the predicate, it would say qaribatun.
2:. A Nominative Noun That Should Be Accusative
Question 106: We read in Sura al-Maida 5:69: “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans…:’
. اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا وَ الَّذِیۡنَ ہَادُوۡا وَ الصّٰبِـُٔوۡنَ (Sura al-Maida 5:69)
This verse in the original Arabic has the word for Sabaeans (sabi- iun) in the nominative, but it ought to be in the accusative because it is added to all the previous nouns that are accusative themselves as a result of following inna. Thus the word for Sabaeans should have been sabi-ina, which appears in Surah al-Baqarah 2:62 and ai-Hall 22:17.
3:. The Subject Is Incorrectly Accusative
Question 107:We read in Sura al-Baqarah 2:124: “Covenant shall not reach the evildoers.”
قَالَ لَا یَنَالُ عَہۡدِی الظّٰلِمِیۡنَ Sura al-Baqarah 2:124
This wrong and awkward translation is in tact a result of an unbelievable grammatical mistake in the Arabic Qur1an. The Quran) meant to say, “The evildoers shall not attain to My covenant,” but since the word al-zalimin (‘the evildoers)’1 appears in the accusative rather than the correct nominative, the translator ended up saying that the covenant does not reach the evildoers, an image that is very foreign to the Arabic mind. Infact, the Quran) should have simply said al-.zalimun, and the problem would have been solved
4. An Incorrect Plural Verb and Pronoun
Question 110: We read in Sura ai-Hall 22:19: ”These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord.”
ہٰذٰنِ خَصۡمٰنِ اخۡتَصَمُوۡا فِیۡ رَبِّہِمۡ Sura ai-Hall 22:19
This sentence reads thus in Arabic: “Hadsan khasman ikh-tasamu fi rabbihim.” The verb ikhtasamu (“disputed”) is plural, and the possessive pronoun in the word rabbihim refers also to a plural antecedent. The Quran) ought to have attached a dual ending to the verb and a dual possessive pronoun to the word rabb. The sentence should be: “Hadsan khasman ikhtasama fi rabbihima.”
5. A Relative Pronoun in a Wrong Singular Form
Question 111: We read in Sura al-Tawba 9:69: “You have plunged as they plunged.”
وَ خُضۡتُمۡ کَالَّذِیۡ خَاضُوۡا (Sura al-Tawba 9:69)
The Arabic relative pronoun alladhi, unlike our English “who” or “that”, is subject to declension. That means it doesn’t remain the same with every noun it refers to. It can receive a plural or a dual ending. The word “as” in this verse is actually the translation of the relative pronoun alladhi in the singular form. It should have been in the plural form since it refers to a plural pronoun. Thus the Arabic should read: “Khudhtum kalladhina (instead of al-ladhi )khadhu.”
ANYONE PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLOWING SO CALLED SYNTAX ERROR MENTION BY ABDUL AL FADI IN HIS BOOK?
-
3 Replies
-
Is The Quran Infallible ABDUL AL FADI (PART 1)
updated 2 years, 4 months ago
2 Members
·
3
Replies
-
@Irfan76 sir if you can guide please?
-
Keep in front the principle, Language is prior to grammar. Grammar builds on language, not language builds on grammar. It is the grammar which needs to adjust to the language. Quran is in classic Arabic. The experts of classic Arabic whether Muslims or non Muslims could never object to the use of words and styles in Quran.
If you apply the strict English grammar rules on Shakespeare, for example, you will find him violating them too at time.
In language grammar is not authority, rather, it follows the language.
-
@irfan76 sir thanks I got your point.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
