Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →


Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?


Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
Today at 09:35 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
Yesterday at 08:40 PM

The Self-Invention of Maa...
Yesterday at 07:32 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 07:16 PM

Can't Get You Out of My H...
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:15 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Yesterday at 06:04 PM

France Muslims were in d...
Yesterday at 12:38 PM

BLM and Black Ex-Muslims
Yesterday at 03:10 AM

افضل الايام
by akay
April 15, 2021, 02:42 PM

The month of Ramadan
April 12, 2021, 06:27 PM

Saudi archaeotourism push
April 12, 2021, 04:11 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
April 11, 2021, 09:07 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Quran's Grammar

 (Read 3438 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The Quran's Grammar
     OP - April 04, 2015, 06:24 PM

    Interested in your thoughts on section 5 of this book...Quranic grammatical errors

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
  • The Quran's Grammar
     Reply #1 - April 04, 2015, 07:35 PM

    Some of these, like 1.108 (Q. 5:69), have been noted as errors for over a century in the West. In fact I think that some of the Qur'anic codices fix them...

    7.112 (Q. 63:10), which has akun where it should be akûna, may be explained by the use of a defective script, followed by later copyists' failure to insert the long-vowel markers. Again I would bet that some codices fix this.

    13.118, on the "elyasin" for "Elias": this is, as the author points out, the original composer's attempt to force the verse into sura 37's rhyme. This is common to the rajaz, but is IIRC frowned upon in the higher poetic forms (qasida, etc).  I consider sura 37 an answer to sura 26, in the "urjûza" long-rajaz form.

    16.121, "Be! and he is" in context of Jesus might not be in error. It might be a deliberate nod to Christian doctrine, albeit Arian Christian doctrine. (That's where Jesus is a subordinate creation of God, but still lives.)
  • The Quran's Grammar
     Reply #2 - April 06, 2015, 10:28 AM

    Can you give me an example of codices that have fixed these?  where can I compare before/after texts?

    I don't come here any more due to unfair moderation.
  • The Quran's Grammar
     Reply #3 - April 06, 2015, 04:18 PM

    Great points by Zimriel, and I would add that in many respects we are not even positioned to *know* if the Qur'an's text is making grammatical errors because we do not know enough about the linguistic and orthographic context that it was written in.  The Qur'anic text is written in an inconsistent orthography, and it probably reflects a cocktail of different Arabic dialects.  So what seem to be errors (from the standpoint of so-called Classical Arabic) may just reflect unrecognized orthographic and linguistic diversity in the basal texts and their compilation.

    One of the most interesting examples is actually the surah I am thinking through right now, Q 106.  In the first two lines, the same word "ilaf" is spelled with two different orthographies (!).  In the first line the word is spelled using a yaw in the rasm, and in the second line the same word is spelled by indicating a yaw OUTSIDE the rasm via the later process of Masoretic markings.  The Qur'an does the same thing in a lot of places, such as how it spells Ibrahim in Surah 2 differently than it does in the rest of the surahs.  But Q 106 is the only example I know of where this is literally done in two different verses right next to each other!  Incidentally, the variant orthography within the Uthmanic rasm itself shows how useless the tradition's narrative of the Qur'an's compilation is.  If it was really written down in one major text at Uthman's request, it would not use completely different orthographies in a 'frozen' process of reform.  It would use the same orthography throughout.

    Puin says there are two possible explanations for the Q 106 ilaf orthographic weirdness.  First, the word is not derived from 'lf at all, and the yaw in the first line is being used to tell you not to misread it as "thousand," which seems bizarre but whatever.  Second, the yaw was inserted into the first word's rasm at an intermediary stage to give context to the alif's vocalization, but for some reason it was not done to the same word in the next line (perhaps because they wanted to monkey with the rasm as little as possible).  Then during the later orthographic reform that kitted the Qur'anic text out via Masoretic symbols rather than monkeying further with the rasm, the second word was changed to match through an extrinsic yaw; again, changing the rasm at this stage was something that was avoided if at all possible.  Thus the inconsistency remains to this day.

    This is all to say that the Qur'anic orthography is far more inconsistent, and has a far more complicated history and complex linguistic basis, than the Islamic tradition claims.  Doesn't mean these are 'mistakes,' but it does mean that something much more complicated is going on that later Islamic tradition either did not know or could not explain.
  • The Quran's Grammar
     Reply #4 - April 07, 2015, 12:34 AM

    I win my bet on 63:10 akûna here: Arthur Jeffery, "Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'an" p. 171 - Ubayy's codex does, in fact, offer the plene reading with waw. (Rhymes with "wow" as in, "wow Zimriel is good".)* Also Ibn 'Abbas (p. 206); Ibn Mas'ud "and many others" (p. 102).

    5:69 was famously corrected by Aisha but perhaps not in her mushaf (p. 232). Also attributed to Ibn Mas'ud but then so is everything else (p. 40). Jeffery seems to think it was corrected by Ubayy (p. 129).

    * Sorry, I had to. Smiley
  • The Quran's Grammar
     Reply #5 - April 07, 2015, 04:09 AM

    You should win some sort of award for that awesome prediction Zim, but sadly nobody is handing them out.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »