Arab Christians and Language of the Qur'an

[Moumen]

Arab Christians and Language of the Qur'an

The Terrorist

Bismillah . . .

Arab Christians - due to their animosity of Arabic language - are not a people of eloquence at all. Because they hate Arabs, their religion, their Scripture and their language, Arab Christians consider themselves an entity (or entities) outside the Arabic-Islamic culture.

This is the reason why they are usually not keen to teach their children the Arabic language; instead, they often rush to enroll them in foreign schools e.g. American schools, British schools, which do not include Arabic in their curriculums.

Even those who study Arabic in government schools do not generally get much benefit from it because the Arabic curriculum within these schools only provides a very basic knowledge of Arabic that will just suffice to make someone read and write the language correctly, but does not make him eloquent or scholar in the vast Arabic sciences.

That's why we usually find Arab Christians to be non-eloquent in Arabic, and their Arabic writings are rife with clumsy slang and linguistic errors of all kinds; they often do not make distinction between Haa (H) and the knobbed Taa (T), nor between conditions of verb in present tense, nor between conditions of the five letters (Ahruf Khamsa), etc.

In this paper, we are going to highlight some examples of this "illiteracy" among Arab Christians expressed by an Arab Christian writer who uses the nickname Abdul-Fadi in a book of his called: Is the Qur'an Infallible?

This book is widely available on the web in Arabic and English, it is composed of many chapters arranged as (historical errors), (scientific errors), (grammatical errors), etc.

Many Arab Muslim scholars and writers have refuted the book; for example Sheikh Mustafa Al-'Adawy has made excellent rebuttal in a series of lectures that are available here:
http://www.islamway.com/?iw_s=Scholar&iw_a=series&series_id=2750

Al-Azhar has also published very detailed refutation of the book that is available at this link:
http://www.islamic-council.com/qadaiaux/def1.asp

Also, Dr. Ibrahim 'Awad provides an excellent rebuttal that can be downloaded from this link (Right click then select Save Target As):
http://www.karam.al-maktabeh.com/ibrawa/3esma_quran.rar

However, our purpose in this paper is not to refute the allegations of supposed grammatical errors in the Qur'an made by this Arab Christian writer, nor to provide an English copy of Arabic responses. Rather, we intend to illustrate the striking ignorance of Arab Christians in the field of Arabic language and show that they are the least qualified to discuss simple and basic linguistic issues, let alone a highly advanced text such as the Holy Qur'an.

In fact, Dr. Ibrahim 'Awad made very good job in his refutation by displaying grammatical errors in Abdul-Fadi's book and demonstrated that the Christian writer was even unable to decently write a correct book according to grammar rules.

Anyway, let's display examples of Abdul-Fadi's objections and see how they indicate poor command of the Arabic language.

The first example is the Qur'anic verse: { If you two repent to God, yet your hearts are inclined } Surat al-Tahrim, verse 4.

Under title (A Plural Noun Used in Place of a Dual One), the Arab Christian Abdul-Fadi comments:
Al-Baidawi says that Hafsa and ‘Aisha were being addressed with this verse. But in spite of this, the Arabic for "your hearts" (qulubukuma) is in the plural form! Can two people have more than two hearts?

So, the problem for him is that the Qur'an refers to two as plural instead of dual which is inappropriate from his point of view!

In the Arabic language, plural is more than one which includes two and Arabs permit use of plural form to refer to two, confer Ibn Qutaiba, Ta'wil Mushkil Al-Qur'an p. 218 or Ibn Faris, As-Sahibi p. 349-350 or As-Suyuti, Al-Muzhir vol. 1 p. 333. This is a very basic rule of Arabic language, not a complex or a far-fetched one.

This is why the objection of this Arab Christian reflects such deep ignorance, especially his question (Can two people have more than two hearts?) for no one on the face of this earth would imagine that two persons have more than two hearts, but one should always put in consideration that the Holy Qur'an is Speech posed to people with understanding........ and intelligence!

Now, coming to the question: why is the plural form used instead of the dual one?

The answer is that the word (your hearts) is one word in Arabic which is composed of a noun added to a pronoun. The noun (hearts) is in plural while the pronoun (your) is in dual. This is because Arabs dislike combination of two dual forms in the same word and consider it to be clumsy and ugly on pronunciation. When adding a dual word to another dual one, it is best to put the added word in plural and the added-to one in dual which is the most eloquent in the Arabic language, confer Al-Halabi, Ad-Durr Al-Masoon vol. 10 p. 266 or Ibn Al-Qayyim, Mukhtasar As-Sawa'iq Al-Mursala p.40.

So, use of plural instead of dual is not just legitimate, but it is also the most eloquent.

The same rule was applied in another verse: { As to the thief, male or female, cut off their hands } Surat al-Ma'ida, verse 38. Here, the word (their hands) combined plural word (hands) added to a dual pronoun (their).

Another aspect of eloquence can be found in the use of plural instead of dual; because plural implies a sense of exaggeration which is suitable to the unacceptable action taken by the two wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him) when they did not keep his secret, confer Al-Halabi, Ad-Durr Al-Masoon vol. 10 p. 265.

Here ends our analysis of the first example, the second example is concerning the Qur'anic verse: { These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord } Surat al-Hajj, verse 19.

Under title (An Incorrect Plural Verb and Pronoun), the Arab Christian writer Abdul-Fadi comments:
This sentence reads in Arabic: "Hadsan khasman ikhtasamu fi rabbihim." The verb ikhtasamu ("disputed") is plural, and the possessive pronoun in the word rabbihim refers also to a plural antecedent. The Qur'an 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."

Our Arab fellow sees that it is incorrect to use plural forms in reference to two. We have just dealt with a similar matter in the above example and shown that the use of plural instead of dual is not just legitimate, but can be even more eloquent.

Consequently, the objection of this Arab Christian is basically unsubstantiated; however, there are some other aspects to shed light on.

The two disputants mentioned in the verse are not two persons, they are rather two groups: three believers and three disbelievers who fought in the battle of Badr, confer Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-Tafsir vol. 3 p. 161.

Ibn Kathir says in his Commentary:
It was recorded in the Sahih that Abu Dharr swore that this Ayah (These two opponents dispute with each other about their Lord was revealed concerning Hamzah and his two companions, and `Utbah and his two companions, on the day of Badr when they came forward to engage in single combat. This is the wording of Al-Bukhari in his Tafsir of this Ayah. Then Al-Bukhari recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said, "I will be the first one to kneel down before the Most Merciful so that the dispute may be settled on the Day of Resurrection.'' Qays (sub-narrator) said, "Concerning them the Ayah was revealed: (These two opponents dispute with each other about their Lord He (Qays) said, "They are the ones who came forward (for single combat) on the day of Badr: `Ali, Hamzah and `Ubaydah vs., Shaybah bin Rabi`ah, `Utbah bin Rabi`ah and Al-Walid bin `Utbah.'' This was reported only by Al-Bukhari.
Ibn Kathir, Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-'Azim vol.5 p.247.

Actually, the Arabic word Khasm, i.e., disputant or oppononent, is name of a kind (in Arabic, Ism Jins) which can include many persons. The verse is revealed in this sense.Another example of this use is the verse: { If two parties among the Believers fall into a fight } Surat al-Hujurat, verse 9, here, the verb Iqtatalu, i.e., fight or fall into a fight, is in plural form.

So, when we use dual form to refer to two groups or parties, we are not obliged to keep it all over the speech; because we are talking about many persons. This is what our Arab Christian writer failed to know, thus, comprehend.

Moreover, sound taste bears witness that the use of plural instead of dual in (disputed) and (their Lord) is much more eloquent, why?

Because fighters appear in the battlefield as if every member is fighting the others, so the expression of this situation by the use of the verb (fight) or (dispute) in plural implies this effect. Also, use of the plural in (their Lord) indicates Lordship of God over each every one of them. These delicate implications are gained by use of the plural form.

Also, dispute is the main topic in the verse, that’s why it is expressed in the plural. It is inappropriate then to bring (their Lord) in dual.

Indeed, falsehood can never approach this Qur'an whose supernatural eloquence is unimaginable!

The last example is the Qur'anic verse: { My covenant shall not reach the evildoers } Surat al-Baqara, verse 124.

Under title (The Subject Is Incorrectly Accusative), the Arab Christian writer comments:
This wrong and awkward translation is in fact a result of an unbelievable grammatical mistake in the Arabic Qur'an. The Qur'an meant to say, "The evildoers shall not attain to My covenant," but since the word ["the evildoers"] 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. In fact, the Qur'an should have said al-zalimun, and the problem would have been solved!

The Christian writer sees the verse in the Qur’an reading (la yanalu ‘ahdi azzalumin), his delusion made him think that it includes a grammatical mistake because azzalimin - according to him - is the subject and the proper sign of the subject is wao of the plural since it is a typical masculine plural. So it should have been azzalimun. This is how he imagined that the Qur’an had mistaken and had put the subject in the accusative.

This is a light objection, but it indicates two things: (1) glaring ignorance of Arabic grammar, and (2) vehement desire to generate objections. In the verse under discussion, the subject is 'ahdi and its sign is the virtual damma; it is virtual because the place of the sign is occupied with the occasional yaa. The object is azzalimin and its sign is yaa of the plural because it is a typical masculine plural.

But the problem with the Arab Christian writer is not actually grammar, it is rather his refusal of using the verb nala, i.e., get, gain, attain, this way. He thinks the correct use is to say that evildoers shall not get the covenant, however the verse says that the covenant shall not get (reach) the evildoers!

In fact, the Qur'anic application of the verb nala is very legitimate because Arabs say that whatever you get, gets you, meaning that with this verb the subject can be object and the object can be subject. This application is employed by the Qur'an in many places for example:
{ It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches God: it is your piety that reaches Him } Surat al-Hajj, verse 37.
{ Their portion appointed must reach them from the Book (of Decrees) } Surat al-A'raf, verse 37.
See also verse 152 in the same Sura.

This particular application is even used by the Arabic Bible in many verses, e.g., Genesis 42:21 and 2nd Epistle to Corinthians 7:9.

I believe this is more than enough to demonstrate the glaring ignorance of this Arab Christian writer, but we still have more!

In Arabic lexicons, confer for example Ibn Manzoor, Lisan al-Arab vol. 11 p. 685, on the verb nala, we read (nalani men fulan ma'roof), i.e., a favour has reached me from someone, which means that this application of the verb nala is well established. In the Arabic-English Dictionary edited by Edward William Lane, we read regarding the verb nala: (It reached him, came to him) which is typical to the English translation described by Abdul-Fadi as wrong and awkward!

We certainly know now who is wrong and awkward.

In addition, use of this form indicates that the covenant is much far-fetched, for it appears as if the covenant abstains from them and despises them! The result is that the evildoers are certainly deprived of the covenant which is more impressive.

In the end, we seek Allah's refuge from ignorance and arrogance.
Praise and glory be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

[Ayman bin khaled]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

جزاك الله خبرا و ألبسك من حلل الجنة

لا فض فوك