Back to the guide
AZTRENDEFRESNLRUITSQBSROKYDA

There Is No Grammatical Error in the Quran

I have prepared a response to the article titled “Grammatical errors in the Quran”, which was put forward by anti-Islam foreign sites such as Answring Islam and which Turkish atheists also shared -even though most of them have no knowledge themselves of whether these claims are true or not-. I have not previously seen any site or author who responded. Objections have generally been made in the form of “Arabic Dialect differences” but no one has given a detailed explanation. Although it is long, I tried to explain it to a degree that everyone can understand as far as possible. Happy reading; I would be glad if you share it out of respect for the effort.

  1. Error claim: the i’rab error of the word “Sabii’ler” occurring in verse 69 of Al-Ma'idah.

In Arabic, words take an i’rab according to their position. For example, nouns in plural form become “merfu” if they come as the subject. Their endings finish in the form “u’ne” [ون ]. But if they come as the object in the sentence, they become “mensup”. Their endings finish in the form “i’ne”[ين]. However, the states of being mensup and merfu are not limited to these. If “nasb particles” in the form “inne, enne” [أن إن] come at the beginning of words, subjects are again written in the form “i’ne” [ين]. Since Al-Ma'idah verse 69, which is our subject, begins with the nasb particle “inne” [إن], the word “sabiiUNE=الصَّابِئِينَ”, which means “Sabii’ler” in the verse, should have been in the form “sabi’İNE=صابئين” because it is the noun of inne. Indeed, in the same i’rab, it came in the form “Sabi’İNE=صابئين” in Al-Baqarah 62 and Al-Hajj verse 17.

As for the answer: I said earlier “The only reason atheists think they find errors in the Quran is ignorance”. This claim confirms that too. Because, as I will explain shortly, someone who knows the other features of the language would not put forward a claim like this and say “we found an error!”.

In Arabic there is a feature we call “takdim ve tehir”, that is, “bringing forward and postponing”. For example, when forming a Turkish sentence, instead of saying “I went to Istanbul” we can say the sentence with somewhat more emphasis by saying “I went to Istanbul, I did!”. All we do is change the places of the subject, predicate and object. In the same way, in Arabic too, by changing the places of the subject and the object, a strong meaning can be added to the sentence. The finest example of this is the following expression occurring in At-Taghabun verse 13: “ve ale Allahi fe-l yetevekkelil müminun= وَعَلَى اللّٰهِ فَلْيَتَوَكَّلِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ” Normally this expression should have been in the form: “fe-l yetevekkelil müminune ale Allahi= فليتوكل المؤمنون على الله” [following the rule of verb + agent + object]. However, by the object, subject and predicate changing places, it added to the verse the meaning “let the believers put their trust ONLY in Allah”. If it had been written the way I said, it would have had the meaning “let the believers put their trust in Allah”.

Now that we understand this rule, let us return to Al-Ma'idah verse 69: In this verse too there is a “takdim ve tehir”. According to many language scholars, the verse is as follows: “إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا من آمن باللّه واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحا فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون والصابئون والنصارى كذلك Certainly, those who have believed and the Jews.. [of these] whoever has believed in Allah and the last day and has consciously done corrective works, then there is no fear for them and they do not grieve. The Sabians and the Christians are also like this”

The word “Sabii’ler” is in the position of subject and is independent of inne. By applying a takdim it has been brought to the front, and for this reason it has been written as merfu in the form “Sabi’une=الصَّابِؤُونَ”. I have not made up these things I say by myself; according to many language scholars such as “Sibawayh, Zajjaj, Zamakhshari, al-Khalil”, this is the takdir of the verse.

According to another explanation, “inne=ان” in this verse is not a nasb particle; it has been used in the meaning of “yes”. For example, a poet has said this: ويقلن شيب قد علاك وقد كبرت فقلت إنه] “[the women] ‘your head has turned white and you have grown old’ they say. [and I] said yes (İNNEh=انه).]” Here “inne=إن” means “yes” in this usage. (Qurtubi)

  1. Error claim: In An-Nisa verse 162, while the nouns all come as subject [müpteda] in merfu, that is, in the form “u’ne=ون”, the noun “mukimİ’NE=مقيمين”, which means “those who perform [the prayer]”, has come as mensup.

Again an error claim arising from ignorance. In Arabic, a noun can be made mensup for a word in the meaning of “Especially…I mean these”. Sibawayh, giving examples from several texts, said that the verse means “especially those who perform the prayer”. One of these texts is this: وكل قوم أطاعوا أمر سيدهم إلا نميرا أطاعت أمر غاويها الظاعنين ولما يظعنوا أحدا والقائلون لمن دار نخليها Every tribe obeyed the command of its masters, except the Numeyris. They obeyed the command of the most rebellious among them. I especially mean those travellers who leave no one on the road Ver We on this cliff to whom shall we leave and go, those who say” (translation and quotation: Qurtubi) For example, here the word “ez zaınİN=الظاعنين” has come as mensup. Normally it should have come as merfu. But it has come as mensup in the meaning of “especially, I mean these”. Consequently, in the verse in question too, it has come as mensup in the meaning of “I especially mean those who perform the prayer”. (Zamakhshari)

  1. Error claim: In Ta-Ha verse 63, the expression “in hezeni=إن هذان” should have been mensup in the form “in hezeyni=هذين” because of the lightened “in”, which is a nasb particle.

Answer: It need not be; again, there is such a usage in Arabic. For example, it is said “in zeydun lemuntalikun=إن زيد لمنطلق” [Zeyd is certainly one who comes]. (Zamakhshari: Kashshaf) in this expression too there is “in”, it has come with the lam of emphasis as in the verse in question, but instead of the noun “zeyd” coming as mensup in the form “zeyden” it has come in the form “zeydun”. Consequently, in this verse too there is no grammatical problem.

  1. Error claim: The expressions occurring in Al-Baqarah verse 177, “True goodness is [the goodness] of those having believed in Allah… having given the property they love… having performed the prayer… no one… of those who are faithful to their word when they give their word and of those who are patient…”, should in fact have been in the present tense in the form “who believe, who give, who perform” and not in the form “having believed, having given, having performed”. Also, while the expression “those who are patient” should have been in the form “sabirune=الصابرون”, it has been written in the form “sabirine=صابرين”.

The first claim is invalid. Because in this verse, the past tense verb has been used since the goodness done by a person who has believed, has given the property he loves, has performed the prayer and has thus proved his sincerity is given as an example. There is no evidence whatsoever that a present tense verb must necessarily be used. In any case, in the Quran, in general, instead of “O those who believe!” the past tense verb is used by saying “O you who have believed!”. Moreover, there are many verses in which the past tense verb is used in place of the present and future tense. For example, Fatir verse 27 “Have you not seen that Allah has sent down water from the sky? Then with it We brought forth produce of various colours”; according to this logic, the words used should have been used in the present tense in the form “that He is sending down…we are bringing forth”. But the structure of the language shows that, depending on the place, the past tense verb is used in place of the future. Moreover, even events that will happen on the day of resurrection are told in many verses with the past tense verb in the form “Allah said thus… The Book was set forth, they were driven to hell and to paradise”. You can check: (39:68; 75:8,9; 25:30; 7:44-48; 6:128; 20:125,126; 23:112-114) Let us think logically: If such a usage of the language were an “error”, the Arabs of that period would have objected, saying “there is an error”. But contrary to an error, since their own use of the language was like this, no one has stumbled on it; even language scholars have not stumbled on this matter.

As for the other claim, the word “sabirine=صابرين” in the verse has come as mensup in the meaning of “I especially mean those who are patient”. This was answered in the 2nd claim.

  1. Error claim: In the expression “…Allah created adam from earth, then He said ‘be’ and he became” in Al-Imran verse 59, the expression “became”, a present tense verb, should in fact have been with the past tense verb “kane=كان”. But it is written with the present tense verb “yekunu=يكون”. It is as if it gives the verse a meaning such as “He said ‘be’ and he is suddenly becoming”. In the 4th claim I gave examples of the past tense verb being used in place of the future. In the same way, a past tense story can also be told with a future tense verb.

For example, in Al-Baqarah verse 102 the expression “...me tetlu-ş seyatinu=ما تتلو الشياطين” occurs. “tetlu=تتلو” is a present tense verb. Normally, in the form “me TELETi-ş şeyatinu=ما تلت الشياطين”, by writing “telet=تلت”, the past tense verb should have been used. But because it is a past tense story, the present tense was used. It adds to the sentence, as it were, the meaning “to the things the devils were reciting.”. To the verse in question too it gives, as it were, the meaning “Allah had created him from earth, then had said ‘be’ to him, and he had suddenly become”. Many people such as the language scholars Zamakhshari and Nahhas have said that this verse is told with a present tense verb because it is a past tense story.

Consequently, in this verse too there is no error; in the claim there is a misconception arising from ignorance.

  1. Error claim: It is the expression “eserru-n necve ellezine zalemu=وَأَسَرُّوا النَّجْوَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا” occurring in Al-Anbiya verse 3. Since it is a verbal sentence, when the agent “ellezine zalemu =الذين ظلمو” is mentioned the verb should have been singular. That is, the expression should have been in the form “eserra-n necve… =أسر النجوى…”.

For the answer to this error (!) claim to be better understood, let us first give an example of the error claim. For example, if we were to form a verbal sentence in the meaning of “the students went out [of the classroom]” we say “harece-t tullebu=خرج الطلاب”. We say the verb not in the form “they went out” but in the singular as “he went out”. Because the word “tullebu=الطلاب”, the agent of the sentence, has been mentioned. But if we had not mentioned the agent in the sentence, we would say “they went out” in the form “haracu=خرجو”, and the “و” at the end would take the place of the agent.

The friend who put forward the claim thought that the expression “ellezine zalemu =الذين ظلمو” occurring in the continuation of the verse is the agent, whereas this expression is not the agent, it is bedel. For example, in the meaning of “the people in the house, that is, the sons of Abdullah, left” it is said “inne-lleziyne fi-d dari intaliku benu Abdullah =إن الذين في الدار انطلقوا بنو عبداللّه”. Here the verb “intaliku=انطلقوا” is plural, and the expression “benu Abdullah=بنو عبد الله” mentioned in the continuation is bedel. It has given the sentence the meaning “the people in the house, THAT IS, the sons of Abdullah”. (Qurtubi) for this reason, the expression “ellezine zalemu=الذين ظلمو” in the verse in question is bedel. As a result, again there is no grammatical error.

  1. Error claim: It is the expression “hezeni hasmeni ihtesamu fi rabbihim=هَذَانِ خَصْمَانِ اخْتَصَمُوا فِي رَبِّهِمْ” occurring in Al-Hajj verse 19. The expressions “hezeni hasmeni=هَذَانِ خَصْمَانِ” here are tesniye, that is, dual. It means “These two are two defendants”. However, the expression “ihtesamu =اختصمو” occurring in the continuation is not tesniye but cemi, that is, plural. Normally it should have been said “ihtesama=اختصما” as tesniye, that is, dual.

Answer: The expression “hezeni hasmeni =هَذَانِ خَصْمَانِ” is according to the wording, while the expression “ihtesamu=اختصمو” is according to the meaning. Because when saying “These two plaintiffs”, the meaning “These two plaintiff [groups]” is intended. The tesniye has come according to the wording. The plural expression “they disputed” has come according to the meaning. A similar usage also exists in Muhammad verse 16. In the expression “minhum men yestemiu ileyke=منهم من يستمع إليك”, that is, “Among them is one who has given ear to you.”, since “one” [من] is singular in wording but plural in meaning, in the continuation of the verse it is said “hatte ize haracu=حتى إذا خرجو”, that is, “Until, when THEY WENT OUT”. Whereas the expression “they went out” here is plural. Because the plural has been used according to the meaning. (Zamakhshari) consequently, in this too there is no grammatical error.

  1. Error claim: In the expression “vein taifeteyni min-el müminine ikteatulu, fe eslihu beynehume= وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهما” occurring in Al-Hujurat verse 9, the expressions “two groups” and “between the two of them” are tesniye, that is, dual, but the expression “they fought (if)” is plural. Normally it should have been in the form “ikteatela=اقتتلا”.

Answer: The answer to this was already given in the previous claim. The expressions “two groups” and “between the two of them” are tesniye according to the wording; the expression “they fought” is plural according to the meaning.

  1. Error claim: In the expression “rabbi levla ehharteniy ile ecelin garibin fe essaddeka ve EKUN minessalihin=رَبِّ لَوْلَا أَخَّرْتَنِي إِلَى أَجَلٍ قَرِيبٍ فَأَصَّدَّقَ وَأَكُن مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ” occurring in Al-Munafiqun verse 10, the expression “ekun=أكن”, since it is connected to the “fe=ف” occurring before it, should have been in the form “ekune=اكون”. Because the verb “fe essaddeka =فاصدق” in its context is mensup with “fe=ف”, which is the answer to the question. Consequently it should have been written “ekune=اكون”.

Answer: The verb “ekun=أكن” is conjoined to the mahal of the verb “essaddeka=أصدق”. And its mahal, since it is an answer sentence, has ended in the form “ekun=أكن”. Normally the sentence is in the takdir of “…essaddek ve ekun=أصدق واكن”. The letter “fe=ف” coming as the answer to the question “made the verb “saddek” nasb, and the verb “ekun=أكن” became conjoined to its mahal. Consequently it is a verse that is correct in terms of grammar.

  1. Error claim: The expression “vessemai ve MA benahe=وَالسَّمَاء وَمَا بَنَاهَا” in Ash-Shams verse 5 should normally have been in the form “…ve MEN benahe=ومن بناها”. Because its meaning is “by the sky and the one who made it”. Since the one who made it is Allah, “men=من”, which is used for conscious beings, should have come, but “ma=ما” has come.

Answer: The “ma=ما” here is for the purpose of a verbal noun, that is, the meaning of the verse is not “the one who made it” but “its making”. (Zad al-Masir) even if we accept it as ismi mevsul, again no problem arises. Because “ma=ما”, just as the letter “bi=ب”, that is, “with” can be used interchangeably, both in the Quran and in other texts, in the meaning of “fi=في”, that is, “in”, can also be used in place of “men=من”. Indeed, the Quran has used “ma=ما” for Allah not only in this verse but in other verses too.

  1. Error claim: Fussilat verse 11 “He turned to the sky, which was in the state of smoke. He said to it and to the earth… The two of them said ‘we have come willingly’”

In this verse, the expression “said”, that is, “kaleta=قلتا”, has correctly come as tesniye. However, the expression “tai’ıyn=طائعين” in the continuation has come plural and masculine. Whereas “sky and earth” are not masculine but feminine nouns. Since they are two in number, it should have been written “tai’ıteyni=طاعئتين”.

Answer: The word “sema=سماء”, which means “sky”, although singular, can also be used in place of the plural. (Mufradat: سما, there is an example in the Quran) that is, the verse can have the meaning “He turned to the SKIES, which were in the state of smoke”. It has come plural in terms of meaning; singular in terms of wording. The expression “the two of them said” has come as tesniye in wording. The expression “we have come willingly” has come plural in terms of meaning. Its being used in masculine form is due to their being put in the position of conscious beings. Because according to the rule “every unconscious plural has the status of a single feminine”, the sky and earth described in the verse should not have been presented as conscious. But since they are accepted as conscious, they have come in masculine form. (Zamakhshari)

  1. Error claim: Al-A'raf verse 56 “…Indeed, the Mercy of Allah is near to the good.” The word “is near”, that is, “karibun=قريب”, here is masculine. But the word “rahmet-allahi=رحمة الله” is feminine. Normally, as required by gender agreement between the subject and predicate, it should have been feminine in the form “karibetun=قريبة”. Because the word “rahmet=رحمة” is feminine.

Answer: The word “Rahmet=رحمة” is not truly feminine. That is, it has a masculine meaning in the form “rahm=رحم”. Since it is not true, its predicate has come masculine. (Zamakhshari: Kashshaf) for example, the word “nisvetun=نسوة” means “women”. But, since its femininity is not true, in Yusuf verse 30 too the masculine verb “ka’le=قال” has been used.

According to another possibility, this word has come masculine because it is used in the meaning of distance. (Farra)

  1. Error claim: Al-A'raf verse 160 “we divided them into twelve tribes” The word “tribe” in the expression “twelve tribes” in this verse has come plural in the form “esbaten=اسباطا”. Whereas with numbers above 10 the madud comes singular, so it should have been written singular in the form “sebten=سبطا”.

Answer: The word “esbaten=اسباطا” is not madud; it is bedel or for the purpose of temyiz. (Baydawi) it is said, as it were, “We divided them, that is, the lineages, into twelve”.

Moreover, although it is known that there were Arabic texts before the Quran was made into a book, these do not go beyond simple wall inscriptions and some commercial receipts, and THE QURAN IS THE FIRST BOOK WRITTEN IN ARABIC. In this context, the only written work, the only source for Arabic spelling and grammar rules is the Quran. That is, the Quran is a source that gives direction to Arabic.

As a result, there is no grammatical error of any kind in the Quran.