The mulism sources and their tabrirat for this big time mistake in the Qur'an in hadhani (sic) lasahirani

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Jul 13, 2011 at 17:02

You see our dear Amin I wanted to see how much you really know and where do you get your information from. I doubt very much that you can read an Arabic language dictionary or kitab nahw and if you were smart enough you would have been quoting the great masorites' tafsir wa ta'weel but you are not

In the Arab world no one in sane mind would read an Arabic language dictionary by the name of shrah jami. It is their language and they read their own books of grammar

And what a kartha (disaster) and fadiha (scandal) when a slave of the arabs and their cultural imperialism tries to justify the absurd

>Inna - is particle of empahsis this is not Inna - it is In - with silent nuun - a sukun.So? what does this have to do with the fact that it should be hadhayne and not the big time mistake hadhan? you tell us?This is where he admits he is wrong - there we have it.

This is what our dear Amin wrote right our dear Amin?

For the readers in hahdan la sahiran is the most celebrated mistake in the Qur'an and if you listen to al-tarteel (recitation) of the Qur'an of this recension you will hear by the likes of Shiek Abd el-Baset

In Hajdayni lasahirani

And this is very much what Uthman and 'A'sha have suggested

But you can also hear

In Hadhani la sahirani

And any one who is interested in reading more about it in early sources then read al-Razi's al-Tafseer al-Kabeer juz' 22 page 50 and Ibn Zangala in al-qira'at juz' 1 page 445

Now in my previous post I explained in detail the grammatical rule called in wa akhawatiha or in and her sisters which is

in tarfa3 al-mubtada' wa tansub al-khabr

Which means that the word hadhan should be in the accusative as hadhan is the grammatical mubtada' and it becomes hadhayne and the khabr or sahiran stays in the nominative et voila

in hadhyne la sahirani

Now the early masorites realized that this is indeed a mistake and what I'm telling you comes from your islamic sources and this is what they said in what they call Tabri'at al-khata' (sigular is tabreer )so each of the following item is a tabreer and you can find them in a volume that was published by al-Azhar and I'm sure you will find it in London but it is only in Arabic and I will double check the title but is it responding to al-mutashakekeen or those in doubt

And here are the tabrirat and they are 9

1. Jazm in: in 3alayha sukun (remember? but I waited for you to make a fool of yourself) yubatilu 3amaliha or if in has a sukun or no vowel then in wa akhawatiha does not work

Well this is bogus because if this was true then we would find it in the definition of in wa akhawatiha and you will not find

For the readers: sukun means no short vowel above a letter but the rasm or the basic layer of the Qur'an has no short vowels period which could mean that in has no grammatical effect which is far from the truth

So you see our dear Amin they lied to you

And so much for this tabreer

2. al-alif men hadhan jawhar al-liklma or the alif in hadhan is the basis (jawhar means gem) of the word

Funny enough if you read the rasm DHDH there is no alif as it is added by the ulama and this claim is just as ridiculous as you will not find it in the definition of the rule in wa akhawatiha and this also means that Allah's rasm is inferior to the editing by the ulama

So much for the alif that is a jawhara

3. Hadhihi lughat ba3d al-3arab or this is the language of some Arabs!

If so then why did Muhammad or his Allah not fix this poor Arabic by those some Arabs? you tell us

4. ma qabl harf al-tathniya maftuh

Or the letter before the nuun should be an alif

Well there is no alif in the rasm and you will not find this ridiculous claim in the definition of in wa akhawatiha and it would also mean that there is no difference between the accusative and the nominative which is not true

5. in ta'ti bima3na ijl

This must be the most ridiculous tabreer if so Sibawaye should have told us

6. ina al-heh (ha') mudamara or there really an H letter in the in so it would be INHU but it is not in the text

Another ridiculous claim

7. In bi3amna na3am

Or In means yes and where would we find this/ In Ibn Manzur dictionary? This is ridiculous

8. al-alif wa al-yeh (ya') fi al-qira'ti sawa' or the alif and the letter yeh are the same in reading

Sobhanallah this is so stupid so what this tabreer is all about is that there really is no accusative or nominative cases in Arabic which is bizarre

9. Last: and this is the most bizarre

in bi3amna ma or in means not so the aya would be

ma hadhan ila sahiran

Or not the these two but not magicians

This is just as bad in Arabic

So the end result is we have a real mistake and non of the above makes grammatical sense

Oh the next will be review of al-Suyuti and revisit the response of Utheman and 'A'isha

Why not go and ask Dr. Daniel Pipes - see if he can answer?

You owe Dr Pipes an apology you hear me?

I'm sure Dr. Pipes agrees with me that the Qur'an is full of mistakes in grammar and spelling and it is the most edited book

I think it is silly when you delve into the grammar of a language that you cannot speak read or write and you have to depend on sources that are clearly detached from the Arabs and their experience

Now i will leave it to the readers to judge you

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".