Spot the mistake in Q5:69 and Q22:17

Submitted by dhimmi no more (United States), Nov 30, 2014 at 18:00

Our dear Adil who cannot read speak or write Arabic but this did not stop him from pontificating about Arabic grammar so for the readers readand enjoy

As for As Sabi'un and As Sabi'in, they are the same word with the same meaning but they are spelled differently

Mr and you must pardon me ignorant there is so much that has been written about this grammatical disaster and you Arab masters have a word called تبرير or tabreer which really means the twsits and turns of the Ulama that were trying to explain grammatical disasters and your above silly claim that there is no difference between الصابءون and الصابءين this would not have been a grammatical disaster

For the readers you judge for yourselves here is the verse as one would find it in Q22:17

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئِينَ وَالنَّصَارَى

Now compare it with the verse in Q5:69

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالصَّابِئونَ وَالنَّصَارَى

And notice that we have the same words word for word except the second word from left it is different in the two verses

Now here is the grammar behind this disaster there is a grammatical rule and it is called Inna wa Akhawatiha or ان و اخواتيها and it as follows the word Sabi'uun or Sabi'een is the subject مبتدأ and la khawf alyhum is the predicate or خبر and in this case the subject (because of the inna before the subject and the predicate) should be in the accusative and not in the nominative as we find it in the second version and here is the grammatical rule of Inna wa akhawatiha

ان واخواتيها: تنصب المبتدء وترفع الخبر

And here is a link

http://www.drmosad.com/index34.htm

Now this is the basic rule but this is a bit different and it is called حرف عطف and in this case the letter waw or و and this is what you find in the aya as in al-sabiuun AND the Christians

http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AD%D8%B1%D9%81_%D8%B9%D8%B7%D9%81

So the grammartical mistake would really be رفع المعطوف على المنصوب or when we have the letter waw then the word following the letter waw should be in the accusative case which means that the version of the word in Q5:69 is a mistake

What a disaster

This is what your Arab masters tell us at islamweb.com

http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=70461

So can you tell us how do they explain this little disaster?

Now here is what Sheikh al-Azhar tells us about this grammatical disaster

https://archive.org/stream/waq61180/61180#page/n165/mode/2up

And notice that Shiekh el-Azhar does not even bring the real disaster here that Allah fixed the poor grammar later on in Q22:17

So can you tell us what does Sheikh el-Azhar tell us about this grammatical disaster?

And here is the so called Sheikh Munqidh al-Saqar or الشيخ منقذ السقار and this is his little video about this grammatical disaster

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzTRKaZn9G4

the good ole Sheikh tells us that this is not a mistake because the letter waw here is not waw al-Atf واو العطف but it is waw al-Isti'naf or واو الاستءناف and therefore the word which means that the word should be الصابءون!

Now he created a different disaster this would mean that الصابءين is a mistake

What a disaster and it means that his tabreer is bogus

Now it is your turn to explain this disaster to us kuffar! Go!

For the readers: Wansbrough call these two transmissions both Q5:69 and Q22:17 as Variant Traditions and in plain English that we have more than one author the first one knew his Arabic grammar and the second did not know the correct grammar!

Oh next it would be what al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir tell us about this disaster

Our dear Adil I keep telling you that Maududi as well as your idol Mirza Ghulam were either liars or ignorant when they told your likes that there are no mistakes in the Qur'an

Oh would you like more mistakes in grammar in the Qur'an? just le me know

---

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".