Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 04:10:49 -0800 From: Dina Zoubi <yasmeen@IDT.NET> To: email@example.com [note: This email address is no longer current since 2007] Subject: The, Qur'an:, Grammatical, Errors X-URL: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/qm01.html Dear M Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton, I'm writing to you regarding your article "The Qur'an:Grammatical Errors" that I found in (http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/index.htm) This is not my first letter to you .My previous four letters to you have been scanned and unanswered,what are you affraid of if you are so sure of your theories? Anyhow ,This is my response to your theories, if you find the courage to publish it in the same page: http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/index.htm ,then you have my admiration if not , then please learn from it and be sure that your theories are wrong. To start with, you pointed out what you called " Grammatical Errors " in the Qur'an, and drew your own conclusions based on those "errors". One would naturally emagine that in order for you to spot a grammatical error in a certain language,you should at least show proficiency in that language. With my respect,by looking at your article I was able to find at least five grammatical errors in your use of the Arabic language: Those grammatical errors fall in your own words , and not in your quotations from the Qur'an or of its translations. Your Own Five Grammatical Errors are the following: First: Reading: Under the "third error" in 20:63. You read the word "in" as " inna ".Read the verse in Arabic to know that you could not read the word properly. Second:Grammer:Under the "sixth error" in 21:3.You stated a grammatical rule about a verbal sentence saying that " the rule for such a sentence, where the verb comes before the subject, is that THE VERB MUST BE IN THE THIRD MASCULINE SINGULAR FORM , if the active subject of the verbal sentence is stated in the sentence." The fact is that it is not a must for the verb to be in the third masculine singular form in this case--it can also be in a feminine form : e.g. " WAKAFAT AL BINTAN ." ( The two girls stood ) WAKAFAT is used properly in the third feminine form. Third:Grammer:Under the "eighth error" in 49:9.You suggest the word " 'eqtatala " as a conjugation for the dual feminine, where the dual feminine conjugation is 'eqtatqlata. Fourth:Grammer:Under the " tenth error" in 91:5.You stated :" But the word banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense" Actually the word banaha is not a verb as you wrote,it is a verbal sentense . Fifth:Grammer:Under the " eleventh error " in 41:11.You stated:" thus ta'e'een which is used for plural, should be ta'e'aat which is used for feminine dual." Simply: ta'e'een is used for masculine plural over three, ta'e'aat is used for feminine plural over three not for feminine dual as you wrote. ta'e'atan/ta'e'atain are used for feminine dual. Thus,before going on with your discovery of "grammatical errors" and playing the role of the critic , I suggest you work a little on your Arabic . Here is a quiz for you :In 4:162,Why did the script say : " ir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi " , and not : " ir-Raasi-khina fil-'ilmi ". Arabi Bin Qahtan.
Dear Dina Zoubi In your earlier letters you only claimed that there are errors in my article but you did not indicate where. Now having stated clearly your argument I can discuss it with you. You wrote: > Your Own Five Grammatical Errors are the following: > >First: Reading: Under the "third error" in 20:63. You read the word "in" > as " inna ".Read the verse in Arabic to know that you > > could not read the word properly. This is not a grammatical error but one of transliteration. But you are right it should read "in". But since you are very careful to note these points have a look at the scribal errors page we will put up soon. >Second:Grammer:Under the "sixth error" in 21:3.You stated a grammatical > rule about a verbal sentence saying that " the rule for > > such a sentence, where the verb comes before the subject, > > is that THE VERB MUST BE IN THE THIRD MASCULINE SINGULAR > > FORM , if the active subject of the verbal sentence is > > stated in the sentence." > The fact is that it is not a must for the verb to be in > > the third masculine singular form in this case--it can > > also be in a feminine form : e.g. " WAKAFAT AL BINTAN ." > ( The two girls stood ) WAKAFAT is used properly > in the third feminine form. In the above I was stating the rule concerning that particular verse (where the subject is masculine). Read my words again: "the rule for SUCH a sentence..." But thank you for pointing out the possible misunderstanding. I have formulated it clearer now for the article. >Third:Grammer:Under the "eighth error" in 49:9.You suggest the word > " 'eqtatala " as a conjugation for the dual feminine, > where the dual feminine conjugation is 'eqtatqlata. This is a typing mistake, because of the many "t"s and "a"s. Indeed you yourself have made a typing error too. it should have been ('eqtatalata) not ('eqtatqlata). >Fourth:Grammer:Under the " tenth error" in 91:5.You stated :" But the > word banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense" > Actually the word banaha is not a verb as you wrote,it is > a verbal sentense. You are absolutely right. And bana is the verb, hence Yusuf Ali's translation is wrong. That is the point I am trying to make. >Fifth:Grammer:Under the " eleventh error " in 41:11.You stated:" thus > ta'e'een which is used for plural, should be ta'e'aat > which is used for feminine dual." > Simply: ta'e'een is used for masculine plural over three, > ta'e'aat is used for feminine plural over three > not for feminine dual as you wrote. > ta'e'atan/ta'e'atain are used for feminine dual. Thank you. Of that fifth error you are 110% right, and we and the Qur'an are wrong. wajal man la yas-hou. I want to thank you very very much for your efforts you took in writing me to point out the errors I made and the formulations which lend themselves to misunderstandings. I gratefully acknowledge that this was very helpful. I have reformulated those paragraphs to make clearer what I am talking about. But it only shows how difficult it is to get every- thing right the first time when writing in or about Arabic. You found some errors in my writing and I found some error in your corrections. Since you asked me for putting your letter up on our web site I will do so gladly within the next few days, along with my response to you. If you want to see the corrected article, it is on the British web site already. The American one will follow soon. Yours sincerely, P. Newton PS. "grammer" is spelt grammar.
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:10:49 -0800 From: Dina Zoubi <yasmeen@IDT.NET> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: 2 X-URL: http://debate.domini.org/newton/qm01.html Dear Mr. Newton, Thank you for answering my E-mail. Although my letter was regarding an article by yourself and M. Rafiqul-Haqq, yet I received a reply signed only by you. In other words, your reply had no =93Haqq=94 in it -- That was an Arabic joke and no offense was intended to you nor to Mr. Haqq. On the serious side, I gathered from your reply that you admitted to committing errors in the Arabic language in your article. Indeed you tried to share the blame with others, yet at least I know that you are not fully competent in Arabic to analyze nor criticize an Arabic script, let alone to convince me of your theories and conclusions. At the end of my letter I posed a question to you, which you failed to mention in your reply. Here I shall restate that question and add another one: 1) IN 4:162 why did the script say: =93Ir-Raasi-Khuuna fil-=92ilmi=94, and not: =93Ir-Raasi-Khina fil-=92ilmi=94? 2)Other than the =93Waw el atf=94 what other Waw (s) in the Arabic language can you name? I trust that this letter shall be posted in http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4u/index.htm Finally, with regard to your =93PS.=94 about the correct spelling of =93grammar=94, I thank you for correcting my spelling in English, which is my second language. In the same spirit I would humbly ask you to be open minded and accept what I might know of the Arabic language that you might not. Waiting for your answers (JAWABAIK) I remain, Arabi Bin Qahtan,
Dear Dina Zoubi We are happy to make comments/amends/answers to what we put on the Net, but we are too busy to get into Arabic quizzes. At the end of the day we are "bashar noseeb wa nokhti'", so we have nothing to lose if sometimes we make a mistake. However, the Qur'an is supposed to be a miracle, hence there is so much at stake if in we can even find one mistake. It seems that you know a fair bit on the Arabic grammar. We have posted an article about the grammatical errors in the Qur'an. We will be adding to the list of errors. We realise we are human beings but we must use our brains, just as you used yours to find some mistakes in our document. If you can prove to us that ALL the errors we posted are not errors at all, we will withdraw the article and replace it with a permanent apology. We want to thank for the mistake you found in our posting, you have motivated us to look at the Qur'an to list the similar mistake that involves numbers. Apart from the errors we posted found in 1. Q. 22:19 "These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord." (Arberry) "haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..." And in 2. Q. 49:9 "If two parties of believers fight, put things right between them." (Arberry) "wa 'in-taaa-'ifataani mi-nal-Mu'-miniinaq-tatalu fa-'aslihuu baynahumaa." And the famous one you corrected in 3. Q. 41:11 Have a good look at the above and the following with the same keen eyes that looked at our posting: 4. Q. Sad 38:21 "hal 'ataka naba'o-l-khasme ez tasawarou-l-mihrab (should it not be "tasawara-l-mihrab"?) 5. Q. 38:22 "ez dakhalou 'ala Dawoud fafaze' minhom (should it not be "ez dakhala"?) 6. Q. 38:22 where we discover they are two so "minhom" should have been "minhoma"?) 7. Q. 38:22 "qalou la takhaf khasman bagha ba'dna 'ala ba'd" (should it not be "qala"?) 8. Q. 66:4 "In tatouba ela Allah faqa saghat qoloubokoma. (how many hearts did Hafsa and 'Aishah had? See Galalian please. 9. Q. 21:78 "wa Dawoud wa Solaimana ez yahkomane ...wa konna lehokmehem shahedeena." (should it not be "lehokmehema?") 10. Q. 7:150 "wa 'alqa-al-'alwaha" (should it not be "al-lawhain"?) as it has been transmitted in the tafsir they were two plates. Ten is a good number so we will stop here. If indeed you are a person Zoubi-rrin wa taqwa, you should weigh the evidence and accept Christianity as Dina-l-Haqq. (By the way you will not find these basic grammatical mistakes in the Arabic Bible, try finding one if you can, we will acknowledge it and appreciate it very much). Because you insist, here is the answer to your questions. But please I have too many things to do, so be gentle with me otherwise I might make more mistakes. >1) IN 4:162 why did the script say: > =93Ir-Raasi-Khuuna fil-=92ilmi=94, and not: > =93Ir-Raasi-Khina fil-=92ilmi=94? If it was laken as it is in the script then it should read Ir-Raasi-Khuuna. The above laken is not from akhwat Inna but regarded as harf 'atf. But if it was lakenna, it would be Ir-Raasi-Khina, because it is one of akhwat inna. But you still have problems with that verse. >2)Other than the =93Waw el atf=94 what other Waw (s) in the Arabic language > can you name? The waws are: ibteda', tasrif, za'dah, zarfiah, qasam. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:53:04 -0800 From: Dina Zoubi <yasmeen@IDT.NET> To: email@example.com Subject: Third error.original. Mr. Newton and Mr. Haqq. With reference to your article about the grammatical errors in the Quraan, you stated: ( The Third Error In 20:63 "Qaaluuu IN haazaani la-saahiraani ..." The word saahiraan should be saahirayn. The word saahiraan was declined incorrectly because the word in in the beginning of the nominal sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" to the nominative and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". ) In the Above Quotation you wrongly defined =93in=94 after =93Qaaluuu=94 and said it causes a form of declension called "nasb" to the nominative. The correct definition of =93in =93is that it is a diluted Inna of =93Inna wa akhawatiha=94, where the intonation or stress =93Shaddah=94 was removed or diluted from the end to make it read =93in=94 not =93inna=94. In their book of grammar =93Annahou el Wadeh =93the 1st secondary class edition, Ali AL Jarem and Mustafa Ameen, state =93rule 66 =94that translates as follows: Inna, Anna, Ka=92anna and Lakinna can be diluted, in that case the following applies for the four of them respectively: 1) In, diluted from Inna, either does the function of Inna to the beginning of the nominal sentence that is, Nasb ; OR it is neglected.Once neglected, an LA called Lam Elebtida=92 must precede the second part of the nominal sentence AL KHABAR,...etc. In other words the nominal sentence: =93haazaani saahiraani ...", if preceded by IN should read either: 1)IN HaazAYN Saahiraani: In worked as inna, or 2)IN haazaani LA-saahiraani: In is ignored as La preceded saahiraani. The second case above is exactly what you have in the Qura=92an. No grammatical error is present in that sentence, you merely misinterpreted the =93letter IN=94 and its functions. All the best, Arabi Bin Qahtan C/o Dina Zoubi.
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 97 To: yasmeen@IDT.NET Dear 'Arabi bin Qahtan, Thank you for your recent reply regarding error #3. We are busy researching this issue and have already found considerable background information on it. so much that we have decided to change our text back to "inna" instead of "in". It will probably take a few weeks to fully substantiate some of the leads, but we promise that you will get a thorough reply. While we are working on error #3, why don't you work on some of the other errors listed in our chapter? Sincerely, M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton
Part 2 of this correspondence
Articles by M. Rafiqul-Haqq & P. Newton