Topics

I sometimes think that the biggest issue with sunnis, which may lead in the extreme case to terrorism, is some kind of moral arrogance,  the idea that they are morally superior to other people, this because they follow true islam.

The Quran was revealed to the prophet Muhammad about 14 centuries ago.
At this time, there were people called ?people of the book?, which were the descendants of people to which God has previously revealed the book.

In the Quran,  we see that, although some of the people of the book are good people, most of them are bad.

I think that in light of the Quran, the people who call themselves ?Muslims? today should rather call themselves ?people of the book?.
This is because they are in the same situation as ?people of the book? in the Quran ; i.e : people whose ancestors have received the book.

In that context, they would feel more concerned about all the verses that criticize the ?people of the book?.
It would make them less arrogant, less sure they own the truth.

What do you think ?

The tunisian government has not authorized the historian Mohamed Talbi  to create his "quranist" association.
http://latroisiemerepubliquetunisienne.blogspot.ie/2013/03/refus-de-visas-pour-une-association.html

It's a good opportunity to create a thread about this "quranist" voice unknown in the English-speaking world.
http://mohamedtalbi.com/

The sites are in french, please use Google Translation, and feel free to ask me if you need help.

Please find below a recent article from Dr Al Ajami
http://oumma.com/14876/houris-hommes-12

He explains that the arabic h?r (not "hoors") is for the elite of the women who entered the paradise. It is the equivalent for women of muqarrab?n for men.

For those who do not read French, you can use Google Translation, and then ask me if something is still unclear.
Feel free to comment.

[The biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea has inspired and mystified people for millennia. A new computer modeling study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) shows how the movement of wind as described in the book of Exodus could have parted the waters.The computer simulations show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea. With the water pushed back into both waterways, a land bridge would have opened at the bend, enabling people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety. As soon as the wind died down, the waters would have rushed back in.]

The biblical account of the parting of the Red Sea has inspired and mystified people for millennia. A new computer modeling study by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) shows how the movement of wind as described in the book of Exodus could have parted the waters.

The computer simulations show that a strong east wind, blowing overnight, could have pushed water back at a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea. With the water pushed back into both waterways, a land bridge would have opened at the bend, enabling people to walk across exposed mud flats to safety. As soon as the wind died down, the waters would have rushed back in.

The study is intended to present a possible scenario of events that are said to have taken place more than 3,000 years ago, although experts are uncertain whether they actually occurred. The research was based on a reconstruction of the likely locations and depths of Nile delta waterways, which have shifted considerably over time.

?The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus,? says Carl Drews of NCAR, the lead author. ?The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that?s in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in.?

The study is part of a larger research project by Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges. By pinpointing a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the crossing, the study also could be of benefit to experts seeking to research whether such an event ever took place. Archeologists and Egyptologists have found little direct evidence to substantiate many of the events described in Exodus.

The work, published in the online journal, PLoS ONE, arose out of Drews? master?s thesis in atmospheric and oceanic sciences at CU.  The computing time and other resources were supported by the National Science Foundation.

Wind on the water

The Exodus account describes Moses and the fleeing Israelites trapped between the Pharaoh's advancing chariots and a body of water that has been variously translated as the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. In a divine miracle, the account continues, a mighty east wind blows all night, splitting the waters and leaving a passage of dry land with walls of water on both sides. The Israelites are able to flee to the other shore. But when the Pharaoh's army attempts to pursue them in the morning, the waters rush back and drown the soldiers.


Other researchers have focused on a phenomenon known as ?wind setdown,? in which a particularly strong and persistent wind can lower water levels in one area while piling up water downwind. Wind setdowns, which are the opposite of storm surges, have been widely documented, including an event in the Nile delta in the 19th century when a powerful wind pushed away about five feet of water and exposed dry land.

A previous computer modeling study into the Red Sea crossing by a pair of Russian researchers, Naum Voltzinger and Alexei Androsov, found that winds blowing from the northwest at minimal hurricane force (74 miles per hour) could, in theory, have exposed an underwater reef near the modern-day Suez Canal. This would have enabled people to walk across. The Russian study built on earlier work by oceanographers Doron Nof of Florida State University and Nathan Paldor of Hebrew University of Jerusalem that looked at the possible role of wind setdown.

The new study, by Drews and CU oceanographer Weiqing Han, found that a reef would have had to be entirely flat for the water to drain off in 12 hours. A more realistic reef with lower and deeper sections would have retained channels that would have been difficult to wade through. In addition, Drews and Han were skeptical that refugees could have crossed during nearly hurricane-force winds.

Reconstructing ancient topography

Studying maps of the ancient topography of the Nile delta, the researchers found an alternative site for the crossing about 75 miles north of the Suez reef and just south of the Mediterranean Sea. Although there are uncertainties about the waterways of the time, some oceanographers believe that an ancient branch of the Nile River flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the Lake of Tanis. The two waterways would have come together to form a U-shaped curve.

An extensive analysis of archeological records, satellite measurements, and current-day maps enabled the research team to estimate the water flow and depth that may have existed 3,000 years ago. Drews and Han then used a specialized ocean computer model to simulate the impact of an overnight wind at that site.

They found that a wind of 63 miles an hour, lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be six feet deep. This would have exposed mud flats for four hours, creating a dry passage about 2 to 2.5 miles long and 3 miles wide. The water would be pushed back into both the lake and the channel of the river, creating barriers of water on both sides of newly exposed mud flats.

As soon as the winds stopped, the waters would come rushing back, much like a tidal bore. Anyone still on the mud flats would be at risk of drowning.

The set of 14 computer model simulations also showed that dry land could have been exposed in two nearby sites during a windstorm from the east. However, those sites contained only a single body of water and the wind would have pushed the water to one side rather than creating a dry passage through two areas of water.

?People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts,? Drews says. ?What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws."

http://www2.ucar.edu/news/parting-waters-computer-modeling-applies-physics-red-sea-escape-route

[He tried to break free from the taken-for-granted views. He left behind an enormous heritage related to the religious history of Islam, in terms of criticizing the Muslim mind, and in terms of introducing new concepts and methodologies in studying issues pertaining to Muslim history and Islam]

Mohammed Arkoun, a renowned Islamic scholar, passed away on Tuesday (September 14th) in Paris at the age of 82. The native of Algeria's Kabylie was buried in Morocco, a country he had grown to love.

Many scholars said his death was a substantial loss and that his intellectual legacy would inspire future generations.

Arkoun's death is "a major loss to the Arabic, Islamic and human circles of thought, because his studies did not solely address Arabs or Muslims. Rather, they targeted all academicians and scholars of heritage, history, cultures, particularly the Arab, Islamic culture," said Dr. Professor Mohammed Tomoro, a professor of philosophy and Islamic history.

He was "a unique character who was passionate about his work and who took everything he did seriously", said Rabat professor Dr. Abdel Ghani Abdul Azm, who worked closely with Arkoun.

"He tried to break free from the taken-for-granted views. He left behind an enormous heritage related to the religious history of Islam, in terms of criticizing the Muslim mind, and in terms of introducing new concepts and methodologies in studying issues pertaining to Muslim history and Islam," Abdul Azm added.

Arkoun was born into modest circumstances in 1928 in the small village of Taourirt-Mimoun, in Kabylie, Algeria. He studied Arabic literature, law, philosophy and geography at Algiers University before being appointed professor at the Sorbonne in Paris where he taught the history of Islamic thought. His reformist ideas were widely read throughout the Arab world and in the West.

"What is new about Arkoun is that is that he endeavoured to work on the Islamic system and sciences so as to apply modern methodologies that were adopted in the sixteenth century, and methodologies that became deeply entrenched since the nineteenth century such as anthropology, sociology, linguistics, philology, psychology, etc.," said Mohammed al-Saghir Jenjer, one of Arkoun's closest friends.

"He labelled that methodology 'applied Islamics,' i.e. subjecting Islamic phenomena, be they a text, a legacy or a collective action, to readings that rely on the human mind as a tool," added al-Saghir Jenjer. "The methodology of the human mind is applicable to all cultures, including the Islamic culture."

Arkoun's death is "a major loss to the Arabic, Islamic and human circles of thought, because his studies did not solely address Arabs or Muslims. Rather, they targeted all academicians and scholars of heritage, history, cultures, particularly the Arab, Islamic culture," said Dr. Professor Mohammed Tomoro, a professor of philosophy and Islamic history.

"Mohammed Arkoun is one of the key figures of our times, on the Maghreb, Islamic or global level," agreed Ahmad Asseid, a scholar of Amazigh culture. "His intellectual contribution, that spans more than forty years, betrays the sound thinking, strict methodology, and accurate notions of a man whose main concern was to modernize Muslim societies, and lead Islamic awareness and mind to the gains of current age and civilization."

Dr. Abdel Latif Fateh el-Din, head of the department of philosophy at Ben M'sick, said that the death of Arkoun is "a major loss for the Arab scene of philosophy, as Arkoun was one of the few Arab philosophers who managed to establish the critical project of revisiting the Arab Islamic heritage and re-emphasizing the human nature of Islam, as was evident in his concentration on the human heritage."

"Mohammed Arkoun is a beacon of thought of an international calibre, who left behind a rich intellectual legacy that has given rise and continues to give rise to incessant discussions," he added.

Arkoun's influence on his students lasted long after they had left his classroom.

Former Algerian Prime Minister Reda Malek, who completed part of his studies with the late professor, was keen to pay his respects: "He was always obsessed by a single idea: rationality in Muslim societies. He was a historian and a thinker who studied the Muslim scholars through the eyes of a scientist. He had the courage to tackle complex problems. For me, his titanic work will remain for posterity. It will be an immense help to our young people."

Professor Mustapha Cherif, another Islamic scholar who worked with Arkoun, paid him a moving tribute: "He was the greatest Islamic historian of his time. Throughout his whole life, he devoted himself to the promotion of modernity and rationality within Muslim society."

As for why Arkoun chose to be buried in Casablanca, Mohammed Al-Saghir Jenjer thought that it had to do with the fact that "he married a Moroccan and lived in Morocco after he retired".

"However, his legacy was available for everyone to benefit from. It is a legacy for all Muslims or for the entire human race," he added. "Thought knows no boundaries."

As Abdel Ghani Abul Azm said, "He always spoke as a man of the Maghreb, not as an Algerian or a Tunisian or Moroccan."

http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2010/09/21/feature-03

Hello,

Do the Quran [ confirm / correct / cancel / supersede / obliterate / abolish / replace ] the previous revelations ?

While responding, please clarify what you are talking about : previous revelations or the texts (torah, etc...) that represent them.

Thanks !

[Ritual Purpose]

Hello,

Some people here at FM may be inclined to say that rituals are meaningless or pointless...

But obviously, they are not.

Ritual Purpose

If ?religion? is the paradigm by which we define our place in the world, then the ritual is the mechanism by which we interrelate and connect with it. This relationship can be defined by its underlying objectives of which there are two main categories; cohesion and, petition and benediction.

Cohesion: The purpose is to solidify and reinforce the individuals own spirituality as well as (when applicable), the social aspect of the spiritual community as a whole. This is accomplished through veneration, systemization and formalization.

Veneration - Through worship, the individual and/or social community can express their adoration and reverence for their divine subject. Through this worship, social and spiritual ties are formed, creating a shared spiritual unit and a strengthening of belief. (Catholic mass, and Muslims? Salat)

http://www.agnosticwitch.catcara.com/rituals-symbols.htm

Peace

Hello,

A interesting quran browser  : e-qra

Vocabulary of the quran : mejliss

A pleasant site for reading the quran :
http://www.quranflash.com/en/index.html#

Narrations qaloon and warsh available there.

The mainstream Italian media are reporting both the rigging of the New Hampshire primary for Senator Hillary Clinton and the official demands for a swift, accurate and impartial recount. In an article written by Marcello Foa, one of Europe's most respected journalists, it appears that vote tallies for all Democratic candidates as well as Republicans were reduced by Diebold vote-counting machines.

In an analysis of the hand-counted ballots, the influential Milanese newspaper - Il Giornale, reports that all Democratic candidates except Senator Hillary Clinton made gains when the New Hampshire ballots were manually tabulated, while Senator Clinton made inexplicably large gains where ballots were tabulated by computerized scanners.

According to the report, Ron Paul should have finished third in the Republican primary rather than fifth. Thus, it would appear that both Barack Obama and Ron Paul were the primary targets of vote-rigging operations in New Hampshire.

Il Giornale cites the Princeton study that alerted public attention to the vulnerability of computerized voting machines used throughout America to deliberate vote-tampering and election-rigging via manipulation of the memory cards.

The state of New Hampshire is equipped with computerized tabulation machines manufactured by Diebold, devices that have received a massive amount of negative publicity after the public awareness of vote-rigging surged dramatically following the presidential election scandal of 2000.

In previous statements, former President Jimmy Carter - who has a global reputation as one of the foremost authorities on election procedures - has frequently pointed out that the United States of America does not meet international criteria for electoral security.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7794

In rhetoric, antonomasia is the substitution of any epithet or phrase with a proper name; the reverse process is also sometimes called antonomasia. The word derives from the Greek word antonomazein meaning "to name differently".

A frequent instance of antonomasia in the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance was the use of the term, "the Philosopher," to refer to Aristotle. A more recent example of the other form of antonomasia was the use of "Solons" for "the legislators" in 1930s journalism, after the semi-legendary Solon, lawgiver of Athens.

A recent example of an antonomastic usage occurs in the phrase "He's such a Nimrod!", substituting the fearless hunter's name?who isn't portrayed as being particularly idiotic?for "idiot" or "jerk", a usage that has been made popular by the 1940s Bugs Bunny cartoons, in which Bugs Bunny frequently refers to Elmer Fudd (who keeps hunting the hare without success) sarcastically as "poor little Nimrod".

Another frequently encountered example is the phrase "I'm no Croesus", meaning "I'm not a very rich person".

More examples:

"Pelides" or "the son of Peleus" for Achilles.
"The Stagirite" for Aristotle.
"The Commentator" for Averroes (so named for his commentaries on "The Philosopher" Aristotle's works)
"The little corporal" for Napoleon I.
"Macedonia's madman" for Alexander the Great.
"Urbi" for To Rome.
"The Iron Duke" for the Duke of Wellington.
"The Bard" for William Shakespeare.
"The Magpies" for Newcastle United.
"Old Blue Eyes" for Frank Sinatra.
"The Scottish play" for Macbeth.
"The Gipper", "The Great Communicator" for Ronald Reagan.
"The King" for Elvis Presley.
"an Einstein" for an intelligent person.
"a Daniel" for a wise judge.
"a Cicero" for an orator.
"a Benedict Arnold" for a traitor.
"a Rembrandt" for an artist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonomasia

The number of verses in the Arabic Qur'an are recorded after the title of the Surah, and the verses distinguished in the text by a small cypher or circle. The early readers of the Qur'an did not agree as to the original position of these circles, and so it happens that there are five different systems of numbering the verses: 

(a) Kufah verses. The Readers in the city of al-Kufah say that they followed the custom of 'Ali. Their way of reckoning is generally adopted in India. They reckon 6,239 verses.
(b) Basrah verses. The Readers of al-Basrah follow 'Asim ibn Hajjaj, a Companion. They reckon 6,204.
(c) Shami verses, The Readers in Syria (Shiim) followed 'Abdu 'lliih ibn 'Umar, a Companion. They reckon 6,225 verses.
(d) Makkah verses. According to this arrangement, there are 6,219 verses.
(e) Madinah verses. This way of reading contains 6,211 verses.

http://muslim-canada.org/quran_division.html
 

Muslims believe that Allah revealed a book to each of Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. "But the Book of the prophet Abraham was lost. The Books of David (the Psalms), Moses (the Torah), and Jesus (the Gospel) were changed."[1]

It is only the Qur'an that was revealed to Mohammad by the angel Gabriel that was preserved, and indeed "Not a single word of it has been changed or lost. It is found today exactly as it was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed."[2] As such it is not Mohammed's personal achievement. Rather it is a divine miracle. The prophethood of every prophet was attested to by divine miracles. It is believed that the Qur'an is God's miracle confirming the prophethood of Mohammed.


"The only miracle Mohammad claimed was the Qur'an ... The Qur'an is the only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text and the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."[3]
Muslims do believe that the Qur'an is a literary miracle and that it is unmatched among any other literature. It is not a human masterpiece but a divine miracle, where every letter and dot was revealed from heaven, with no difference between what was revealed and what we have in our hands.

Masterpieces are the work of humans. Miracles are the work of God. A miracle, any miracle, is superior to the best of masterpieces. Also miracles cannot be "improved upon" by human efforts since that would be the same as acknowledging that the miracle, i.e. the work of God, was flawed.

A masterpiece surpasses other works in one particular area. For example, a mastepiece of engineering does not necessarily have to have an aesthetic appeal. Or a masterpiece in art doesn't have to conform to engineering standards. A masterpiece in flower arrangement does not necessarily have to smell good.

Muslims claim the Qur'an not just to be a human literary masterpiece, but a divine literary miracle. But this claim does not square with the facts. For the Qur'an which we have in our hands contains obvious grammatical errors which is plain to see for all who know Arabic.

The First Error


In 5:69
"Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness - no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow." (Arberry)

"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."
There is a grammatical error in the above verse. The word Saabi'uuna has been declined wrongly.

In two other verses, the same word, in exactly the same grammatical setting was declined correctly.


2:62 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaaraa was-Saabi'iina ..."
22:17 "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaaraa ..."

You notice that the word was written Saabi'uuna in 5:69 and was written Saabi'iina in 2:62 and 22:17. In the last two verses the word was declined correctly because the word inna in the beginning of the sentence causes a form of declension called "nasb" (as in cases of accusative or subjunctive) and the "yeh" is the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna in 5:69 was given the 'uu, waw which is the sign of "raf'a" (as in cases of nominative or indicative). This then is an obvious grammatical error.

The Second Error


In 4:162
"But those of them that are firmly rooted in knowledge, and the believers believing in what has been sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, that perform the prayer and pay the alms, and those who believe in God and the Last Day - them We shall surely give a mighty wage." (Arberry)

"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila 'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."
The word muqiimiin should be muqiimuun. The word should be declined by the "raf'a sign" like the other nouns in the sentence. Indeed the two nouns before it (Raasi-khuun and Mu'-minuun), and the noun after it (mu'-tuun) are declined correctly. Some have argued that this word was declined as such to distinguish and praise the act of praying, but the scholar Ibn al-Khatib says that this is a sick reasoning. (al-Furqan by Mohammad M. 'abd al-Latif Ibn al-Katib, Dar al-Kutub al-'elmiyah, Beirut, p.43). Such reasoning defies logic. Why would one distinguishe prayer which is a branch of religion, and not faith which is the fundamental and root of religion? Besides can this logic apply to the error of declension in the previous verse? Do we conclude that the Saabi'iin are more distinguished than those who believe, and the People of the Book? And why do they get distinguished in one verse and not the other as we have seen? God is much higher than this sick logic. This again is an obvious grammatical error.

The Third Error


In 20:63
"They communed secretly saying, 'These two men are sorcerers'." (Arberry)

"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."
The word haazaani should be haazayn.

The word haazaani was declined incorrectly because the word inna 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". This is the third grammatical error.

The Fourth Error


In 2:177
"It is not piety, that you turn your faces to the East and to the West. True piety is this: to believe in God, and the Last Day ... to give of one's substance ... and to ransom the slave, to perform the prayer, to pay the alms. And they who fulfil their covenant ... and endure with fortitude." (Arberry)

"Laysal-birra 'an-tuwalluu wujuuhakum qibalal-Mashriqi wal-Maghrib wa laakinnal-birra man 'aamana billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Akhiri wal-malaaa-'ikati wal-Kitaabi wan-nabiyyiin: wa 'aatal-maala 'alaa hubbihii zawilqurbaa wal-yataamaa wal-masaakiina wabnas-sabiili was-saaa-'iliina wa fir-riqaab: wa'aqaamas-Salaata wa 'aataz-Zakaata; wal-muufuuna bi'ahdihim 'izaa 'aahaduu was-Saabiriina fil-ba'-saaa'i wazzarraaa-'i ..."
In the above verse there are five gramatical errors. In four of them the wrong tense was used, as the sentence begins in the present tense with the verb tuwalluu, while the other four verbs were written in the past tense:

'aaman should be tu'minuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu;
'aqaama should be tuqimuu;
'aata shoud be tu'tuu.

The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteousness is he who believed in Allah and the Last day and the angels and the Book and the Prophets; and gave his wealth, ... and performed prayer and paid the alms."

But the English translators have observed the tense, and the verbs "believed", "gave", "performed", and "paid" were corrected and written in the present tense. (For example see Arberry, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali and Rodwell's translations).

The fifth error is the wrong declension of the word saabiriina. It should be declined saabiruuna like the preceeding word muufuuna.

The Fifth Error


In 3:59
"the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight, is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then said He unto him, 'Be,' and he was." (Arberry)

"Inna massala 'Isaa 'indal-laahi ka-masali 'Adam; khalaqahuu min-turaabin-sum-ma qaala lahuu kun fa-yakuun."
The above verse when translated into English as it appears in Arabic would be: "The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said to him 'Be,' and he is." The above is Pickthall's translation. Please note that he translated yakuun (is) as it appears in Arabic, i.e. in the present tense.

The word yakuun ("is" in English) should be kana ("was") to be consistent with the past tense of the previous verb "said" as it was corrected by Arberry, Rodwell and Yusuf Ali in their translations of that verse. This is the fifth error.

The Sixth Error


In 21:3
"The evildoers whisper one to another ..."

"Laahiyatan - quluubuhum. Wa 'asarrun-najwallaziin zalamuu..."
The word 'asarru should be 'asarra. The above is a verbal sentence, and the rule for such a sentence, where the verb comes before the (masculine) 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 same rule holds for substituting the two mentionings of "masculine" by "feminine".) But the verb in the above Qur'anic verse came in the plural form. See how the above rule was observed in the following Qur'anic verses: 3:52, 10:2, 16:27, 16:35, 3:42, 49:14.

The Seventh Error


In 22:19
"These are two disputants who have disputed concerning their Lord." (Arberry)

"haazaani Khismani 'ikhtasamuu fi rabbihim ..."
In Arabic, like English words are declined or conjugated with respect to number. In English there are two numbers: singular and plural. So in English two men are treated as plural. But in Arabic there are three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. So in Arabic the verbs and nouns are treated according to the singular or the dual or the plural. The verb in that verse was conjugated as if the subject is more than two. But the verse speaks only of two. So the rules of the dual should be followed and the word 'ikhtasamuu should be 'ikhtasamaa. So this is yet another error.

The Eighth Error


In 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."
This error in this verse is like the previous one. The number again is dual but the verb was conjugated as if the subject is plural. So the verb 'eq-tatalu should be 'eqtatalata.

The Nineth Error

In 63:10
"O my Lord, if only Thou wouldst defer me unto a near term, so that I may make freewill offering, and so I may become one of the righteous." (Arberry)

"... Rabbi law laaa 'akhartaniii 'ilaaa 'ajalin-qariibin-fa-'assaddaqa wa 'akum-minas-salihiin."
The verb 'akun was incorrectly conjugated. It should be 'akuuna, i.e. the last consonant must have the vowel "a", instead of being vowelless, because the verb 'akun, is in the subjunctive. Indeed the previous verb ('assaddaqa) has been correctly conjugated and is in the subjunctive. The reason is that in Arabic the present tense is placed in the subjunctive mood if it is preeceeded by certain words (huruf nasebah). One of such words is the "causative fa".

The Tenth Error


In 91:5
"By the heaven and that which built it." (Arberry)

"was-samaaa-'i wa maa ba-naahaa."
The word ma in the Arabic language is used for the impersonal. But the subject of the above verse is God. So the word which should be used is the Arabic word man (meaning "him who"). Arberry translated that verse as follows: "By the heaven and that which built it" meaning God. Pickthall however corrected the impersonal (ma, that which) and translated the verse as follows: "By the heaven and Him Who built it."

Indeed Pickthall also corrected the two verses that follow:

And the earth and Him Who spread it. Q. 91:6.
And a soul and Him Who perfected it. Q. 91:7.
Yusuf Ali, to get out of the problem, translated the above verse as follows: "By the firmament and its wonderful structure". So the subject 'God' does not appear at all in his translation of that verse. He gives his reason for his translation in a footnote saying: The ma masdariya in Arabic, in this and the subsequent clauses, is best translated in English by nouns." But the word bana in banaha is not a noun but a verb in the past tense as translated correctly by Arberry and Pickthall. The word ma should have been man (meaning "who") and in that context it should have been "Who" with a capital W.

The Eleventh Error


In 41:11
"Then He lifted Himself to heaven when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth, 'come willingly, or unwillingly!' They said, 'we come willingly.'"

"... faqal laha wa lel-Arad 'iteya taw'aan aw karha qalata atayna ta'e'een."
Heaven and earth in Arabic are feminine nouns, the verb said in "they said" is accordingly feminine and dual (qalata), but the adjective "willing" at the end of the verse is masculine and plural (ta'e'een), being at variance with the rule that the adjectives should match their nouns in number in gender, thus ta'e'een which is used for plural, should be ta'e'atain which is used for feminine dual.

The Twelfth Error


In 7:56
"The mercy of God is near."

"... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."
The above verse is a nominal clause. In such a clause the predicate should match the subject (rahmata) of the nominal clause in gender. The word qaribun (meaning "near") is the predicate of rahmata Allahi ("mercy of Allah"), they should match each other in gender. But this is not the case in the Arabic text. Rahmata is feminine in Arabic and so the word qaribun (which is masculine) should instead be qaribah (its feminine form).

This rule was correctly observed in other Qur'anic verses. For example, in 9:40 we read: "Kalemat ul-llah heya al-'ulya." Here both Kalemat and heya are feminine. To say instead: "Kalemat ul-llah howa al-'a'la" would never be correct. That would be just as wrong as saying: "... inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min ..."

Error 13


In 7:160
"We divided them into twelve tribes."

"wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."
Instead of asbatan it should read sebtan.

In the Arabic it literally says "twelve tribes". That is correct in English but not correct in Arabic. In Arabic it should say twelve tribe because the noun that is counted by a number above ten should be singular. This rule is observed correctly for example in 7:142, 2:60, 5:12, 9:36, 12:4.


The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gernder and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ('Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, California, 1994, pages 48,50)
Hence, the above are just a small sample and more are to come.

Some of the above errors are not a new discovery by modern critics. They were known from the first century of Islam by the closest followers of Mohammad. It is reported that 'Uthman, after viewing the first standared copy of the Qur'an, said, 'I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues.'[4] The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib who quoted the above report in his book al-Furqan, went on to mention another report on the authority of 'Aa'isha, one of Mohammad's wives, saying, 'There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe:


In 20:63
"Qaaluuu inna haazaani la-saahiraani ..."

And in 5:69
"Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaaraa man 'aamana bilaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."

And in 4:162
"Laakinir-Raasi-khuuna fil-'ilmi minhum wal-Mu'-minuuna yu'-minuuna bi-maaa 'unzila 'ilayka wa maaa 'unzila min-qablika wal-muqiimiin as-Salaata wal mu'-tuunaz-Zakaata wal-Mu'-mi-nuuna billaahi wal-Yawmil-'Aakhir: 'ulaaa 'ika sanu'-tii-him 'ajran 'aziimaa."'[5]
Two comments need to be made.

First: Muslims claim that the Qur'an we have in our hands today is what was originally revealed to Mohammed, with no change to even one letter. However, there are grammatical errors in today's Qur'an. In facing these errors, we must decide between one of two choices. Either, the original Qur'an was revealed containing these errors, or the errors resulted from mistakes by human scribes as they were copying the Qur'an. There exist no other possibilities. As the first choice is unthinkable, the second is the only logical explanation. But that also means that it is not true that the Qur'an we have in our hands is the "only inspired scripture that has come down to us intact as revealed to the prophet. There has been no tampering of the text and the original purity of the language has stayed undefiled."

Second: If the above errors were found in an article to be published, these errors would be corrected. The article, with these errors remaining in it, could not be hailed as a masterpiece.

The Qur'an, because of these errors, is not even a masterpiece. If, humanly speaking, the Qur'an cannot be called a masterpiece, can anyone honestly call it a divine literary miracle?

http://members.aol.com/AlHaqq4U/grammar.html

Very interesting material from this tunisian thinker.... only in french (sorry for those who do not read french)

[...]

Dans le domaine religieux qui nous int?resse ici, il s'agit au premier chef de red?finir le statut du Coran. Est-il, ainsi que le proclame la tradition, un texte exclusivement divin dans son contenu et dans sa forme, dict? d'une mani?re surnaturelle au proph?te Muhammad, le r?le de celui-ci ?tant purement celui de transmetteur passif ? Ou bien le Coran, ?tant en langage humain, est-il, pour le croyant, divin par son origine et son inspiration, mais ?galement ?minemment humain, dans la mesure o? la personnalit? du Proph?te, sa culture et ses conditions de vie individuelle et communautaire ne pouvaient pas ne pas intervenir dans l'?laboration de ce Texte sacr? ?

Il est remarquable que la conception mythique traditionnelle de la R?v?lation est celle qui a le plus cours en milieu musulman. Ceux qui ?prouvent des difficult?s ? l'admettre finissent souvent par un rejet absolu de l'islam, mais subrepticement et discr?tement. Pourtant, le croyant peut admettre que le Proph?te avait un rapport privil?gi? avec la divinit?, une exp?rience du divin peu commune dont le discours coranique rendait compte dans un langage imag?, allusif, m?taphorique, usant, pour emporter l'adh?sion de ses auditeurs, des reprises, des rappels et des r?p?titions, des r?cits et des paraboles. Un langage po?tique en somme, mais une po?sie qui emprunte certes ? la prose rim?e des devins arabes comme aux proc?d?s bibliques, mais une po?sie de haut vol bien particuli?re qui tranche avec les discours ordinaires.

Le discours coranique est, on l'oublie souvent, un discours oral. Ce caract?re est perceptible dans le corpus officiel o? il a ?t? consign?, dans le Mushaf ?uthm?nien "r?uni", selon la terminologie consacr?e, quelques vingt ans apr?s la mort du Proph?te. Certains orientalistes de l'?cole anglo-saxonne notamment, mais pas exclusivement[1], depuis la parution en 1977 de la th?se de J. Wansbrough (Quranic Studies) et du livre de M. Cook et P. Crone (Hagarism), ont d?fendu l'id?e d'une ?laboration par des scribes compositeurs tout au long des deux premiers si?cles de l'islam, du Texte coranique. Cette th?se ne tient pas. Elle a ?t? d'ailleurs infirm?e par la d?couverte fortuite en 1972 des manuscrits de San??, dont certains remontent certainement au premier si?cle de l'H?gire. C'est qu'on a voulu, inconsciemment peut-?tre, appliquer au Coran le sch?ma qui a pr?valu pour l'Ancien et surtout pour le Nouveau Testament. Les "lectures" coraniques, orthodoxes ou pas, et les variantes du Texte scrupuleusement not?es par les ?rudits des III? et IV? s. H., t?moignent au contraire de l'op?ration, ? maints ?gards arbitraire, du passage du discours oral au discours ?crit, fond? en grande partie sur la m?moire, la calligraphie arabe ?tant encore d?ficiente ? cette ?poque primitive.

La situation du discours originel ?tant irr?m?diablement perdue pour les g?n?rations qui n'?taient pas contemporaines de la r?v?lation, le rapport au Texte sacr? a radicalement chang?, quoique progressivement. Le Mushaf est ainsi devenu susceptible th?oriquement d'un nombre illimit? d'interpr?tations. Mais, de toutes ces interpr?tations potentielles, seules celles qui correspondaient aux attentes de leurs auteurs, ? leurs valeurs soci?tales et g?n?ralement ? leurs conditions historiques, seules ces interpr?tations-l? se sont impos?es comme valables et m?me traduisant le sens unique du Texte.

Le processus de passage de l'oral ? l'?crit, du Qur'?n au Mushaf, n'aurait pas eu des cons?quences durables infligeant au texte fondateur des infl?chissements et des perversions graves par leur port?e symbolique, s'il n'avait pas eu lieu en m?me temps qu'une qu?te de justification religieuse et de l?gitimation des rapports sociaux en usage, et des institutions de l'empire musulman au temps de sa naissance et, plus encore, au temps de son extension et de sa consolidation. En d'autres termes, les interpr?tations du Coran qui nous sont parvenues dans les premi?res ex?g?ses datant du III? s. H. refl?taient les pr?occupations des musulmans apr?s le mouvement des conqu?tes et la constitution dans le vaste champ de l'empire des communaut?s musulmanes d'origine arabe ou converties, beaucoup plus que les pr?occupations et les mani?res de comprendre des destinataires premiers du message proph?tique. L'attachement ? la litt?ralit? du Texte en particulier ne s'est g?n?ralis? qu'? partir du moment o? le Coran est devenu pratiquement un code juridique contraignant, en fait plus th?orique que r?el, d'autres sources de droit lui faisant concurrence et le rel?guant au statut de r?f?rence ultime plus ou moins fictive.

Cependant, le rapport au Texte tel que nous l'avons d?fini s'inscrit dans le cadre d'un autre processus beaucoup plus large et aux effets multiformes. Et penser l'islam aujourd'hui consiste en priorit? ? prendre et ? faire prendre conscience de ce processus historique, et ? le d?construire. Une op?ration difficile qui requiert des comp?tences de toute sorte, car il n'est gu?re facile de traverser les couches ?paisses et successives des interpr?tations et des manipulations qui se sont exerc?es sur le Texte pour remonter au message originel et appr?hender toute sa richesse et sa profondeur. Se d?barrasser en outre des concepts philosophiques h?rit?s en grande partie de la conscience mythique dominante et des cat?gories de la pens?e grecque qui lui ont ?t? coll?s au cours des efforts de rationalisation du donn? r?v?l?. Le saisir en somme dans sa globalit? et dans ses intentions, non dans ses injonctions circonstancielles.

La d?construction en question remettrait d'abord en cause, renverserait m?me, l'id?e tr?s r?pandue que les premi?res g?n?rations de musulmans, les "pieux anciens" (as-salaf as-s?lih), avaient une meilleure connaissance et une meilleure application des pr?ceptes de l'islam, et que les g?n?rations suivantes sont vou?es ? s'en ?carter toujours davantage. Cette vision n'est plus recevable dans la mesure o? l'islam naissant avait besoin de temps pour ?tre int?rioris?, qu'il n'avait pas proc?d? ? un lavage de cerveaux, et que les esprits des premiers musulmans ?taient encore imbib?s de croyances et de perceptions du monde et de la soci?t? qu'il ?tait impossible d'effacer d'un coup et de remplacer par celles qu'il apportait. Par ailleurs, elle ne tient pas compte de l'accumulation chaque jour plus importante des savoirs humains et des ?l?ments de la culture universelle, surtout ? notre ?poque. En fait, les premiers musulmans qui avaient en charge de mettre en application ce qu'ils comprenaient de l'islam ne pouvaient le faire que dans le cadre des syst?mes cognitifs et sociaux ? leur disposition. Leurs solutions ?taient dict?es par des imp?ratifs qui ne sont plus les n?tres. S'y conformer revient en d?finitive ? couper le lien entre la religion et la vie, alors que le maintien de ce lien est paradoxalement l'objectif d?clar? de ceux qui sont attach?s ? la v?n?ration du pass? et des anciens, plus proches ? leurs yeux, sans qu'ils se l'avouent, des anges que des humains soumis ? une multitude de contraintes, et sujets, entre autres, de d?sirs, d'ambitions, d'amours et de haines.

Ainsi, la mise en application des pr?ceptes de la nouvelle religion n'a pu se r?aliser qu'? travers le ph?nom?ne pr?sent dans toutes les traditions religieuses, celui de l'institutionnalisation par trois op?rations simultan?es :

-          la confessionnalisation par laquelle le groupe de la Umma en gestation se d?marque des autres groupes confessionnels (juifs, chr?tiens, manich?ens, zoroastriens, polyth?istes, etc.) et se superpose aux anciennes identit?s tribales par des comportements, des attitudes et des mani?res de se v?tir, de boire et de manger diff?rentes ;

-          la ritualisation qui consiste ? tourner le dos ? la souplesse et ? la spontan?it? qui ont marqu? la pratique des actes cultuels du temps de la R?v?lation, pour les remplacer par un ensemble unifi? de rites codifi?s de fa?on rigide, auxquels le croyant doit se plier imp?rativement ;

-          et la dogmatisation qui d?limite les croyances orthodoxes par rapport aux h?r?sies et aux d?viances. Elle inclut de la sorte les doctrines du Coran incr??, que Dieu est l'unique l?gislateur dont les Fuqahas (jurisconsultes) ne sont que les interpr?tes de sa Loi, que tous les Compagnons du Proph?te sont "honorables" et dignes de confiance, que les actes humains sont pr?d?termin?s, etc.

Il est ?vident que l'institutionnalisation, sous ces trois formes, ne s'est pas install?e du jour au lendemain. Au contraire, certaines de ses manifestations ne se sont impos?es qu'au bout de deux ou trois si?cles d'affrontements, de d?bats, de t?tonnements et d'emprunts aux cultures environnantes. Mais son d?veloppement et sa logique ?taient implacables, car dans la nature des choses, ?tant donn? la forte imbrication du politique, du social, du culturel et du religieux proprement dit.
Dans le m?me ordre d'id?es, on a assist? ? une v?ritable transfiguration de la personne du Proph?te, devenu au fil des jours et des ann?es, malgr? l'affirmation du Coran qu'il n'est qu'un simple mortel charg? de transmettre le message divin, un ?tre supra humain auquel on a coll? tous les id?aux et toutes les aspirations des hommes de son temps, et m?me leurs fantasmes, sexuels entre autres.

La tradition vivante n'?tait alors pas suffisante pour alimenter cet arch?type dans toutes les contr?es islamiques. C'est donc la tradition textuelle qui prit sa place. Le Hadith est n? de ce besoin, ainsi que la normativit? des actes et des paroles du Proph?te, c'est-?-dire la n?cessit? de se conformer aux moindres faits et gestes de Muhammad consign?s au III?/IX? s. dans les recueils de traditions proph?tiques dites authentiques.

Penser l'islam aujourd'hui c'est aussi, par cons?quent, d?masquer le caract?re trompeur de ces traditions qui pr?tendent refl?ter fid?lement les volont?s du Proph?te, alors qu'elles ne sont, et ne peuvent ?tre, que des repr?sentations influenc?es, de bonne ou de mauvaise foi, par des facteurs historiques susceptibles d'?tre analys?s et ?claircis, au moins dans leurs grandes lignes et dans leur texture g?n?rale, par les m?thodes des sciences humaines et sociales modernes.

Il en va ainsi non seulement des autres fondements du droit musulman, en particulier du consensus (iğm?') et de l'analogie (qiy?s), mais surtout des pr?suppos?s qui sont ? la base de tout l'?difice des r?gles jurisprudentielles appel?es abusivement la Char?'a. A titre d'exemple, affirmer, ? la suite de Ch?fi'? (m. 204/820) qui ne fait que traduire une conception commune ? ses contemporains, que tous les actes humains sans exception doivent n?cessairement ob?ir ? l'une des cinq qualifications l?gales ou statuts (ahk?m) qui sont, par ordre d?croissant, l'obligatoire, le recommand?, le permis, le r?pr?hensible et l'illicite, n'est que l'expression d'une situation o? tous les aspects de la vie sont sacralis?s, autrement dit d'une ali?nation dont il est urgent de se d?barrasser.

De m?me, consid?rer qu'il faut prendre au pied de la lettre les versets coraniques, et ne pas tenir compte des circonstances particuli?res qui sont ? leur origine[2], ou que l'effort de r?flexion personnel (iğtih?d) ne s'applique qu'en l'absence de texte explicite[3], ou que le "taw?tur", c'est-?-dire la pr?sence de plusieurs transmetteurs d'une m?me tradition, conduit ? une connaissance certaine, ou qu'il est interdit de revenir sur un consensus ?labor? par une g?n?ration ant?rieure, et tant d'autres pr?suppos?s similaires, consid?rer qu'ils sont encore valables aujourd'hui c'est m?conna?tre qu'ils sont les pi?ces d'un ?difice humain, juridique, social et politique qui avait jou? pleinement son r?le dans le pass?, mais qui est maintenant tomb? compl?tement en ruine sous l'effet de la modernit?.

Cet ?difice avait l'avantage de pr?server l'?quilibre social, de fournir les ?l?ments d'une organisation solide et bien structur?e, et, malgr? la solidarit? qui unissait les tenants du pouvoir politique et les repr?sentants de l'institution religieuse, a su instaurer un certain "Etat de droit", dans la mesure o? les hommes politiques - donc le pouvoir ex?cutif - n'avaient qu'une emprise tr?s limit?e sur le pouvoir judiciaire des Fuqah?s, car ils n'?taient pas habilit?s ? "dire le droit", ni m?me ? l'appliquer dans les affaires courantes. Ils avaient, certes, les mains libres dans l'exercice du pouvoir, et n'?taient pas soumis, dans cet exercice, au moindre contr?le. En contrepartie, c'?taient les "gestionnaires du sacr?" qui avaient en charge exclusive l'encadrement de la population, qui assuraient la socialisation et l'organisation symbolique et mat?rielle de la vie en mati?re de relations familiales, donc de statut personnel : mariage, divorce, h?ritage, etc., d'?ducation, de sant?, d'aide aux n?cessiteux, de tutelle des orphelins, etc. La solidarit? entre les repr?sentants de l'institution politique et les repr?sentants de l'institution religieuse ?tait dict?e par les besoins des premiers de jouir d'une l?gitimit? que seuls les seconds pouvaient accorder, et, en contrepartie, par la n?cessit? pour ceux-ci de b?n?ficier des privil?ges moraux et mat?riels et de l'appui efficace que leur octroyaient les gouvernants.

[...]


http://www.canal-u.fr/canalu/chainev2/utls/programme/1261499079_penser_l_islam_aujourd_hui/

In some posts, we can find the following proposed translations :

al-bayt al-haram = "the House/Establishment of the Restriction"
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9837.msg111108#msg111108

al-masjid al-haram = "institution/implementation of hearing and obeying the forbidden"
http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.msg110854#msg110854

However, in the grammar books, I read that adjectives are placed after the noun they qualify, and that if the noun has the article, the adjective must have it too.

Examples :
al-baitu-s-saghiru = "the small house"
alqur-ana alAAatheema = "the great recitation" ([15:87])

I also read that, to express possession, the possessor is a definite noun without the article, and the possessed is a definite genitive noun with the article.

Examples :
baitu-r-rajuli = "the house of the man"
ahlu al-kitabi = "the people of the book"

Therefore, in al-bayt al-haram and al-masjid al-haram, haram can only be an adjective of the name before, giving :

Al-bayt al-haram = "the restricted/forbidden/sacred House/Establishment"

al-masjid al-haram = "the restricted/forbidden/sacred institution/implementation of hearing and obeying"

Looking forward for your comments

Peace