Quran Grammatical Mistakes Zakaria Boutros Botros Errors, Islam for Dummies زكريا بطرس





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Uploaded on Sep 6, 2009

Quran Grammar Mistakes Zakaria Botros Errors, Islam for Dummies.

زكريا بطرس

Today we will be talking about the false claim that there are grammatical mistakes in the Quran. First, we need to understand the relationship between the Quran and the grammar of the Arabic language. In his book, entitled "The Qur'an : An Encyclopedia", Oliver Leaman, (Ph. D. from Cambridge University), wrote :
"The Qur'an is the OLDEST book in the Arabic language-system and even today is regarded as the FINAL authority regarding diction, morphology, syntax, grammar
and rhetoric in Arabic." "From a linguistic point of view, the Qur'an was the
most important event in the history of the Arabic language." "It not only codified the grammar and lexicon of the language, it also presented the Arabs with linguistic possibilities never before imagined by poets and orators."

Therefore, because the Quran is the main source and guide for Arabic grammar, it is quite ridiculous to challenge its linguistic mastery. Anyone making such an absurd claim about the Quran, is simply proving their own ignorance about Arabic grammar itself. While we have sufficiently proven the logical impossibility of grammatical mistakes in the Quran (being the source), we will examine some of these false claims anyway.

Let's examine a fabrication from Zakaria Butros, where he misquotes what is written in the Quran, in order to attack it.
Surah Taha, verse 63...IN-NA hathan But, verse 20:63 is ACTUALLY: { IN hathan } This blunder disqualifies his entire drawn-out argument.
He is ignorant of the fact that this alternate pronunciation of the verse: is an established and well documented Arabic style, and does not even change the original Quranic spelling.

For those like Butros making such false claims to attack the Quran, their own argument ironically discredits both their Old and New Testaments. ReligiousTolerance.org: "Biblical scholars have noted that about every page of the Bible, whether written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek contains both spelling and grammatical mistakes."

And even though Butros fails to demonstrate a "speck of sawdust" about the Quran's grammar, he should still adhere to the following advice (Matt 7:3 NIV) :
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

Other false claims naively use only part of the Arabic grammar, to the exclusion of advanced rules. For example, they try to use ELEMENTARY level grammar rules
to object against highly ADVANCED linguistic constructs in the Quran, which are obviously not taught in lower grammar levels.
Such passages go far beyond the doctorate level of linguistic prowess, complexity and intricacies, and as such, cannot be analyzed by the limited scope of 1st grade grammar rules.
Now, let's watch Butros admit that his analysis uses only 1st grade grammar. ...in elementary school, we studied the Arabic language, from the beginning of elementary
school, the FIRST GRADE, and we know the rule of ...

Unlike Butros, the early pagan Arabs were properly qualified to discuss the Arabic language, yet none of them ever made the uneducated claim of linguistic errors. When confronted with the wondrous linguistic nature of the Quran, his enemies were forced to accuse Prophet Muhammad of "sorcery".

Oliver Leaman explains that the Quran: "...was deemed so superior, indeed so beautiful, that even in the eyes of the Prophet Muhammads bitterest opponents it transcended the merely human..." "Because the language of the Quran was so captivating, the Quraysh had to literally BAN their people from listening to Muhammads recitations.

The claim of grammatical errors in the Quran is even MORE juvenile than a 1st grader accusing William Shakespeare of not knowing English, because the Quran is the main basis for documenting Arabic grammar.

Let's listen to the person TXHalabi's invention of rules for assigning Quranic chapter titles:

He is gravely mistaken:
Because there is no rule in any language, that says that a chapter title must be a noun, and cannot be a verb, object or even a letter.
Furthermore, al Mutafifeen IS the object (NOT the subject) of the 1st sentence in this chapter, so it is, of course, correct.

Due to its linguistic superiority, the Quran was the main source used to codify Arabic grammar. We saw how people claiming that it contains grammatical mistakes end up only demonstrating remarkable ignorance about the Arabic language itself.


When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...