Odd Spellings and Other Quranic Oddities
- philhoraia
- Nov 12, 2021
- 15 min read
Updated: Jul 25, 2022
There is a number of spelling oddities in the Quran. One consistently misspelled word is 'angel', which is ملك malak in the said book but it should be ملاك mal'ak, from the Hebrew מלאך malakh. The Quranic spelling is the same as the word for 'king', malik. In the Quran the angel in charge of Hell is called Malik. S 43:77 Article: Allah’s Need for Human Sacrifice to Appease Hell’s Angelic Ruler – Answering Islam Blog
Another oddity is Jibril جبريل, the Quranic form of جبرائيل Gabriel. A more glaring one is Mikal ميكال, which should be ميخائيل Mikha'il, Michael. In Al-Fatihah we find بِسْمِ اللَّهِ bismi Allah, a misspelling for باسم الله bi-ismi Allah. In other passages we find باسم. One or two online versions have tidied up the spellings to some degree. So the reader will not find, for example, سموت but سماوات samawat 'skies'.
In an article we read:
Saudi Journalist: The Quranic Text As We Know It Contains Some 2,500 Mistakes Of Spelling And Grammar
In his January 10, 2020 article, titled "Amending The Quran," Saudi journalist Ahmad Hashem wrote: "The Quran as we know it was written down during the period of the [third] caliph, 'Uthman bin 'Affan, using the 'Uthmani script, which is named after him. Most Muslims believe that this version [of the Quran], which was written in the 37th year after the Hijra, when the compiling of the Quran was completed, and has been passed down from generation to generation to this very day, is sacred and must not be amended.
"However, [the Quran] in its present form contains errors of spelling, syntax and grammar; it is estimated that there are about 2,500 such mistakes. They were made by the committee tasked with compiling the Quran, and include the addition or omission of letters in some words or the substitution of one letter for another. For example, in Surah 68, verse 6, [the word] بِأَيِّيكُمُ ["which of you"] appears, instead of بأيكم. In other words, an extra ي was added. In Surah 25, verse 4, [the word] جَآءُو ["they committed"] appears, instead of جَاءُوا or جاؤوا. In other words, the alif in the plural masculine suffix وا is missing. In Surah 28, verse 9, the word امرأت ["wife"] appears, instead of امرأة. In 54 instances, the name إبراهيم [Ibrahim] appears… as إبراهم , omitting the letter ي , and the word سماوات ["skies"] is written in this way only once, whereas in 189 other instances it appears [incorrectly] as سموت, without the letter ا… The word قرآن ["Quran"] appears 68 times without the letter ا… The word سنة ["year"] appears eight times with the letter ة [at the end] and five times with the letter ت .
"The 'Uthmani script, in which the Quran is written, was formed by several of the Prophet's Companions and several members of the following generation, and they deserve credit for the effort they made, according to their ability at the time. [However,] the legacy they left us can be developed and amended if there is a better and more convenient alternative, as was done [in later years] when diacritics and punctuation marks were added [to the Quranic text]. The time has come to amend the spelling errors and other errors it contains, and adapt it to the rules of the Arabic language and grammar – for the Quranic text is open to any amendment that will make Allah's book easier for Muslims to read and linguistically more correct."[5]...
"The errors of the 'Uthmani script [were discussed] in an article titled 'Amending the Quran' by the Saudi writer Ahmed Hashem… who showed, based on the Quranic text, that the Prophet's scribes made errors when they wrote down the Quranic verses… Further examples of discrepancies between the 'Uthmani script and the [modern] standard script, involving the omission of letters, are the following: omission of the letter ا, for instance in writing الكتب ["the book"] instead of الكتاب…, [and] omission of the letter ن, [as in] نجي ["we will save"] instead of ننجي… The greatest error made in the 'Uthmani script 1,441 years ago was writing the word Becca instead of Mecca in Surah 3, verse 86, [which says]: 'Indeed, the first House [of worship] established for mankind was that at Becca - blessed and a guidance for the worlds.' Another error was made in verse 55 of Surah 22, which contains the phrase يوم عقيم ["useless day"] instead of يوم عظيم["great day"]… due to a scribal error in which the letter ق was substituted for the letter ظ. For some 1,500 years no credible authority dared to call for correcting "Becca" to "Mecca" [in Quran 3:86].
There are also grammatical oddities. Why in S 2:29 do we read: He is the one who created for you all what is on the Earth then ascended to the sky and regularised them as seven skies. And he is learned in everything. ? Sky is singular but Allah regularised them as seven skies?
From an article: 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] The Qur'an: Grammatical Errors
Further reading: “Don’t Shoot Us, We Are Just the Messenger” : Another Grammatical Mistake in the Qur’an
There are words that have flummoxed scholars. From an article:
For example, the Qur'an, in S. 4:12 and 176, refers to a kalalah, yet the Arabic word kalalah left many Muslims baffled:
Narrated Al-Bara' ibn Azib: A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah, they ask thee for a legal decision about a kalalah. What is meant by kalalah? He replied: The verse revealed in summer [i.e. 4:176] is sufficient for you. I asked AbuIshaq: Does it mean a person who dies and leaves neither children nor father? He said: This is so. The people THINK it is so. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 18, Number 2883)
A literal translation of Muhammad's answer would be: "The summer verse is sufficient for you." The footnote by the translator says:
2299. The last part of the verse of al-Nisa (Surah iv) was revealed in summer and the first in winter.
Muhammad's refusal to give a clear answer is an implicit admission that he did not know the meaning either. And, quite understandably, this issue kept on bothering the Muslims, since most people have to deal with inheritance issues at some time in their life, many even several times. Here is another hadith mentioning the same issue:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: 'Umar delivered a sermon on the pulpit of Allah's Apostle, saying, "Alcoholic drinks were prohibited by Divine Order, and these drinks used to be prepared from five things, i.e., grapes, dates, wheat, barley and honey. Alcoholic drink is that, that disturbs the mind." 'Umar added, "I wish Allah's Apostle had not left us before he had given us definite verdicts concerning three matters, i.e., how much a grandfather may inherit (of his grandson), the inheritance of Al-Kalala (the deceased person among whose heirs there is no father or son), and various types of Riba (usury)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 69, Number 493)
Note that the text in parentheses is not found in the Arabic, it is supplied by the translator as a possible explanation of the word. After all, the whole point of that narration is that it is not clear what is actually meant by this expression.
S. 39:63 speaks of maqalid:
<To Him Belong the Maqalid of the heavens and earth.> Mujahid said, "Maqalid means ‘KEYS’ IN PERSIAN." This was also the view of Qatadah Ibn Zayd and Sufyan bin 'Uyaynah. As-Suddi said ... <To Him belong the Maqalid of the heavens and the earth.> "The TREASURES of the heaven and the earth." Both OPINIONS mean that the control of all things is in the Hand of Allah, may He be blessed and exalted, for His is the dominion and to Him is the praise, and He is able to all things ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir(Abridged), Volume 8 (Surat Al-Ahzab, Verse 51 to the end of Surat Ad-Dukhan), First Edition, September 2000, pp. 415-416)
In S. 40:18 the word kazimin is used:
<Kazimin> means SILENT, for no one will speak without His permission ... Ibn Jurayj said: <Kazimin> "It means WEEPING." (Ibid., p. 459)
As the final example, out of many more, let's see what Ibn Kathir has to say about the word 'as'as in S. 81:17, a word that allegedly has two meanings that are diametrically opposed:
<And by the night when it ‘As'as.> THERE ARE TWO OPINIONS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT. One of them is that it refers to its advancing with its darkness. Mujahid said, "It means its darkening." Sa'id bin Jubyar said, "When it begins." Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "When it covers the people." This was also said by ‘Atiyah Al-‘Awfi. ‘Ali bin Abi Talha and Al-‘Awfi both reported from Ibn ‘Abbas ... <when it ‘As'as> "This means when it goes away." Mujahid, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak, all said the same. Zayd bin Aslam and his son ‘Abdur-Rahman also made a similar statement, when they said ... <when it ‘As'as> "This means when it leaves, and thus it turns away." I believe the intent in Allah's saying ... <when it ‘As'as> is when it approaches, even though it is correct to use the word for departing also. However, approachment IS A MORE SUITABLE USAGE HERE. It is as if Allah is swearing by the night and its darkness when it approaches, and by the morning and its light when it shines from the east. This is as Allah says ... <By the night as it envelops. By the day as it appears in brightness> (92:1-2) and He also says ... <By the forenoon. By the night when it darkens.> (93:1-2) Allah also says ... <Cleaver of the daybreak. He has appointed night for resting.> (6:96) And there are other similar Ayat that mention this. Many of the scholars of the fundamentals of language have said that the word ‘As'as is used to mean advancing and retreating, with both meanings sharing the same word. Therefore, it is correct that the intent COULD BE both of them, and Allah knows best. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), First Edition, September 2000, pp. 381-382; bold and capital emphasis ours)
The founder of Islam appears to have liked foreign words.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Time will pass rapidly, good deeds will decrease, and miserliness will be thrown (in the hearts of the people), and the Harj (will increase)." They asked, "What is the Harj?" He replied, "(It is) killing (murdering), (it is) murdering (killing).
Narrated Abu Musa:
The Prophet (ﷺ) said...(as above, 185). And Harj, in the Ethiopian language, means killing.
There is a number of words of foreign origin in the Quran.
See also my post: https://philhoraia.wixsite.com/website/post/drowsy-scribe
Comments