Surah Al Anbiya V: 95/96

In the Name of God; the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.


Brother, you're right. I'm not forcing you into anything, but I'm just giving you advice, because I know that you're someone who takes his deen serious, like I do, alhamduillah, and I know that we both like to grind for answers when we have some questions, I know that. I'm giving you advice, because, so far I have experienced that some questions just cannot be answered with the knowledge we have now. That's all. I just want you to know that, in case you get sad when you can't find an answer, or in case your iman drops when you can't find the answer, which happened to me before. I just want you to realise that eventhough we have so much information, we still shouldn't expect to find the answer to every question. That's impossible.

I'll give you an example of questions you shouldn't be bothering yourself with:

"Once a man came to the Prophet (SAW), and asked: "When will the Hour come?", whereas he (SAW) replied: "What have you prepared for it?" (if you want I can give you the reference for research purposes, but I don't know it out of the top of my head)


You see that? The man asked the Prophet (SAW) when the Hour would start, and without responding he (SAW) returned a question back; implying that the question is irrelevant, because have you prepared something for it? Is it going to make a difference whether you know when the Hour comes or not? No, because if you have zero deeds, you still have zero deeds. Nothing has changed.


So, without dragging it forward... Where did I "force" you anything? I'm just saying that we can't read God His Mind, and thus we can't know why He does this and that. What's wrong with saying that?

Imagine if the Prophet (SAW) was here... What would you ask him? Would you ask him the big questions, or small insiders like these?

Last, but not least... I have no knowledge of your daily routine regarding prayer and what not, but I said "our". I was speaking in the plural. I said: "while our prayer are half-broken". I was speaking on the behalf of everyone (of the Ummah), because face it... Our salat in general isn't great. Even Abdullah ibn Umar (RA), who was KNOWN for his intense praying (more than most companions), said: "If I knew that ANY of my prayers was accepted (by Allah), then I would wish for death (because then I can die in peace)".


So don't let pride enter your heart when you think I'm being personal when I give advice. If I was to talk about salat to Ibn Umar, even he would agree that our "prayer is half-broken".


Salaam-aleikum, brother, and may Allah (SWT) give you the answers you need, not the answer you want (because I would like to know when I'm going to die (that's a question about death), but no way no how I'm getting that answer...).

Edited by Al Ghuraba - 24 November 2015 at 10:57am

In the Name of Allah; the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

I totally agree with you, brother. To me, one of the biggest blessings in life, is that Allah (SWT) is giving me time to figure out what the Qur'an means instead of just "reading it", you know what I'm saying? Subhanullah. Whenever I don't understand a verse, I go and do more research about it, and every single time Allah (SWT) shows me the meaning of these verses, except those that aren't meant for us to be understood. Subhanullah.

I get a huge kick/rush whenever I figure something out, or when I do some research to increase my iman. It never gets old, and the sweetness of iman is helping me to keep going on and never quit, because then at least I know that God is with me, and that He's supporting me, subhanullah.

And yes, I agree. There's no harm in doing some research in the Qur'an, because we just simply have to understand it. However, we should be careful not to spend our entire lives on the same subject without getting result. May Allah (SWT) grant us understanding.

"Whoever takes on the path of knowledge, then Allah (SWT) will make the path to Jannah easy for him".

Subhanullah.


I also recently found a series of Nouman Ali Khan where he talks about things of the Qur'an that amazes him. I HIGHLY recommended these series, and trust me, you're going to love it, I guarantee you that!

Season 1:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLutdSTmJ7bAKBCb0PD-5QYsC_TfaLhdlr

Season 2 (not yet done):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLutdSTmJ7bAI7_C4iDzJWpHhGlnqHUI_f


If the links don't work for some reason, then just type: "Nouman Ali Khan amazed by the Qur'an series", or something like that, on Youtube.


When I watched these videos, I instantly thought of you, and now I understand how important it is to study the Qur'an deeply. But, again, like I said... Make sure it's resourceful. God does not want to see you wasting time, which you can use for better things.



May Allah (SWT) guide us ALL. As-salaam-aleikum, brother, and may He give you the Highest Level of Jannah.

(Also, don't you think that it's a good idea to write down what Nouman teaches us in those videos, on this forum? Or at least a seperate forum? Then we also have it in written form, so more people can benefit from this. I don't know how many people are on this website, but if one person got to see this, then I would be a happy man. Let me know what you think.)

Edited by Al Ghuraba - 26 November 2015 at 2:18pm

In the Name of Allah; the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

First of all, I ask Allah (SWT) to help you with your pursuit of seeking truth, and may He make it easy upon you. And I agree with what you said, brother.

As for the second point which I like to make... I assume that you mean this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwsQGl8oIE

In case the video doesn't work, I'll quote everything which Zakir Naik said in response:

Question: Dr. Zakir, you said there is not any mistake in Qur�an. I see more than 20 mistakes in Arabic grammar, and I will tell you some of them. �(Arabic)� Which is right, Assabeun or Assabreen? Answer: (Dr. Zakir): The brother has asked a very good question. ������I would like to be more concordance � and agreeing, he has mentioned all 20 grammatical points. ������And the book he is referring to, �Is the Qur�an infallible by Abdul Faadi�. I will answer all 20 together, because I have read the book � I will answer all 20, Insha Allah� Insha Allah. ������Point No. 1 to be noted � that all Arabic grammar is taken from the Qur�an. ������ Qur�an was the highest Arabic book � A book which has the maximum level of highest literature. ������All the Arabic grammar has been derived from the Qur�an. ������Qur�an is the textbook of grammar. ������Since Qur�an is the textbook of grammar, and all the grammar is derived from the Qur�an, the Qur�an can never have a mistake.������ Point No. 2 � It is like, you know� taking a ruler, and the ruler is there� has a measurement, and your saying the measurement is wrong � It sounds illogical. In different Arabic tribes, the grammar keeps on changing. ������In some Arabic tribe, the word is feminine; the same word is even masculine in the other tribe. ������Same word in different tribes � the grammar keeps on changing � Even the gender keeps on changing. ������ So will you check Qur�an, with that faulty grammar? � No! ������And further more, the eloquence of Qur�an is so high � It is so high, it is far superior. ������And you know there are various books � On the Internet you go, 12 grammatical mistakes, 21 grammatical mistakes � Abdul Faadi � 20 grammatical mistakes. ������Do you think the Christian people took out these mistakes? ������Who took out these mistakes? � Do you know who took out? ������The Muslims! The Muslim scholars like Zamak Sharif � what they did � that the Qur�an grammar is so high, that it goes against the conventional use of the Arabic. The Qur�an grammar is so high � To prove the Qur�anic grammar was high, they gave examples. ������And I will give you a couple of examples, which will answer all his 20 questions. ������They gave the example � like we read in the Qur�an, it says that� �The people of Lut Alaihis salaam, they rejected all the messengers.� �������They rejected the messengers�� it is mentioned. ������ Dr. William Campbell said� �The people of Noah � they rejected the messengers.� ��We know from history that there was only one messenger sent to them � So it has a grammatical mistake. ��Qur�an should have said � The people rejected the �messenger� not �messengers.� ������I agree with you � with layman grammar like how you and I know, it may be a mistake. ������But if you read the books written by Arabs � What is the beauty of the Qur�an? ������The beauty of the Qur�an is � Why does the Qur�an refer �messengers�, instead of �messenger�? ������You know why? ������Because we know that the basic message of all the messengers, was same � That there is one God � About Tawheed � About Allah Subhanawataala. ������By mentioning, the people of Lut alaihis salaam� the people of Noah, rejected the messenger � It says, by rejecting Lut alahis salaam, they are indirectly rejecting all the messengers.� ������ See the beauty, see the eloquence� Alhamdulillah! (Praise be to Allah) ������You may think it is a mistake � It is not a mistake. ������ Similarly, people like Anis Shorrosh says, that Qur�an says��Qun fa ya Qun�Be and it is� � It should be �Qun fa qaana� � �Be� and it was. ������Agreed � Past tense is Qun fa Qaana in Arabic � it is not Qun fa ya Qun. ������But the Qun fa ya Qun is more superior � It says� Allah � it was, it is, and can do � Past, present and future. ������

Watch the video also to get the whole picture. Anyway...


Before even watching the video, I knew what the answer would be. Like Zakir Naik said, the Qur'an is the textbook of the Arabic grammar, and everything is derived from that, so whatever is in the Qur'an, THAT'S what we should take as the Arabic grammar.

Allow me to explain. When we come across a difficult word in the English language, where do we look for the definition? The dictionary, right? Why? Because whatever is in the dictionary, THAT'S what's right, and you should take that as the truth when it comes to the definitions. Have you ever met someone who denies the English dictionary as the truthful source of grammar? EVERYONE accepts that whatever is in the dictionary, is true regarding grammar. So, with that being said... We can deduce from this that the textual source with the highest level of grammar and authenticity of the ENGLISH language, is no other than the English dictionary. Everyone takes this as the highest form of grammar and spelling in the English language.

Alright. Now we know that. So, in other words, whatever is in the English dictionary, is the truth when it comes to grammar and spelling in the English language.

Yet, the English language has different spellings for lots of words...

Take these for example:

"Honor" and "honour"
"To energize" and "to energise"
"Judgment" and "judgement"

All of these words are English. But however, as you can see there's STILL a difference of spelling. The first word of each pair is called American English. The last word of each pair is called British English. English nevertheless. But a difference. Why? Because of the place (America and Britain). So, we derive from this that: language changes according to place and location, even when they are encompassed as the SAME LANGUAGE ("English").


Same with Arabic. As you may or may not know, the Qur'an was revealed in two places: Makkah and Madinah. Same language ("Arabic"), but different places. What have we learnt from the previous point? "Language changes according to place and location, even when they are encompassed as the same language". So, that means that the Arabic of Makkah and Madinah will be different, right? Correct. And this was INDEED the case. Back in those days, the Arabic language differed from tribe to tribe. Each tribe had their own "version" of the Arabic language, but most of it - obviously - is the same. Not all, though.

So, now we know that there's a difference of language between Makkah and Madinah. So, that means that the grammar used in the Qur'an should have the grammar of BOTH VERSIONS OF LANGUAGES, right? The Qur'an should have the grammar of both, so that both groups of people (people from Makkah and people from Madinah) could understand it, according to their already-used-grammar-rules, right? Of course! It HAS to contain BOTH grammar rulings of BOTH the languages, otherwise it would be exclusive, not inclusive (to both versions). I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.


So with that being said... We now know that:

- The Qur'an was revealed in Makkah AND Madinah (some verses were revealed in Makkah, and some in Madinah)

- The Arabic of Makkah and Madinah has differences

- Therefore, the Qur'an needs to include both types of grammar, so that both groups of people can understand it


And finally... This "fusion" that takes place (fusion of two grammars) is what is called "Quranic Arabic" today. THIS is the ultimate form of Arabic in its entirety. The Qur'an is the source of the Arabic langauge, where are rules are derived from. This is something that the Muslims should understand. Remember me saying that we should take the English dictionary as the source of grammar for the English language? And remember me saying that no one denies this? Same with the Qur'an. THAT'S the source of grammar for the Arabic language.


So... With that being said... Like, Zakir Naik said, whatever is in the Qur'an in terms of grammar, no one can deny as the source and truth of grammar, same way with the English dictionary and the English language. So, whatever is in the Qur'an, cannot be wrong. Otherwise, the whole Arabic language is wrong.

So, about the different spellings... Like mentioned, you have two different spellings.

"Sabieen" (Q 2:62 and Q 22:17) and "Sabioon" (Q 5:69)

(Same thing with the other one you mentioned).


We see here two different spellings. Remember the two different spellings mentioned before in the English language? This is similar; two different spellings, but the same meaning. Yet, the differences of those English words I mentioned before, are accepted by those who speak English, and they do NOT see the other version of the word as "wrong", but rather they have a preferable version. But, nonetheless, both are grammatically correct. Yet, they differ in spelling... Same thing with Arabic. They differ in spelling, but grammatically correct and accepted by both groups, but with each their preferable choice. So, in short... You can use both words, and they will not be seen as grammatically incorrect. What I have explained above, answers all the so-called "grammatical errors of the Qur'an" that Islam-haters seem to claim they exist... "But they fail to understand". The Qur'an cannot contain errors, because it is the source of the Arabic grammar. The same way with how water can never be dry. It's just impossible.


That's that. "Sabieen" was either used in Makkah or in Madinah, and same goes for "Sabioon". One of these was used by one of those places. VERY similar to how things work today with the English language and the places of where it is spoken. I hope this answers it, and I hope that this suffices as a "satisfactory refutation".



And God knows best.



And yes, we should make written versions of that which Nouman points out. Reply to me if you have some ideas with how to start, and if you want, you can reply to what I wrote above also.


Brother, Allah (SWT) will never withhold the reward that we will get when we do this, so use this as your motivation. Remember that every Prophet said: "My reward is with God", and we should have the same intention as them. And in sha Allah, He will help us achieve that. The "Strangers" (Ghariban) are coming back, and we should be honored to be one of them, or at least, we should be hoping to be one of them. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, here's what I mean:

The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said: "Islam began as a Stranger ("Ghuraba"), and it will once again (in the end) return as a Stranger. So, blessed be the Strangers!"

To know more about "The Strangers", I advice you to listen to this lecture, which I have watched lots of times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOq0UNnL8WQ


Anyway. As-salaam-aleikum, brother.

In the Name of God; the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful


Exactly, brother. I couldn't say it any better, subhanullah. And yes, there was nothing written of the Arabic language, before, while or shortly after the Qur'an was revealed, written down and gathered, so the Qur'an is truly the original source of the Arabic language. And it gets better ...! Like you said, it has remained unchanged! The people never changed the grammar of the Qur'an when the grammar of them changed, so the original source is still preserved and thus in its original form. So, the Qur'an is the source of the Arabic language. So, how can the people say that the original source is wrong, but the fabricated grammar and changed grammar of today is "correct". If something is really "correct", then it has to be the language used in the Qur'an, because that's the original grammar book, and so therefore it deserves the title of "original source", doesn't it? I don't understand how people can deny this...

Because, surely, the people of that time didn't say that the language used in the Qur'an was "wrong"... Even the disbelievers would say that the language used in the Qur'an was the MOST SUPREME usage ever! No one said that there are mistakes. And THOSE people have the right to say whether it was faulty or not, because they actually lived in that time, so they know it better than us.

And yes, when you compare the grammar of today with that of the Qur'an (so, of 1400+ years ago), then yes, it's different. But which is more authentic, correct, original AND supreme? The faulty grammar of today that keeps changing, that was derived from old grammars anyway, which was ALL derived from the Qur'an? OR the ACTUAL source of Arabic language itself, that was seen as the most supreme form of Arabic language, by the people of THAT time AND the people of today, which contains miracles and which has remained the same for 1400+ years, without EVER being changed after it was written down? Doesn't the Qur'an deserve that title? It does. Allahu akbar.

And you're right. It cannot be assessed with any rules framed after the Revelation of the Qur'an, I agree. Therefore, the Qu'ran cannot be wrong.

Peace be unto you.