# صابئون / صابئين



## mansio

"Sâbi'ûna" or "Sâbi'îna" ?

"Inna" at the beginning of a sentence puts the singular subject in the direct case (nasb) "-a"
and the external plural (jam3 sâlim) subject in the oblique case "-îna" (direct and indirect case = nasb+jarr).

The following verse of the Koran:

5:69 "Inna lladhîna amanû (or âmanû?) wa-lladhîna hâdû wa-S-Sâbi'ûna..."

should be:

"Inna lladhîna âmanû wa-lladhîna hâdû wa-S-Sâbi'îna..."

Is that a mistake or a kind of exception to the rule ?

Thank you.


----------



## zooz

I can't see your point clearly. it'd be better if you post the two sentences in arabic to give a feedback.


----------



## cherine

mansio said:
			
		

> "Sâbi'ûna" or "Sâbi'îna" ?
> The following verse of the Koran:
> 5:69 "Inna lladhîna amanû (or âmanû?) wa-lladhîna hâdû wa-S-Sâbi'ûna..."
> should be:
> "Inna lladhîna âmanû wa-lladhîna hâdû wa-S-Sâbi'îna..."
> Is that a mistake or a kind of exception to the rule ?


Hi Mansio,
First, allow me to put the parsing of the verse, not my work of course -i'm not that good- but I referred to several books of which the subject is the parsing of the Coran. So I'll put the text in Arabic and I think you're good enough at Arabic to understand the text, yet if you have any further questions don't hesitate to post them.

  قرأ الجمهور (الصابئون) بالرفع، وفى توجيه هذه القراءة وجوه:
أحدها : أنه رفع على الابتداء، والنية به التأخير بعد خبر إنّ، وخبره محذوف إيجازًا دلّ عليه خبر إنّ، فكأنه قيل: إنَّ الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا مَن آمن منهم بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحًا فلا خوف عليهم ولا هم يحزنون، والصابئون كذلك. وهذا مذهب سيبويه وشيخه الخليل ونحاة البصرة، وأنشد سيبويه شاهدًا لذلك قولَ الشاعر (بِشْر بن أبى خازم الأسدى):
وإلا فاعلموا أنَّا وأنتم ...  بُغاةٌ ما بقينا فى شقاق
أى فاعلموا أنّا بُغاة وأنتم كذلك (مادمنا فى شقاق وخلاف).
ومن شواهد ذلك قول ضابئ البرجمى :
 فَمَن يَكُ أمسى بالمدينة رَحْلُه ... فإنى وَقَـيَّارٌ بها لَغَريبُ
فـ(قيّار) مبتدأ حُذف خبره، أى: فإنى بها لغريب وقيارٌ كذلك.


الوجه الثانى: ما ذُكر من أنّ لك أن تجعل "من آمن بالله واليوم الآخر" خبرًا لـ"الصابئون والنصارى" [...] فتكون جملة "الصابئون" مع خبره الظاهر أو المقدر : "مَن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر" لا محل لها معطوفة على الاستئنافية "إنّ الذين آمنوا" وما عُطف عليها. ​


Now, I have a little comment : Anyone who studied Arabic knows that the Qur'an is the supreme text of this language -even the non-muslims- and the eternal advise given to anyone who wants to master the Fus'ha is to learn the Qur'an (not Islam, I'm not prozelitising here  ) but to learn this highly exquisite text. So whenever there's something we don't understand, we generally ask something like: why is this word like this, or: why isn't it mentioned like that... but to doubt that there is a grammatical _*mistake*_ in this text is something considered a bit like "outrageous" and it might deviate the answer from being a grammatical discussion to a polemic, which I'm sure is not what you want, as least not here, right?


----------



## mansio

Zooz

As a Syrian you must have a Quran at hand. I gave the verse number so you can read it in Arabic.


----------



## mansio

Cherine

I have heard for a long time about seemingly grammatical mistakes in the Quran and I knew they have been given logical explanations or proven not to be mistakes. So I never bothered about them.
But now conditions are a little bit different because I have studied some Arabic grammar. Someone on a religion forum gave a list of those so-called mistakes. Owing to what I knew I realized that the guy was apparently not wrong as of the first mistake on the list. I have not tackled the other ones yet.
I am sorry Cherine but I cannot understand your Arabic text. I am only reading the Quran in Arabic and that is enough for me at the moment.
I have two examples from the Quran where the case is in accordance with the rule, 2:62 and 22:17


----------



## cherine

mansio said:
			
		

> But now conditions are a little bit different because I have studied *some* Arabic grammar. Someone on a religion forum gave a list of those *so-called* mistakes. Owing to what I knew I realized that the guy was apparently not wrong as of the first mistake on the list. I have not tackled the other ones yet.


Mansio, I highlighted in your own post the words I thought can answer some of your thoughts : you only studied *some* grammar, so it's not until you study *all* the Arabic grammar that you can tackle the really difficult grammatical questions, not only in the Qur'an but in any other "superior" Arabic texts. I'm not telling a secret when I say that many many people, including muslims and Arabs, face various degrees of difficulties in reading the Qur'an, on the levels of grammar, rhetoric and language. But looking for the answers is very helpful, because not only we get the answer we're looking for, but we also learn new things 



> I am sorry Cherine but I cannot understand your Arabic text. I am only reading the Quran in Arabic and that is enough for me at the moment.


You mean you're good enough at Arabic to understand Qu'ran but not enough to understand a grammatical explanation ?! Isn't this another indicator that you're not ready -yet- to tackle such "grammatical" doubts with that much of confidence ? 



> I have two examples from the Quran where the case is in accordance with the rule, 2:62 and 22:17


Yes, I know these verses, I found them yesterday while looking for the answer, here are the three verses :
 
المائدة، آية 69: (إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والصابئون والنصارى مَن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحًا فلا خوفٌ عليهم ولا هم يحزنون)
البقرة، آية 62: (إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى والصابئين مَن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر وعمل صالحًا فلهم أجرهم عند ربهم)
الحج آية 17: (إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والصابئين والنصارى والمجوس والذين أشركوا إن الله يفصل بينهم يوم القيامة)​


----------



## cherine

Sorry, I forgot to answer another question you put in your first post :


			
				mansio said:
			
		

> amanû (or âmanû?) ...


It's "âmanû", because the alef has a "madd" آ not "hamza" أ so it's longer.

--------------

As for the grammatical explanation of this exceptional case, here's an essay of translation, and I hope someone would help me with the translation –again the explanation is not mine, I'm not that good 

The use of the "raf'3" (sâbi'ûn) has two explanations :
1- it's a mubtada', the khabar of this mubtada' is "maHdhuf" for conciseness (?) because it's understood through the khabar of Inn. This way, the verse can be understood as : "alladhîna âmanû wa-lladhîna hâdû who believed in God and the resurrection day and did good deeds, have no fear, and the same for aSSâbi'ûna". This is what was said by Sibawayh, his professor al-Khalîl and the grammarians of Basra. And Sibawayh gave example of the same usage in some verses of poetry. (It's a custom in the Arab grammatical studies to quote Qu'ran and poetry (specially old poetry) as illustrative examples and/or prooves for the grammatical rules and their explanations)

2- the sentence of "man âman bil'lâhi wa'l yawmi-l-âkhiri" may be khabar of "aSSâbi'ûna wa-lladhîna âmanû", and the bigger sentence –formed by al-mubtada' & al-khabar- is ma3tufa 3ala the sentence of "inna alladhîna âmanû".​ 
(sorry again for the poor translation)

As for why there's an exception here, I can't say I have a definite answer, but I'd remind you that this "exception" is mentioned once, while the rule is "respected" or applied in the two other verses.


----------



## mansio

Cherine

Thanks for trying to explain. The rules for cases are a little bit complex but grammar books give every details about them. One thing is sure "inna" is not followed by the subject case. 
I believe that the rules of grammar have been written down by Arab scholars from the Quran and other texts. Grammar treatises did not exist before the Quran. So those treatises had to explain "a posteriori" the few irregularities that were in the Quran.

Guess why I am asking for information on this forum if not because I only begin with Quranic studies.

I can also visit Islamic sites like Islamic Awareness where I think that subject must have been addressed.

I am reasoning like a Westerner living in a Christian surrounding. We more or less know all the objections against Christianity and we know the answers to them whether we are believers or not.
So I thought that all educated Muslims know the various peculiarities of the Quran and the answers to them. One just has to ask to have an immediate answer.

On the same forum where I heard about that exception (let's not use the word 'mistake') a girl from Morocco said there were many more "exceptions" in sentences beginning with "inna" in the Quran. But I believe she was exaggerating.


----------



## cherine

Mansio,



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> I am reasoning like a Westerner living in a Christian surrounding. We more or less know all the objections against Christianity and we know the answers to them whether we are believers or not.
> So I thought that all educated Muslims know the various peculiarities of the Quran and the answers to them. One just has to ask to have an immediate answer.


I'm ashamed to say that this is not the case. Only people who learned deeply the Quranic sciences -which are so many and take many years- do know such things; but "common" muslims don't. This is why I had to go check for the answers in different books.



			
				  said:
			
		

> On the same forum where I heard about that exception (let's not use the word 'mistake') a girl from Morocco said there were many more "exceptions" in sentences beginning with "inna" in the Quran. But I believe she was exaggerating.


I don't know about that. Maybe we can discuss them in other threads. As I said before, looking for the answers is always very beneficial and interesting.


----------



## mansio

Cherine

I just researched a few Muslim and anti-Muslim sites.

I discovered that the guy on the religion forum had copied verbatim an anti-Muslim site without giving the reference.

Then I saw that the so-called mistake with Saabi'uuna is always mentioned first. 
No explanation is given except that it is supposed to be related to the rhethorical mean called iltifaa.

I'll let you know when I find a clear answer.


----------



## zooz

mansio my friend,

the reason why I asked to post your argument in arabic is because it's not possible to discuss on grammatical issues written in english. e.g. you can't discuss french grammar written in russian.

you mentioned you've started studying the arabic language and its grammar. I'd tell you whether a foreigner masters the arabic, your mother language is the arabic or one is specialized in the arabic syntax, the arabic language is difficult; it's an endless sea.

to simplify the answer to your question: no it's not a mistake. "alsabi'una" here is "mubtada2" (as cherine also stated). generally, the "mubtada2" in arabic is "marfo3 bel damah". however, here the word is "jam3 mudhakkar salem" which is, also generally, always "marfo3 bel waw (alsab*i'u*na)". (الصابئون)
why it's mubtada2 and what's the explaination of "inna" ? read cherine's reply in arabic. (got my point?).

you've said *"We more or less know all the objections against Christianity and we know the answers to them whether we are believers or not. So I thought that all educated Muslims know the various peculiarities of the Quran and the answers to them."*
are we talking here about the religion -christianity- itself or about the language used in the Bibles? your question above is utterly grammatical.

as an advice, when you surf the net I'd recommend to choose you resources carefully. as you said there's some anti-islam websites & forums which probably give misleading information about the islam in order to attack it; one way is to question the Qura'an. believe me, there are thousands of Islamic and linguistic scholars who have studied (and still studying) and revised the Qura'an, if there's any mistake it'd have been corrected immediately. it's your call to choose the side you like, just trying to enlighten you from a personal point of view.

take a loot at this site: qurancomplex.com

we're here always to give any kind of help- as long as we can- so feel free to pose any more questions. take care. à plus.


----------



## mansio

Zooz

The question about the Quran we are addressing now is purely grammatical. But such questions can also mix with religion. A grammatical mistake would contradict the divine origin of the Quran.

I asked someone on a Muslim forum and he told me that it is a case of delayed (muta'akhir) khabar (khabar is what we call the predicate=verb and accompanying words except the subject). The khabar is not near the mubtada' (what we call the subject) as it is usually the case.

So now we have to find the mubtada' and the khabar in the verse. 
The guy from the Muslim forum says that the mubtada' is "alladhîna (âmanû)" and the khabar is "falâ khawfun 3alayhim".

I still have to see why that rule of khabar muta'akhir applies in 5:69 and does not apply in 2:62 which is similar in structure.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

mansio said:
			
		

> Zooz
> The question about the Quran we are addressing now is purely grammatical. But such questions can also mix with religion. A grammatical mistake would contradict the divine origin of the Quran.


 
Mansio, I mean no offense but how is it that some time ago, you stated quite confidently in the cultural discussions forum that in your opinion and from what you could extract from the Quranic texts, Islam from its most basic form  encourages much more violence than anything in the New Testament. After reading this thread, it seems that your Arabic is not even advanced enough to read Cherine's explanation. May I ask why you are reading the Quran? From what you've written here it seems obvious to me that you already have formed a malicious opinion of the religion and thus cannot even analyze the book unbiasedly.

I realize this is slightly deviating from the subject at hand but please pray tell how a grammatical error would contradict the divine origin of the Quran? As cherine has stated it's language is of the highest form and Arabic grammar only describes Modern Arabic.


----------



## cherine

Hi Mansio, here are some quick answers :


			
				mansio said:
			
		

> ... The khabar is not near the mubtada' (what we call the subject) as it is usually the case.


When you'll learn enough grammar, and that's not any time soon because it really takes long time and much efforts -so good luck-, then you'll learn -among other things- that the delaying of the khabar is not that unusual.



> So now we have to find the mubtada' and the khabar in the verse.
> The guy from the Muslim forum says that the mubtada' is "alladhîna (âmanû)" and the khabar is "falâ khawfun 3alayhim".


That's what the grammarians agreed upon and, as I said, it's not an unusual thing both in the Qur'an and in the Arabic literature in general.



> I still have to see why that rule of khabar muta'akhir applies in 5:69 and does not apply in 2:62 which is similar in structure.


I don't want to rush and give a hasty answer of my own. So I hope you'll be patient enough to give me/us some time to look for the answer for you. Thanks 



			
				Jhorer Brishti said:
			
		

> Arabic grammar only describes Modern Arabic.


Sorry to contradict you Jhorer, but Arabic grammar is not solely for modern Arabic, it was created long time ago to help new "arabizers" (strange word, right? sorry for that) help them learn and understand their new language and to understand their sacred book (i.e. Al-Qur'an). If any of us tries to read the old grammar books, and even many of the modern ones, we'll find that most of the illustrative examples and the explanations are mainly based on the Qur'an, then the classical Arabic poetry.
This is why, as I said before, when we read something in the Qur'an that looks a bit strange for us we don't rush to say: hey, this is a mistake ! rather we ask: why is this verse like this? why is this word parsed like that?....

------
Now for an important thing :
Please guys, let's not forget that this is a LANGUAGE forum, so please let's not go into religious matters. I agree with most of Jhorer said. I believe Mansio is *looking* for what he deems "mistakes" in the Qur'an so he can refute it in the religious forums he's fond of. Yet, I felt that I had to give an answer to his lawful grammatical question. But I hope he, nor anyone else, won't spoil the friendly linguistic atmosphere of this beautiful forum to turn it into a religious battelfield; there are so many other forums for that on the Web, where we can have such discussions if we want to.


----------



## Jhorer Brishti

cherine said:
			
		

> ------
> Now for an important thing :
> Please guys, let's not forget that this is a LANGUAGE forum, so please let's not go into religious matters. I agree with most of Jhorer said. I believe Mansio is *looking* for what he deems "mistakes" in the Qur'an so he can refute it in the religious forums he's fond of. Yet, I felt that I had to give an answer to his lawful grammatical question. But I hope he, nor anyone else, won't spoil the friendly linguistic atmosphere of this beautiful forum to turn it into a religious battelfield; there are so many other forums for that on the Web, where we can have such discussions if we want to.


First I would like to apologize and say that
I hope my last post did not come as an assault. I was just expressing some of my disbelief at (to my perception) mansio's audacity(in the other thread in the cultural discussions forum). Let me reiterate that I do not mean any offense nor am I trying to instigate a flame war..


----------



## mansio

Cherine and Jhorer Brishti

I don't know if it is possible to correct titles of threads. I should not have written the word "mistake" in that title. Someone has already assumed I think there are grammatical mistakes in the Quran. My title is a question, which means I don't know the answer.

I would like to ask JhorerBrishti if he has ever heard of translations of the Quran (re his sentence about violence in the Quran)? I don't mind to discuss anything about the Quran but only in forums dedicated to that. Here we keep to purely linguistical discussions.

One more question: khabar is what we call the predicate and mubtada' is the subject. Is that right ?


----------



## cherine

Jhorer said:
			
		

> Let me reiterate that I do not mean any offense nor am I trying to instigate a flame war..


I wasn't "accusing" you of instigating a flame war  that's a very big word. I was simply reminding us all (including myself maybe) that we should stick to linguistic matters and avoid religious debates.
Sorry if I mis-expressed myself.



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> I don't know if it is possible to correct titles of threads. I should not have written the word "mistake" in that title. Someone has already assumed I think there are grammatical mistakes in the Quran. My title is a question, which means I don't know the answer.


I understand this Mansio. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered answering your question in the first place. I always avoid religious debates (for various reasons). But I believed -and still believe- that your question was innocently about language, and not a critic of the Book. And this is also why I mentioned to you how we usually ask about such things and that we -muslims- avoid using the word "mistake" when asking about something we don't understand in the Qur'an. As you're not a muslim, I believe you don't have to respect this way, but it would be more gentle of you and help you avoid being misunderstood.



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> I would like to ask JhorerBrishti if he has ever heard of translations of the Quran (re his sentence about violence in the Quran)? I don't mind to discuss anything about the Quran but only in forums dedicated to that. *Here we keep to purely linguistical discussions*.


Yes please 
And yes, the Qur'an has what you may call "violence", but to understand this you must keep these verses in their context : violence as reply to violence, not as a starter.
But again, here is not the place to discuss this.



			
				mansio said:
			
		

> One more question: khabar is what we call the predicate and mubtada' is the subject. Is that right ?


I think so. Maybe someone would confirm it.

I hope you use Arabic terminology, at least along with English one, when you speak about Arabic grammar, to help us natives to understand what you're talking about  we're mostly used to the Arabic terms.


----------



## ayed

Mansio, though this fourm is dedicated to Arabic issues .yet, I am forced to answer your question .
My advice is this:
learn Arabic and try to find any bit of mistake in the Holy Quran.If you find any bit mistake then I will convert to your religion.
The problem is that some people read some faked mistakes and try to discuss or show them as if were true .
The Arabic language is similar to the Pacific ocean.It is fathomless .
Mansio, here are some answer :

In Arabic, we have some cases so-called " Advancement & Postponement "--al-Taqdeem wa al-Ta'kheer". That is, when "al-Mobtada" is moved to or closer to the end as "al-khabar" moved to the beginning .

An example :
Advanced predicate--Khabar moqaddam :
في البيت علي
fi al-bait Ali "At home is Ali"

So , the Grammarians and Quran Interpreters viewed the sixty ninth verse of al-Ma'dah is under one of the following three cases:

1.That it is in the state of "Advancement & Postponement". Hence, the context of meaning would be :

إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى ، من آمن بالله...فلا خوف عليهم ، ولاهم يحزنون، والصابئون كذلك.​
Al-Sab'oon is mobtada marfoua' bil waw because it is "regular masculine plural"--Jam' mothakkar salim"

2.That al-Sab'oon is a subject--mobtada ma'toof ala"connected to"al-Nasara". Hence, "…who believed in Allah…"(من آمن بالله)is the predicate of al-Sab'oon.The predicate of "Inna" is omitted and can be understood by the predicate(من آمن بالله) of al-Sab'oon".

3.That al-Sab'oon "ma'toof 'ala" is connected to the pre-Inna case .That is, in nominative case. Thus, al-Sab'oon is "marfooa" and that it carries the state of subject.

I hope this could help you.


----------



## mansio

Ayed

This problem of Sâbi'îna/Sâbi'ûna is rather complicated to me because I have to understand the Arabic grammatical terminology.

One does not see why the grammatical reasons given for the raf3 case of Sâbi'ûna in 5:69, cannot be applied also to the very similar verse in 2:62, where Sâbi'îna has the correct nasb case.

Here is an explanation that I found:

The introductory particle inna is "weak" because it is followed by "lladhîna âmanû" and by "walladhîna hâdû". 
So when Sâbi'ûna arrives, the nasb property of inna has been lost.

In connection with that explanation is the one that some grammatical rules where not so strict in the seventh century as they are today.

That reminds me of my other thread about the non-agreement of verb and feminine subject in the first verse of the Arabic translation of the Gospel of John (see 2nd march 2006, "Arabic translation Gospel of John").

Your explanation #1, which I have found on different sites, is that the verse must be read (I hope you don't mind if I use Latin script, it is easier for me):
"Inna lladhîna âmanû 
walladhîna hâdû ... 
falâ khawfun 3alayhim... 
wasSâbi'ûna kadhâlika".

Others write it:
"Inna lladhîna âmanû 
walladhîna hâdû 
wasSâbi'ûna kadhâlika... 
falâ khawfun 3alayhim".

Why does that explanation not work for verse 2:62 too ?

In your explanation #2, I do not think that Sâbi'ûna and Nasârâ can be related to "man âmana biLlâhi" because they are plurals and "man âmana" is singular.

Qualifying the Arabic language as "fathomless" is not a compliment in my opinion, because that would mean that it is very difficult to understand it correctly, and it would contradict the fact that the Quran is written in clear Arabic, not "fathomless" Arabic.


----------



## cherine

If I'll dare guess (dare because I'm not knowledgable enough) I'd say that the "raf3" is an exception. I think we agree that the nasb is the "normal" thing (remember: "sabi'ina" was mentioned twice and "sabi'una" only once).


			
				mansio said:
			
		

> The introductory particle inna is "weak" because it is followed by "lladhîna âmanû" and by "walladhîna hâdû".
> So when Sâbi'ûna arrives, the nasb property of inna has been lost.


This is not correct. I read in the books I referred to in my previous posts that Inna's influence is strong and can't be affected by the length of the sentence or the existence of several elements between it and its معموليها the "معمولى إن " are its ism and khabar.
The fact that a rule has exceptions -like any rule in the world- doesn't mean that the rule is flawed, nor that the exception is a mistake; it's just that : an exception.

As for what Ayed said about the Arabic language being "fathomless", I don't think he meant it's a complicated or not clear, but that it's very rich and complex.
You admit yourself that you don't know enough about the grammar of the language, and believe me the same goes for most of us : we're still learning our mother tongue  and this doesn't contradict the fact that the Coran is a clear eloquent Arabic text. We only need to make more efforts to understand this Arabic.


----------



## mansio

Cherine

I have few difficulties to understand the Quran. The verse we are talking about (5:69) is really one of the easiest. 
The only problem here is that exception to the "inna" rule, and the difficulty for me to understand its explanations.

There is another word that needs an explanation, it is the word Sabi'un itself, to whom it refers, but that is another matter.

Here is the link that says inna could be weak:
According to Al-Farraa', in this sentence, the word Inna is "weak" (in Arabic : "Da3eefah") for three reasons among which I cite : The effect of Inna appears on some names only, if the name that follows Inna does not change by declension, then its effect may or may not be transmitted to the following parts of the sentence.
I presume that al-Farraa is an Arab grammarian.

I also presume that the reasons of the exception can be applied to verse 2:62, in which it could be possible to change Sâbi'îna into Sâbi'ûna.


----------

