# Arabic in the Qur'an



## A.F.Ferri

I'm a university student studying Modern Standard Arabic.  I recently purchased a Qur'an in Arabic hoping to make a study of it, basically translate and memorize a bit of it.  I was wondering though, is the Arabic in the Qur'an at all archaic and out of date?  I've heard MSA is supposed to be based upon the Qur'an but considering it was put on paper more than a few years ago I'm not sure.  
Any help would certainly be appreciated.


----------



## Ghabi

A.F.Ferri said:


> I was wondering though, is the Arabic in the Qur'an at all archaic and out of date?


Hello Ferri. I think this is a question that all of us learners ask at some point of our study. There's a recent post where our colleague Wadi says:



Wadi Hanifa said:


> We need to be realistic here and recognize that, with  the exception of a few Quranic words (mostly words like صار) that have  acquired the perception of being colloquial, no one is ever criticized  for being too archaic if they use a "Quranic" word in MSA.



That sounds to me an excellent piece of advice.


----------



## A.F.Ferri

Thank you very much, that should help me quite a bit in my studies.


----------



## cherine

Hi,

You can check these two previous threads:
Classical Arabic vs. MSA and Can a person learn MSA to read the Qur'an?


----------



## L.2

I don't see the point of learning the Quran if you are not a Muslim or religious researcher. Yes, the Quran is an old book written in a pre- Islamic dialect and today there is not a normal Arabic speaker who claims understanding every single word without looking up a dictionary.
There are many words that aren't used, for example شططا means كذبا which will not be understood if you used it in your life. There are many other examples I can not remember. yea the Quran uses the word sai7aat which means female tourists to mean women who fast and some says emmigrants, also the word is written as سئحت which is definitely wrong it should be سائحات. Look it's just a one word but gives you a wrong meaning and spelling, not necessary wrong but just different.
There is also a verse that says وإن الحياة الآخرة لهي الحيوان so it is not only that you will be misunderstood but also you will misunderstand people too, when someone says 7ayawan they think of an 'animal' you think of 'life'.
I can go on with examples but however, Arabs have no troubles understanding the Quran because it is Arabic after all and shares many vocabs so just make the long way short and study MSA. There are many great modern poets who writes in beautiful MSA such as نزار قباني and فاروق جويدة.


----------



## WadiH

There are many, many good reasons for a non-Muslim to read the Quran.  By your logic, people should stop reading Shakespeare because it's language is old and the words have shifted in meaning since then.

By the way, you don't need to be an expert on Classical Arabic or a linguist to understand that حيوان in that verse means "life" as it is simply on the same pattern as غليان and دوران.  I know I understood it instinctively as a child myself.


----------



## L.2

You base your claims on emotions because you are a Muslim. We, Muslims, always emotionally defend the importance of studying the Quran, even for non Muslims, because we consider it God's actual true word that everyone must learn. However, Non-Muslim learners don't care about what we believe. They look at it as only an old Arabic book was written (revealed) in the 6th century. So let's then look at it rationally. Does its language and vocabulary worth studying when Arabs can not understand it themselves?
As for 7ayawan حيوان, I wasn't talking about that context in particular I was only referring to the word itself, just imagine a learner generalized it in other contexts, and instead of saying to their partner أنت الحياة or يا حياتي you are my life, s/he says يا الحيوان !!!!!
So what's the point of learning one word only in one context?
Some people will argue that old poetries are worthless but when it comes to the Quran things become different even though they all were written in the same era.
The Quran is not only a waste of time (for non Muslims of course) but also it will teach them a language that doesn't fit 2010.
Yes, I wouldn't walk in New York's streets saying thee, thy, thou...etc even though they have a one meaning, but in case of the Quran it may teach you a totally different meaning such as سائحات (tourists) that was used to mean صائمات.


----------



## WadiH

L.2 said:


> You base your claims on emotions because you are a Muslim.



Really?  How would you know?  The OP is not a Muslim yet he wants to read the Quran.  Is that motivated by emotion also?  I own a copy of the King James Bible and read it often because I appreciate both the language and the content, even though I am neither Christian nor Jewish.  Am I motivated by emotion there as well?



> We, Muslims, always emotionally defend the importance of studying the Quran, even for non Muslims, because we consider it God's actual true word that everyone must learn.



Who appointed you to speak for all Muslims?  The Quran is the earliest body of Arabic prose that we have, and it is the model upon which all subsequent Arabic literature was based.  That alone is enough reason for any serious student of Arabic to be interested in reading the Quran.  This has nothing to do with Islamic belief or doctrine.

The King James Bible is a seminal work of English literature and has had a similar (though smaller) effect on the English language.  That is why even non-religious people read it.



> Does its language and vocabulary worth studying when Arabs can not understand it themselves?



I don't know about you, but I understand the Quran.  In fact, the Quran is easier to understand than most Nabati poems that are composed in my native dialect.  The fact that there are words that are archaic or belong to a more formal register does not mean that people don't understand the Quran, because there are difficult texts in every language.  Most English speakers need to consult a dictionary even when reading modern 20th century works, let alone when reading Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean they can't "understand" such works.

I think you're missing the point of reading high literature: part of the attraction of it is precisely that it is NOT the same as everyday speech which everyone can compose and understand with no effort.



> As for 7ayawan حيوان, I wasn't talking about that context in particular I was only referring to the word itself, just imagine a learner generalized it in other contexts, and instead of saying to their partner أنت الحياة or يا حياتي you are my life, s/he says يا الحيوان !!!!!



So the usage changed over 1300 years.  What's your point?  There are words in English whose meaning was not the same even 100 years ago.  Are we supposed to ignore works from that period also?



> So what's the point of learning one word only in one context?
> Some people will argue that old poetries are worthless but when it comes to the Quran things become different even though they all were written in the same era.
> The Quran is not only a waste of time (for non Muslims of course) but also it will teach them a language that doesn't fit 2010.



What you're saying is completely wrong.  The Quran has had an enormous and continuing influence on Arabic phraseology and diction. 



> Yes, I wouldn't walk in New York's streets saying thee, thy, thou...etc even though they have a one meaning, but in case of the Quran it may teach you a totally different meaning such as سائحات (tourists) that was used to mean صائمات.



The syntax and grammar of the Quran is still completely valid under MSA and in fact the Quran will teach you much better Arabic style than most Arabic newspapers.  In fact, being exposed to the Quran is the main reason why I rarely make grammatical mistakes in Arabic as it helped developed my sense سليقة for case and mood markers at an early age.  You seem to have a hang-up on vocabulary, but if you compare the amount of archaic vocabulary and archaic usage in the Quran to the vocabulary and usage that is still valid in MSA, it actually pales in comparison.

Of course, there are many other works of Classical Arabic that are worth reading, so I'm not saying that the Quran is the only or even the best source, nor am I claiming that the Quran is essential or indispensable to learning Arabic.  But to claim that the Quran has *nothing* to teach in terms of language is really quite ludicrous.


----------



## Noon9

Wadi Hanifa said:


> By the way, you don't need to be an expert on Classical Arabic or a linguist to understand that حيوان in that verse means "life" as it is simply on the same pattern as غليان and دوران. I know I understood it instinctively as a child myself.


 

EXACTLY!


----------



## L.2

I don't want to know which books do you read, the Quran, the Bible or whatever. I was only pointing that most people who strongly recommend learners to study the Quran are Muslims because they hold it in a high regard and they always have a tendency to bias towards their belief. Although, I am a Muslim but I put my belief aside, why would I falsely recommend someone to study my holy book when I know it won't give them any benefits (in language).
The Quran, today, isn't an important source for learning Arabic.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Who appointed you to speak for all Muslims? The Quran is the earliest body of Arabic prose that we have, and it is the model upon which all subsequent Arabic literature was based


Again you seem speaking emotionally! I don't know what do you mean by the Quran being the model of all subsequent literature? You, intentionally, ignored all those golden years of pre-Islamic literature, you forget almu3llaqat, almufadhaliyat, souq 3ukad' even famous Arabic stories like qays, 3antara..etc dated back to pre Islamic era. Many Arabs consider pre-Islamic literature to be the finest and best that Arabs ever produced. When the Quran was revealed, Arabs were excelled in poetries and had the best of their linguistic talents. Pre-Islamic literature, Islamic literature, influence of other languages, literal translations all formed todays MSA.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> The fact that there are words that are archaic or belong to a more formal register does not mean that people don't understand the Quran, because there are difficult texts in every language. Most English speakers need to consult a dictionary even when reading modern 20th century works, let alone when reading Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean they can't "understand" such works.


Why should an Arabic learner study the Quran and go with all the troubles when there are many alternative sources?


Wadi Hanifa said:


> The syntax and grammar of the Quran is still completely valid under MSA and in fact the Quran will teach you much better Arabic style than most Arabic newspapers. In fact, being exposed to the Quran is the main reason why I rarely make grammatical mistakes in Arabic as it helped developed my sense سليقة for case and mood markers at an early age


You claim the Quran influenced Arabic and you even go further in your claim and say the Quran also set Arabic grammar!!! Were Arabs living without grammar, phraseology and diction? with nothing at all untill the Quran was revealed! this is the quite ludicrous.
Anyway, MSA grammar differs than Quranic grammar. There are many Quranic verses that are considered grammatically 'wrong' according to todays MSA standards. For example the Quran says; وقطعناهم اثنتي عشرة *اسباطا* after اثنتى عشر it comes a singular noun as in أحد عشر طفلاً but the Quran uses a plural nouns which doesn't fit MSA grammar. You can not say أحد عشر أطفالا or احدى عشرة نساءاَ.

The same with the verse in suratul 7aj هذان خصمان *اختصموا* في ربهم , here خصمان is مثنى so the verb, according to MSA grammar, should be in agreement and should also be مثنى thus the verse becomes هذان خصمان اختصما in MSA.
In Todays MSA المبتدأ and الخبر should be in agreement كتاب جيد or طائرة مرتفعة while in Quran it's not a requirement. For example the Quran says وما يدريك لعل *الساعة قريب* here الساعة is feminine, so accoding to MSA, it should be الساعة قريبة .
Moreover, the verse in surat annour says *الطفل* *الذين* لم يظهروا على عورات النساء. A66ifil الطفل is singular, it should be الطفل الذي لم يظهر.

If someone took your advice, studied the Quran and started saying الطائرة مرتفع or الرجل الذين يعملون, I am sure your sense سليقة will work then and you will be among the first who volunteer to correct their mistakes.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> I'm not saying that the Quran is the only or even the best source


You say it at last. The Quran differs from MSA in vocabulary, spelling and grammar. It's, definitely, not the best source.


----------



## Ghabi

As a non-Muslim Arabic learner, I'd like to share the reasons why I read the Qur'an:

1) This is the only fully vowelized Arabic book that I can get. By reading the Qur'an I think I've somehow internalized the i3raab. Actually the perusal of the Qur'an seems to me the best way to learn the i3raab for an autodidact.

2) Qur'anic allusions seem to be quite common in modern Arabic prose, and I want to learn their origin. I don't want to be completely clueless when someone quotes the Qur'an to make a point in their writing.

3) I enjoy reading the narrative part of the Qur'an (and still more listening to the recitation), such as Surat Yusuf. There's no accounting for tastes, of course (for example I don't enjoy reading Shakespeare), and obviously there're other great Arabic literary works, but then how can I get hold of them? And they're not vowelized ... which brings us back to my first point.

Just the experience of a struggling (and how I struggle!) Arabic learner, would love to hear how other learners say.


----------



## WadiH

L.2 said:


> I don't want to know which books do you read, the Quran, the Bible or whatever.


I only brought that up because you seem incapable of imagining why a non-Muslim would want to read the Quran. It seems that you are the one who is unable to separate the Quran from its status as a "holy book."


> I was only pointing that most people who strongly recommend learners to study the Quran are Muslims because they hold it in a high regard and they always have a tendency to bias towards their belief.


Assuming that this were true, that does not logically lead to the conclusion that the Quran is useless for learning Arabic. It is a non-sequitur.


> Again you seem speaking emotionally!





> I don't know what do you mean by the Quran being the model of all subsequent literature? You, intentionally, ignored all those golden years of pre-Islamic literature, you forget almu3llaqat, almufadhaliyat, souq 3ukad'


Ok, I'll be more specific. It served as a model for Arabic prose. The poems are irrelevant. Are you claiming that Arabic prose was modeled after the pre-Islamic poems? Or that the pre-Islamic poems are a good source for learning MSA? Because both propositions are patently false.


> even famous Arabic stories like qays, 3antara..etc dated back to pre Islamic era.


The characters are pre-Islamic, but the texts are not. They are in fact rather late Islamic.


> Many Arabs consider pre-Islamic literature to be the finest and best that Arabs ever produced. When the Quran was revealed, Arabs were excelled in poetries and had the best of their linguistic talents. Pre-Islamic literature, Islamic literature, influence of other languages, literal translations all formed todays MSA.


Yes this is all true, but the language of the Quran is much, much closer to MSA than the language of pre-Islamic poetry. It's not even worth making the comparison. Therefore, this is all irrelevant to the OP's question.


> You claim the Quran influenced Arabic and you even go further in your claim and say the Quran also set Arabic grammar!!! Were Arabs living without grammar, phraseology and diction? with nothing at all untill the Quran was revealed! this is the quite ludicrous.


It is ludicrous because it is a strawman. I never said anything of the sort. Obvously, the language of the Quran was not new. But the Quran happens to be the only surviving representative of appreciable length of what Arabic was like in that era. If we had other works of Arabic prose from that era perhaps the Quran's influence on Classical Arabic would have been less (though the status of the Quran as the holy book of Islam cannot be ignored when explaining its influence). Saying that the Quran influenced subsequent Arabic literature is not the same as saying that the Quran "gave the Arabs grammar." I also did not claim that all or even most of Arabic vocabulary and phraseology originates from the Quran. But the influence is there and it's quite significant.


> Anyway, MSA grammar differs than Quranic grammar. There are many Quranic verses that are considered grammatically 'wrong' according to todays MSA standards. For example the Quran says; وقطعناهم اثنتي عشرة *اسباطا* after اثنتى عشر it comes a singular noun as in أحد عشر طفلاً but the Quran uses a plural nouns which doesn't fit MSA grammar. You can not say أحد عشر أطفالا or احدى عشرة نساءاَ.
> 
> The same with the verse in suratul 7aj هذان خصمان *اختصموا* في ربهم , here خصمان is مثنى so the verb, according to MSA grammar, should be in agreement and should also be مثنى thus the verse becomes هذان خصمان اختصما in MSA.
> In Todays MSA المبتدأ and الخبر should be in agreement كتاب جيد or طائرة مرتفعة while in Quran it's not a requirement. For example the Quran says وما يدريك لعل *الساعة قريب* here الساعة is feminine, so accoding to MSA, it should be الساعة قريبة .
> Moreover, the verse in surat annour says *الطفل* *الذين* لم يظهروا على عورات النساء. A66ifil الطفل is singular, it should be الطفل الذي لم يظهر.


Most of these examples would still be acceptable in MSA, but even if they weren't, the frequency of these anomalies is almost negligible compared to the text of the Quran as a whole.


> If someone took your advice, studied the Quran and started saying الطائرة مرتفع or الرجل الذين يعملون, I am sure your sense سليقة will work then and you will be among the first who volunteer to correct their mistakes.


People don't learn a language just by reading a book written in that language. Obviously, someone will only read the Quran (or any other Arabic book) after learning the basics of the language through a course or an instructional book or the like, and when he or she comes across one of these anomalies he or she will notice it and probably ask about it. It's not the huge deal you're making it out to be.

Again, I don't think it's essential for an Arabic learner to read the Quran. But if someone *wants* to read the Quran then they should go for it. It will be helpful with MSA and it will aid in learning Arabic. I don't see what religious beliefs have to do with any of this. If there's one good reason for discouraging a learner from reading the Quran, it's because they would be unlikely to find the content all that interesting, but that's a matter of taste, not language.


----------



## clevermizo

As a non-native speaker, reading the Qur'an is very helpful and useful. The Arabic is mostly intelligible if you become proficient in reading standard Arabic, and then you can always look words up in the dictionary.

Also, a language is not divorced from culture. To learn to speak and read a language requires knowledge of culture and Islam and the Qur'an have clearly had an important impact on the culture of Arabic-speaking peoples, a majority of whom are Muslim. I don't see why you wouldn't want to read it a bit, as a learner. Obviously, it's not the _only_ thing you'll be reading.


----------



## L.2

Wadi Hanifa said:


> Ok, I'll be more specific. It served as a model for Arabic prose. The poems are irrelevant. Are you claiming that Arabic prose was modeled after the pre-Islamic poems? Or that the pre-Islamic poems are a good source for learning MSA? Because both propositions are patently false


I don't claim anything and never have. You said it's the model over all subsequent Arabic literature. Sorry, I didn't know that literature, in your standards, means only prose. However, yes prose came later but literature is more than prose. The Islamic way of life of Arabs, not necessarily the Quran, influenced their literature.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Most of these examples would still be acceptable in MSA, but even if they weren't, the frequency of these anomalies is almost negligible compared to the text of the Quran as a whole.


They can't be acceptable. You can not twist facts and claim these are fine to suit your point and that Quranic grammar is completely valid under MSA.
We can not say الساعة قريب or الطفل الذين يظهرون or اثنتي عشرة أسباطاَ. They are even not pleasant to modern ears and if we apply these verses to MSA grammar they will be, at best, obvious and unquestionably grammatical mistakes. Anyone knows the very basic of Arabic grammar can pick them up. However, there are two choices, either you admit that Arabic is like every language undergoes changes in grammar rules over the years and that Quranic grammar is not totally compatible with MSA or you say the Quran, the revelation of God, contains grammatical mistakes!! Look, twisting truth leads you to a very unpleasant direction.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> Again, I don't think it's essential for an Arabic learner to read the Quran. But if someone *wants* to read the Quran then they should go for it. It will be helpful with MSA and it will aid in learning Arabic.


If anyone wants to read the Quran for spiritual reasons, then lets them go ahead. Their spiritual path is their own business. Again I was talking about Arabic of the Quran. My point is that the Quran is not, in any way, a good source for anyone who only concerns about modern standard Arabic i.e. is not interested in classical Arabic or spiritual or religious matters, because its language is old and was written 14 centuries ago. It does not convey all of modern words, terms and expressions. So for what usefulness is it? What can the Quran offer?
Let's take an example of suratul 3adiyat
والعاديات ضبحا، فالموريات قدحا، فالمغيرات صبحا، فأثرن به نقعا، فوسطن به جمعا
These verses can never never be understood by any native speaker even the most educated ones, unless they look up interpretation books. Because there are unclear meanings, mostly metaphors and prepositions/pronouns that refer to something was not mentioned in the text. What can this offer to a non-Arab or even Arab? How can this enrich anyone's vocabulary? Even if we looked up an interpretation book, we will not find one meaning, for example; al3adiyat, some interpreters including the son of 3abbas, the prophet's uncle, say it means horses. The others including Ali, the prophet's cousin, say it means camels. So what? Let alone that we don't use it to refer to neither horses nor camels. The same with almuriyati and almughirati..etc this is just one example. The Quran is full of this kind of unused language that's why I think it's a waste of time for a MSA learner. If I compare this language with a modern one, lets say any prose of Nizaar Qabani, I am certain that Nizaar's will not only enriches their vocabulary and help them in their daily life but also broadens their horizons.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> People don't learn a language just by reading a book written in that language. Obviously, someone will only read the Quran (or any other Arabic book) after learning the basics of the language through a course or an instructional book or the like, and when he or she comes across one of these anomalies he or she will notice it and probably ask about it. It's not the huge deal you're making it out to be.


Yes, I know it will not be the only source but, in my opinion, why a learner wants to study the Quran when they should study things add to their life and give them more opportunities to communicate with people, of 21st century of course not the 6th, things help them watch TV programs, read magazines, listen to the radio, chat with natives and discuss science or the latest events. They should read modern books, books talks about cinema, media, love, friendship, travel, business, policy, music, history, technology, They should read novels, articles or books for famous writers, all beautiful poems and there are much more. There are thousands of sources they should come across before the Quran. Anyway, making the Quran or any book dates back to more than 1000 years, the last choice is the decision I am sure no one will ever regret.


Wadi Hanifa said:


> I don't see what religious beliefs have to do with any of this


They do nothing. Have a nice day.


----------



## WadiH

L.2 said:


> We can not say الساعة قريب or الطفل الذين يظهرون or اثنتي عشرة أسباطاَ. They are even not pleasant to modern ears



الطفل الذين لم يظهروا sounds strange under MSA, but the other two phrases you've given sound perfectly fine to my ear.

The rest of your points have already been addressed above by myself and others.


----------



## Faylasoof

Many have given good reasons as to why it is useful for a student of Arabic to read the Quran, esp. if you are learning fus7a Arabic. I’d just like to add one or two points.

Arthur Arberry always urged that his students of Arabic read the Quran in order to familiarise themselves with early Arabic prose and also to get to know better certain unusual usages! What some say is grammatically unusual or even incorrect turns out to be something different, it seems.

  To take the example mentioned earlier, like Wadi, I found الطفل الذين لم يظهروا a bit strange from MSA point of view! Until that is I started reading what the Arab grammarians said. Both Al-Anbari and Az-Zamakhshari have commented on this and here is something from لسان العربand الصّحّاح في اللغة. I searched here, with الطفل as search term:

  From لسان العرب

وقال تعالى: أَو الطِّفْلِ الذين لم يَظْهَروا على عَوْراتِ النساء؛ والعرب تقول: جارية طِفْلَةٌ وطِفْلٌ، وجاريتان طِفْلٌ، وجَوارٍ طِفْلٌ، وغُلام طِفْلٌ، وغِلْمان طِفْلٌ.
ويقال: طِفْلٌ وطِفْلَةٌ وطِفْلانِ وأَطْفالٌ وطِفْلَتانِ وطِفْلاتٌ في القياس.
والطِّفْل المولود، وولَدُ كلِّ وحْشِيَّة أَيضاً طِفْلٌ*، ويكون الطِّفْل واحداً وجمعاً مثل الجُنُب*.​    … and in الصّحّاح في اللغة.
*وقد يكون الطِفْلُ واحداً وجمعاً*، مثل الجُنُبِ. قال تعالى: "أو الطِفْلِ الذين لَمْ يَظْهَروا"​ 

  Another good reason for a student of Arabic to read the Quran.  
  Hmm… fus7a never cease to amaze me. I didn’t know this until recently!


----------



## L.2

Wadi Hanifa said:


> the other two phrases you've given sound perfectly fine to my ear.


 
Maybe they sound fine to your ear because, as you mentioned, you were exposed to the Quran at early age. When we read and repeat words so much, they become natural and just fine. I will use different words but with the same grammar rule and see if they still sound fine.
الولد ذكية، الفتاة كريم، الشمس مشرق . Are they still fine? I bet they are not, they are horrible and the same should be الساعة قريب.
المبتدأ والخبر ، النعت والمنعوت، الفعل والفاعل should always be in agreement in number and gender. Also to say خصوم اختصما or خصمان اختصموا is unacceptable.
As for اثنتي عشرة أسباطاَ , firstly سبط is a masculine noun so اثني is the correct not اثنتي. Secondly, after أحد/إحدى/اثنا/اثنتا should come a singular. Does اثنتي عشرة رجالاَ sound ok to you!!!



Faylasoof said:


> From لسان العرب
> وقال تعالى: أَو الطِّفْلِ الذين لم يَظْهَروا على عَوْراتِ النساء؛ والعرب تقول: جارية طِفْلَةٌ وطِفْلٌ، وجاريتان طِفْلٌ، وجَوارٍ طِفْلٌ، وغُلام طِفْلٌ، وغِلْمان طِفْلٌ.
> ويقال: طِفْلٌ وطِفْلَةٌ وطِفْلانِ وأَطْفالٌ وطِفْلَتانِ وطِفْلاتٌ في القياس.
> والطِّفْل المولود، وولَدُ كلِّ وحْشِيَّة أَيضاً طِفْلٌ*، ويكون الطِّفْل واحداً وجمعاً مثل الجُنُب*.​… and in الصّحّاح في اللغة.
> *وقد يكون الطِفْلُ واحداً وجمعاً*، مثل الجُنُبِ. قال تعالى: "أو الطِفْلِ الذين لَمْ يَظْهَروا"​


 
If الطفل is just as الأطفال , why then the Quran uses the plural, exaclty in the same chapter, suratu annur
واذا بلغ *الاطفال* منكم الحلم فليستاذنوا كما استاذن الذين من قبلهم

If it was the same then it should be read اذا بلغ الطفل منكم الحلم فليستاذنوا ?
Some people tend to change the rules to say the Quran is compatible with MSA. Is it hard to just believe grammar of any language can be changed over the time?
If I believed that الطفل الذين is an exception, why in other verse الذي is used with a plural, when it suppose to be الذين
The verse in attawba chapter وخضتم *كالذي* خاضوا أولئك حبطت أعمالهم


----------



## A.F.Ferri

I'm a bit surprised my little question caused such contention, though I can certainly understand why.  I have to say though, I am now quite convinced that reading the Qur'an over would be a useful study.  I have already read it in English, my curiousity is really just to read it in the original text, which I would view as a great achievement as the Qur'an is one of the most important works of Arabic literature.  And if I pick up a few anachronisms here and there I won't be too concerned, my English alone is already studded with words far more at home in the 19th century.


----------



## rayloom

Some1 Someone also mentioned listening to the recitation as u you read. I'd like to emphasize that. And pause every once in a while to read the translation.
I had some trouble learning French I remember, there wasn't many French songs I knew, and even less were the lyrics I could find for them. Not to mention the strange idioms I had to come across which one could barely find mentioned or explained anywhere!
I remember, fourcher la langue, donner la langue aux chats, rever aux loupes (mind my French spelling)...and that's only from one song.
Tough days...
Anywhooo Anyhow, it turned out fine anyways.


----------



## WadiH

L.2 said:


> Maybe they sound fine to your ear because, as you mentioned, you were exposed to the Quran at early age. When we read and repeat words so much, they become natural and just fine. I will use different words but with the same grammar rule and see if they still sound fine.
> الولد ذكية، الفتاة كريم، الشمس مشرق . Are they still fine? I bet they are not, they are horrible and the same should be الساعة قريب.ج



No, the reason is because you are unfamiliar with the rule, which is why you think الشمس مشرق is the same as الفتاة كريم.

وهناك خمسة أوزان للصفات لا تدخلها التاء فيستوي فيها المذكر والمؤنث:
1- وزن (فَعول) بمعنى فاعل مثل: صبور، عجوز، حنون، تقول: هذا رجل عجوز وامرأَته عجوز صبور.
2- وزن (فَعِيل) بمعنى (مفعول) إن سبق بموصوف أَو قرينة تدل على جنسه مثل: طفلة جريح وامرأة قتيل.
أَما إِذا لم يكن هناك موصوف ولا قرينة فتدخل التاء لإِزالة اللَّبس، تقول: في الميدان ستة جرحى وقتيلة.
ويلحق بذلك وزنا (فِعْل وفَعَل) إِذا كانا بمعنى مفعول، مثل: ناقة ذِبْحٌ، هذه الثياب سَلَب القتيل.
[وسمع: خصلة حميدة فتحفظ ولا يقاس عليها].
3- وزن مِفْعال مثل: مِهْذار، ومِعْطار (كثيرة التعطر أَو كثيره)، ومِقْوال (فصيح أو فصيحة).
[سمع: امرأَة ميقانة: توقن بكل ما تسمع، ولا يقاس عليها].
4- وزن مِفْعيل مثل: مِعْطير (كثيرة التعطر أو كثيره)؛ مِسْكير (كثير السكْر).
[شذ: مسكينة، حملاً على فقيرة، وقد سمع: امرأَة مسكين على القاعدة].
5- مِفْعَل: رجل مِغْشَم (مقدام لا يثنيه شيء).
http://www.islamguiden.com/arabi/m_a_r_24.htm

So, we don't say الشمس مشرق, but we are allowed to say الساعة قريب and المرأة جريح, similar to الفتاة لعوب and فلانة كذوب.  In fact, in many if not most cases, omission of the تاء is أفصح and sounds better than when it is present.

Also, there is another way to justify الساعة قريب which is that قريب is an indication of time/place, so the Arabs understood it as الساعة وقتها قريب and that's still valid under MSA.

You seem to have a fixed idea of what "MSA" should sound like, where everything is governed by a very simple rule ("you can't say الساعة قريب because then you would have to say الشمس مشرق"), but that doesn't mean the Quran's grammar is wrong it just means there are grammatical rules that you are unaware of.


----------



## Timmy123

I believe, in addition to numerous other students of the Arabic language, the the Quran is arguably the most artistic Arabic text available.

I am told by my professors that the codification of grammar arose from the students of the Quran (can anyone confirm?)

In anycase 'L.2', you seem to have some kind of axe to grind; I do believe that you're arguments are flawed. I would urge you to undertake further research with regards to prescriptive/descriptive perspectives and also deviation and repetition for literary (artistic) effect. 

If I recall correctly, the Arabs were unable to challenge the Quran from a linguistic perspective (I am not very well versed on Islamic/Arabian history so if I am wrong please correct me).

Good posts Wadi Hanifa.


----------



## rayloom

Timmy123 said:


> I am told by my professors that the codification of grammar arised from the students of the Quran (can anyone confirm?)



Yes that's true. Preservation of the Quran was the initial driving force behind the invention of diacritics, consonantal markings (i3jam) and the codification of Arabic grammar.


----------



## Timmy123

Thanks for the confirmation rayloom.

(That should of course be _arose_ and not _arised_)


----------



## L.2

Wadi Hanifa said:


> No, the reason is because you are unfamiliar with the rule, which is why you think الشمس مشرق is the same as الفتاة كريم.


 
Feminine adjectives may lose their taa when they are considered to be only female adjectives as in حائض حامل طالق but كريم مشرق قريب can not be used for both men and women. I remember I read many grammatians said that فعيل بمعنى فاعل as in كريم can never lose their taa thus الفتاة كريم is a horrible mistake.
الساعة قريب is also wrong and the same is the verse 56 of al2a3raaf إن رحمة الله *قريب* من المحسنين . As رحمة is of course feminine noun, it should be قريبة not قريب . Even if you want to argue that فعيل can be both for masculine and feminine nouns, I'd ask why then the Quran used هذا with رحمة in the verse وقال هذا رحمة من ربي ? it's obvious that the Quran generally treats رحمة as masculine noun regardless فعيل and all other rules.



Wadi Hanifa said:


> Also, there is another way to justify الساعة قريب which is that قريب is an indication of time/place, so the Arabs understood it as الساعة وقتها قريب and that's still valid under MSA.


 
اعذرني سأتحدث بالعربية هنا
تبريرك لتذكير خبر المؤنث هو تبرير غير مقنع. فمن أين أتيت بكلمة "وقتها"؟ نص الآية كان واضحا "الساعة قريب" لا يوجد أي ذكر لكلمة "وقتها" ولا أي قرينة تدل على أن هناك كلمة محذوفة. وكل ما فعلته هو انك أتيت بكلمة مذكرة وتخيلتها وكأنها موجودة حقيقة في النص وبنيت عليها الخبر المذكر وهكذا ظننت أن المعضلة قد حلت؟
في الحقيقة أعتبر هذه مبررات مطاطية لتغطية الأخطاء الفادحة لأن استحداث كلمات جديدة لا قرائن لها في النص لمجرد أن يبنى عليها الخطأ، هو عمل أقرب ما يكون إلى التأليف والتلاعب الصريح في النص، ناهيك عن أن تبرير الخطأ النحوي بافتراض كلمة ليس لها وجود يزيد المسألة سوءا ولا يصححها لأنه سيجعل من اللغة العربية، لغة فوضوية متخبطة لا تتبع قواعد وتراكيب معينة و سيسمح لأي كان بإضافة أي كلمة في أي مكان. وهكذا سيخرج من يؤلف الشطحات اللغوية والنحوية ويبنيها على المتشطح والمتنطح، ولك أن تتخيل المهزلة
سأذكر لك مثالا، لو قلت جاءت خالد إلى الدار، وسألتني لماذا استخدمت "جاءت" في حين ان خالداً اسم مذكر؟ سأرد بنفس الحيلة وأقول بأن "صورة" خالد هي التي جاءت، وصورة هي كلمة محذوفة مبني عليها تاء التأنيث. هكذا بكل بساطة! هل رأيت كيف تحايلت على القاعدة لأبرر خطأ نحويا قاتلا؟
عموما تسليمي بصحة هذه الأمثلة التي لا تتماشى مع أي قاعدة عدا قاعدة "الكلمة المزعومة المحذوفة" سيدل على قصوري اللغوي وسذاجتي منقطعة النظير. حتى فطاحلة اللغة العربية أنفسهم بفصاحتهم وحصافتهم عارضوها وبينوا خطأها وفسادها ولا يحضرني إلا قول عائشة بنت ابي بكر:"يا ابن أختي هذا خطأ من الكاتب". هي لم تحاول تبرير الأخطاء التي يستحيل تبريرها أو إخضاعها بالقوة لقواعد اللغة العربية بل قالتها بكل صراحة
وبالرغم من وضوح هذه الأخطاء اللغوية التي لا علاقة لها بأي لسان عربي فصيح، إلا أنّ المشرعين لن يتوانوا عن الالتفاف حول النصوص واختراع الكلمات الوهمية والمحذوفة في محاولة يائسة لتعزيز الأخطاء النحوية وإضفاء الشرعية لها. و يبدو أن أصحاب هذه التبريرات و التخريجات من أنصار مقولة عنزة ولو طارت​ 


Timmy123 said:


> If I recall correctly, the Arabs were unable to challenge the Quran from a linguistic perspective (I am not very well versed on Islamic/Arabian history so if I am wrong please correct me)


 
This is wrong because not all Arabs accepted that the Quran is grammatically correct. Othman himself when he read a copy of the Quran said: إن في القرآن لحناً وستقيمه العرب بألسنتها
"There are grammatical mistakes in the Quran and Arabs will correct them by their tongues (when they recite it)"
Othman didn't care about these mistakes, and did not even try to correct them as he thought they are obvious and that Arabs will correct them themselves when they recite the book. He did not expect people will come after years claiming these mistakes are totally compatible with grammar. Even if we tried to make new rules out of them, we will not be succeed because we will face difficult situations when a sentence is written twice, word for word, but with changing the i3rab. In these situations claiming correctness of one will deny the other, so only one must be correct for example, In one verse alma2ida 69 we read:
إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا *والصابئين* والنصارى
In al7ajj verse 17 we read
إن الذين آمنوا والذين هادوا *والصابئون* والنصارى
so which one is correct? Sabi2iin or Sabi2oon?
other than grammatical mistakes or _differences_, Arabs were not even able to know the meaning of tons of Quranic words, even the prophet's cousins were disagreeing in their true meanings as the example I already mentioned al3adiyat. In addition, when Omar, the second caliph after Muhammad, read the verse وفاكهة وأبا he said: "we know the fruit but what does al2b mean?" he was the second caliph and was there when the Quran was revealed but yet had no clue what it meant, also Abu Baker, the first caliph, when was asked about the same word al2b, he said أي سماء تظلني، وأي أرض تقلني إذا قلت في كتاب الله ما لا علم لي به
"What sky will cover me and what land will carry me if I said about the book of God what I do not know"
Today, some people say al2b is generally any plant grows over the ground, some say it is any dry fruit that is considered animal fodder, and others say the opposite it's the moist fruits. Therefore, it has no certain meaning. There are many other examples so why a learner wants to study quranic words when the Arabs even the prophet's relatives and companions do not know their meanings?



rayloom said:


> Yes that's true. Preservation of the Quran was the initial driving force behind the invention of diacritics, consonantal markings (i3jam) and the codification of Arabic grammar.


 
Yes, as far as I know the diacritical dots were first invented in the Quran but years after the Quran was written down, and there are still many spelling mistakes, also the modren small alifs that are written over words were also invented to correct many of the spelling mistakes الصدقات is written as الصدقت , and سائحات is written سئحت and so on. Also, the Quran does not distinguish between التاء المربوطة و التاء المفتوحة thus رحمة is written رحمت and this is wrong. Moreover, some versions of the Quran does not show the dots of الياء making الياء و الألف المقصورة look just the same.


----------



## WadiH

L.2 said:


> Feminine adjectives may lose their taa when they are considered to be only female adjectives as in حائض حامل طالق



Yes you've stated this before.  This actually applies only to the pattern فاعل (and then only in MSA, whereas in most of Arabia, we say فلانة عاقل and فلانة جاهل, but that's another topic).

In Fus7a, the taa is optional with the pattern فعيل and strongly discouraged with the pattern فعول.  In fact, it sounds very un-Arabic to say, for example, فلانة كذوبة.

These are just facts that you can easily check in any decent grammar book.  I even asked a relative of mine who is a professor of Arabic grammar in university.  Whether or not you believe it is up to you, of course.



> اعذرني سأتحدث بالعربية هنا
> تبريرك لتذكير خبر المؤنث هو تبرير غير مقنع. فمن أين أتيت بكلمة "وقتها"؟​




http://www.islamport.com/b/1/quraan...5%DA%D1%C7%C8%20%C7%E1%DE%D1%C2%E4%20006.html



> نص الآية كان واضحا "الساعة قريب" لا يوجد أي ذكر لكلمة "وقتها" ولا أي قرينة تدل على أن هناك كلمة محذوفة.



We don't need a "قرينة."  Language is full of محذوفات ومقدرات that people understand instinctively.  Even 3ammmiyya has them.

These explanations were written by people who were much closer to the time when the Quran first appeared, and they had access to Arabs who still spoke the Classical language and could interview them and understand from them how they perceived a sentence like إن الساعة قريب.



> وكل ما فعلته هو انك أتيت بكلمة مذكرة وتخيلتها وكأنها موجودة حقيقة في النص وبنيت عليها الخبر المذكر وهكذا ظننت أن المعضلة قد حلت؟
> في الحقيقة أعتبر هذه مبررات مطاطية لتغطية الأخطاء الفادحة



What you don't understand is that I reject your entire assumption that there is a معضلة here that needs to be "solved."  There isn't.  You're just putting the cart before the horse: you think that a text like the Quran is supposed to conform to standardized rules that you were taught in middle school, which were in turn based on an attempt to standardize grammar that took place long after the text was written.  The purpose of grammar is to _describe_ how people actually speak and explain it.  If you come up with a rule to explain a phenomenon, then you find that the phenomenon doesn't always conform to your proposed rule, then it's the rule that needs to be refined and adjusted.  You can't just apply grammatical rules retroactively.  I'm reminded of an anecdote about al-Farazdaq, where some urban grammarian criticized the way he declined a certain word and al-Farazdaq replied: نحن علينا أن نقول وأنتم عليكم أن تتأولوا.



> لأن استحداث كلمات جديدة لا قرائن لها في النص لمجرد أن يبنى عليها الخطأ، هو عمل أقرب ما يكون إلى التأليف والتلاعب الصريح في النص، ناهيك عن أن تبرير الخطأ النحوي بافتراض كلمة ليس لها وجود يزيد المسألة سوءا ولا يصححها لأنه سيجعل من اللغة العربية، لغة فوضوية متخبطة لا تتبع قواعد وتراكيب معينة



وهل القرآن يتبع لغة فوضوية؟  القرآن جاء على لغة العرب في زمانه، فكأنك تقولين إن لغة العرب قبل العصر العباسي كانت لغة فوضوية. ألست أنت من أنكرت بشدة أن يكون العرب بلا نحو ولا صرف؟  أنت تناقضين نفسك.

يبدو أنك تعتقدين أنك قد أحطت بكل النحو العربي، وما لا يتوافق مع القوالب التي في ذهنك لا بد أنه خطأ، لكن اللغة العربية أوسع بكثير من بضع قواعد تعلمتيها في المدرسة أو في الجامعة وعدم إحاطتك بذلك لا يعني أنها لغة فوضوية.



> Yes, as far as I know the diacritical dots were first invented in the Quran but years after the Quran was written down, and there are still many spelling mistakes, also the modren small alifs that are written over words were also invented to correct many of the spelling mistakes الصدقات is written as الصدقت , and سائحات is written سئحت and so on. Also, the Quran does not distinguish between التاء المربوطة و التاء المفتوحة thus رحمة is written رحمت and this is wrong. Moreover, some versions of the Quran does not show the dots of الياء making الياء و الألف المقصورة look just the same.



These are not "spelling mistakes."  These are just vestiges of an older system of orthography.  Obviously, orthography can change and be standardized.  I don't know what your point is with this.​


----------



## L.2

Wadi Hanifa said:


> In Fus7a, the taa is optional with the pattern فعيل and strongly discouraged with the pattern فعول. In fact, it sounds very un-Arabic to say, for example, فلانة كذوبة..


 
You justified قريب in رحمة الله قريب as فعيل which I don't agree , however, the problem is that the Quran doesn't deal with them as feminine nouns because you see in other verse how the Quran uses a masculine اسم إشارة with رحمة. So maybe you want to find another justification. And that why I said those who try to justify these mistakes will face a difficult situation in other verses.



> We don't need a "قرينة." Language is full of محذوفات ومقدرات that people understand instinctively. Even 3ammmiyya has them.


 
So do you think I have the right to say جاءت خالد , in presumption the language is full of محذوفات.
I read a justification by someone wanted to explain why the Quran uses هذا with الشمس in the verse
عندما رأى الشمس بازغة قال *هذا* ربي he said that there is كلمة محذوفة which is هذا المرئي الشمس ربي
thus this depraved explanation means I can say *هذا الفتاة* أختي in presumption المرئي is omitted and it's هذا "المرئي" الفتاة أختي See, we can't.
The Quran corrupt the basic of grammar rules. It uses هذا with الشمس , uses a plural verb with dual subject, uses a feminane khabar with a masculine mubtada, uses a marfoo3 ism inna when it should be manSoob. uses a singular اسم موصول to refer to plural and uses a plural اسم موصول to refer to a singular....and tons of other mistakes.



> What you don't understand is that I reject your entire assumption that there is a معضلة here that needs to be "solved."


 
Yes, maybe you don't see المعضلة but that does not deny the fact that well known grammarians are aware of these mistakes, even prophet's companions and wives criticised these 'mistakes'. In one of your privious posts you said الطفل الذين is 'strange', you chose a more comforting word I guess, but I don't mind the word 'wrong' anyway.



> وهل القرآن يتبع لغة فوضوية؟ القرآن جاء على لغة العرب في زمانه، فكأنك تقولين إن لغة العرب قبل العصر العباسي كانت لغة فوضوية. ألست أنت من أنكرت بشدة أن يكون العرب بلا نحو ولا صرف؟ أنت تناقضين نفسك


 
عفواَ أنا لم أقل أن لغة القرآن فوضوية، ما قلته هو لو طبقنا قاعدة الكلمات المحذوفة على كل خطأ لغوي موجود في القرآن سننتج حالة من الفوضى باللغة. لأنها بالأساس قاعدة خاطئة والكلمات المزعومة ليس لها قرينة، قد اسميها قاعدة الأزمات لأنها تبرر كل أخطاء القرآن اللغوية، وتحمل الكلمات المحذوفة وزر شذوذها​ 


> These are not "spelling mistakes." These are just vestiges of an older system of orthography. Obviously, orthography can change and be standardized. I don't know what your point is with this.


 
Yes these spelling mistakes are old, but because they are old, does not mean they are correct. The Quran used to write words without diacritical dots, so does that mean omitting these dots are fine today? and how can an Arabic learner identify صدقت which is  صدق+تاء المخاطب and صدقت charities?
It is not acceptable today unless you don't write alifs or dots to keep the old system of the book??​


----------



## rayloom

L.2 said:


> You justified قريب in رحمة الله قريب as فعيل which I  don't agree , however, the problem is that the Quran doesn't deal with  them as feminine nouns because you see in other verse how the Quran uses  a masculine اسم إشارة with رحمة. So maybe you want to find another  justification. And that why I said those who try to justify these  mistakes will face a difficult situation in other verses.



The word after the demonstrative can be an adjective صفة or a predicate خبر
In the sentence
هذا رحمة من ربي
it's a predicate. It's like saying اختلاف العلماء رحمة
اختلاف is masculine, رحمة is feminine

If the following word is an adjective, it follows the demonstrative regarding its gender, number and case.

And regarding the feminization of adjectives and verbs, Arab grammarians  have gathered a handful of rules and observations regarding the matter.

As for الصابؤن which comes in the nominative, it's an appositive جملة معترضة. 

It's like putting it between dashes.
Imru2u 'l-qays, The greatest pre-islamic Arab poet says: 
فلو أن ما أسعى لأدنى معيشة ... كفاني ولم أطلب قليل من المال
he doesn't say قليلا, because the preceding sentence ولم أطلب is a non-restrictive appositive (it's like saying كفاني قليل من المال). You can't see it because there are no dashes. The Quran has no dashes also, yet the Arabs didn't find it strange or wrong because they understood what it was!

And the spelling, it's how they wrote back in the days. It had an irregular system, but you can't consider it wrong. Would you consider "Heart" wrong? I mean it should be written "Hart", the spelling remained even though the pronunciation changed. And although the pronunciation didn't change in Quranic Arabic, the standards of Arabic spelling changed to reflect more how Arabic is uttered and to simplify it for the reader, but the rasm (how the Quran was initially scripted) was preserved.
One interesting thing about the Quranic rasm is the ta marbu6a which turns into a normal taa if the word is in the construct state. رَحْمَتَ رَبِّكَ
Also the words where there is an alif and the original (final) radical is a waw or yaa, the waw and yaa would usually remain in script, but the word would be read with an alif; the diacritic system adds a small alif above the waw or yaa. It was quite irregular but there was some sort of a system.


----------



## rayloom

I forgot to mention the main point behind my post 
I think it's absurd to to think that the grammar of the Quran and early literary works is flawed, when the whole Arabic grammar is defined by those same texts. Not only the grammar, indeed the Arabic language as a whole. 
I remember in school studying that the ancient saying مكره أخاك لا بطل is wrong cause أخاك the subject of the passive participle مكره is in the accusative where it should be in the nominative أخوك.
I later, with further reading, learned that no, some Arab tribes would decline the subject of the passive as if it's the object of the active participle, i.e. in the accusative and that it's not wrong to do so.
The Classical Arabic literature is filled with what we might consider strange or wrong in our standardized Arabic.
Some examples of which:
*The definite article al- is used as a relative pronoun and would precede a verb...if any Arab today saw such a formation, he'd shout FOUL!
*kana and it's sisters, and inna and it's sisters, would precede a nominative sentence and not change the original inflection of the sentence.
*a verb preceding the subject would be conjugated for the plural if the subject is plural, contrary to what we have in standardized Arabic. Also called لغة أكلوني البراغيث
*a relative pronoun system which is completely declined and is made up of dhuu, dhatu, dhawaa, dhawaataa, dhawuu, dhawaatu...instead of alladhi, allati, alladhaani, allataani, alladheen, allawaati, al2uli, al2ulaa2u.
*and many differences in the subject and object pronouns.
*morphological variations on the formation of verbs.
*pronunciation differences between different tribes,
*different registers of vocabulary differing from land to land!
*Extra demonstrative pronouns dhin, tii

And these are some of them.

You can't consider these variations wrong. It might not conform to our standardized grammar, which is becoming increasingly limited and simplistic, but not wrong.

Also remember that the Quran uses variations of the languages of the Arabs while most of it is in the language of Quraish.
It uses an imala (slanting) in a location and certain reading.
It uses ولات حين مناص...to mean وليس حينئذ مناص
uses إن هذان لساحران which is correct whether you read it "inna" or "in".


----------



## suma

As a Muslim and non-native speaker who learned Arabic, I must acknowledge that Arabic is challenging enough as it is, without throwing in the added challenge of a very high form of the language and somewhat archaic, that being the Quran.

I have my reservations about advising new learners to delve into the Quran for *arabic study purposes*. To expose onself to the cultural aspects, sights & sounds of the Quran is one thing, that's ok, but to serious attempt to parse through the Arabic as study material, that I think is best reserved for upper-intermediate or advanced students.


----------



## rayloom

Oh yeah...Deeper linguistic study of the Quran is not for the beginner.
It's helpful for those who'd like to have a feel for the language and know how the classical language sounds, or those who are interested in the Quranic studies.
For advanced students of Arabic though, I think I'd recommend reading and listening to the Quran. It's definitely easier than going through - or even looking for - other classical or pre-Islamic texts or their translations.


----------



## Faylasoof

L.2 said:


> If الطفل is just as الأطفال , why then the Quran uses the plural, exaclty in the same chapter, suratu annur
> واذا بلغ *الاطفال* منكم الحلم فليستاذنوا كما استاذن الذين من قبلهم
> 
> If it was the same then it should be read اذا بلغ الطفل منكم الحلم فليستاذنوا ?
> Some people tend to change the rules to say the Quran is compatible with  MSA. Is it hard to just believe grammar of any language can be changed  over the time?
> If I believed that الطفل الذين is an exception, why in other verse الذي is used with a plural, when it suppose to be الذين
> The verse in attawba chapter وخضتم *كالذي* خاضوا أولئك حبطت أعمالهم



I thought the point about the varied grammatical use of الطفل has already been answered as per لسان العربand الصّحّاح في اللغة!  

Anyway, here is more by الأنباري and الزمخشري on this topic.    

I guess most of your other points have been answered by Wadi Hanifa and Rayloom but I might add that your suggestion that just because the Quranic language has some differences with fus7a / MSA therefore making it invalid misses an important point. Quranic Arabic includes influences from various Arabic dialects prevalent in 7th century Arabia. While the bulk of the language is considered by scholars to be derived from the then Hijazi dialect generally and the Qurayshi dialect specifically, there are expressions and words from other Arabic dialects then prevalent. This goes some way towards explaining why we note 

Also, your suggestion that, “….not all Arabs accepted that the Quran is grammatically correct. Othman himself when he read a copy of the Quran said: إن في القرآن لحناً وستقيمه العرب بألسنتها _There are grammatical mistakes in the Quran and Arabs will correct them by their tongues (when they recite it)_" seems highly dubious given that it is generally accepted that various Arabic dialects existed at the time which varied from one another. If you have this situation then how could you have anyone say “…_Arabs will correct them  by their tongues (when they recite it)_, referring to these purported mistakes. Arabs having different dialects could not all have come to the same conclusion and “correct errors” if they each followed the varied rules of their own tongues! This doesn’t make any sense!

As for both Abu Bakr and Umar not knowing the meaning of the word الأب in the verse وفاكهة وأبا , is neither here nor there. Just because a few individuals (in this case two on record) not knowing the meaning of this word doesn’t invalidate the entire text! You could say it reflects more on them than some issues that you seem to have with the language of this book. Besides, these individuals at least had the courage to admit they didn’t know! 

According to Lane (here, choose آ and go to page 3, bottom right corner) the term الأب in this context refers to herbage / meadows/ fodder etc.  

And they were not alone! Abdullah Ibn Abbas, a cousin of the Prophet admitted that he didn’t know what the Quranic use of فَاطِرِ meant, for example here:

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ

(35:1)

فَاطِرis used in the Quran about 5 times – all with the same meaning. Ibn Abbas is said to have understood the meaning only when he heard two Bedouins quarrel over a well and one said to the other أنا فطرتُها (I started this [i.e. the well]). 

قال  سفيان الثوري  ، عن إبراهيم بن مهاجر  ، عن مجاهد ،  عن ابن عباس  قال : كنت لا أدري ما فاطر السماوات والأرض ، حتى أتاني أعرابيان يختصمان في بئر ، فقال أحدهما [ لصاحبه ] : أنا فطرتها ، أنا بدأتها . فقال ابن عباس  أيضا : ( فاطر السماوات والأرض  ) بديع السماوات والأرض  .​ Here.


Similar story with the term الْفَتَّاحُ in: 

قُلْ يَجْمَعُ بَيْنَنَا رَبُّنَا ثُمَّ يَفْتَحُ بَيْنَنَا بِالْحَقِّ وَهُوَ الْفَتَّاحُ الْعَلِيمُ​ 
 (34: 26) 

He admitted not knowing exactly what it meant here and understood it only when he heard Dhu Yazin’s daughter say to her opponent:  هلّم فاتحني (Come to arbitration with me!). الْفَتَّاحُas used in the Quran has a similar usage, meaning of course The Supreme Judge / Arbiter.

There are other examples too like these.

I suggest you get hold of the works of az-Zarkashi, as-Suyuti, at-Tabri, al-2nbaari and az-Zamakhshari (الكشاف  للزمخشري). Zamakhshari was also a recognised grammarian.




suma said:


> As a Muslim and non-native speaker who learned Arabic, I must acknowledge that Arabic is challenging enough as it is, without throwing in the added challenge of a very high form of the language and somewhat archaic, that being the Quran.
> 
> I have my reservations about advising new learners to delve into the Quran for *arabic study purposes*. To expose onself to the cultural aspects, sights & sounds of the Quran is one thing, that's ok, but to serious attempt to parse through the Arabic as study material, that I think is best reserved for upper-intermediate or advanced students.


 I agree that the language is not easy but the recommendation has always been to get acquainted with the basics of fus7a grammar first and then read the Quran. Incidentally, not all the usages and language of the Quran are archaic! Some yes, but definitely not all. There are extended passages that would be readily understood today by those with more than just a passing knowledge of Arabic. Incidentally, there are at least two teaching grammars that use the Quranic text as their basis. One is by *Wheeler Thackston* and the other by *Alan Jones*. If you wish, you can request your local library to get them for you or just go to any of the online booksellers. 

So it is possible to study Arabic from scratch by using the Quran provided you have the right aids. One needs either a skilled teacher or, for an autodidact, a good teaching grammar, like the ones mentioned above. 

In many homes in the Muslim world, Quran reading and comprehension still marks the first step in learning Arabic as it has done for hundreds of years. Mostly this is done with the aid of a skilled tutor though.


----------



## Idris

Faylasoof said:


> Also, your suggestion that, “….not all Arabs accepted that the Quran is grammatically correct. Othman himself when he read a copy of the Quran said: إن في القرآن لحناً وستقيمه العرب بألسنتها _There are grammatical mistakes in the Quran and Arabs will correct them by their tongues (when they recite it)_" seems highly dubious given that it is generally accepted that various Arabic dialects existed at the time which varied from one another. If you have this situation then how could you have anyone say “…_Arabs will correct them  by their tongues (when they recite it)_, referring to these purported mistakes. Arabs having different dialects could not all have come to the same conclusion and “correct errors” if they each followed the varied rules of their own tongues! This doesn’t make any sense!



Apart from not making sense, a study attached to this thread of some other forum discusses the chain of transmissions one by one of this particular statement of Othman. It says they are weak and cannot be presented as an argument. Here's a direct link to the document.


----------



## cherine

Hello all,

This thread started with a rather simple question:


A.F.Ferri said:


> is the Arabic in the Qur'an at all archaic and out of date?


But somehow it became one of those "discussions" we see on "theological" websites.
I think I have to put an end to this endless discussion, specially that it is discussing too many topics, which is against the rules of this forum.

By the way, some of the points discussed here have been discussed before. Everyone, please feel free to search the forum and continue those discussions in there place if you feel like it. But, please, remember the forum rules.


Thank you all for your understanding,
Cherine
Moderator


----------

