Iltifat: Difference between revisions

Iltifāt (التفات, iltifaat), also known as grammatical shift, refers to places where the Quranic text makes an unexpected switch of grammatical person (1st, 2nd, 3rd person) in pronouns referring to the same person or thing. Switches in pronoun number (singular, dual, plural) were also termed iltifāt or said to be related to iltifāt. Also considered by some scholars as iltifāt are unexpected changes of addressee, change of verb tense, change of grammatical case, and using a noun in place of a pronoun.^[1]

Iltifāt is employed to a much greater extent and variety in the Quran than in pre Islamic or early Arab poetry and is an important technique in creating its distinctive style. In general, in the Quran these features seem to be intentional in order to achieve some rhetorical effect or for the sake of variety in pronouns. Some examples such as 19:63-64 and 10:22 discussed below have attracted criticism, however. There are also examples which some Muslim scholars have excused as iltifat but which, according to academic scholars, just seem to be unintended grammatical errors. This could indicate problems with the composition or preservation of the Quran. Some of these, as well as other grammatical errors, were even reportedly explained by Aisha and other companions as errors made by the first scribes to write down the Quran.

Academic views

An academic article by M. Abdel Haleem is commonly cited when defending the value of iltifat in the Quran. Haleem sets out the history and scope of the concept as considered by various early Muslim scholars, counts and lists the instances of each type of iltifat, and makes a case for their rhetorical effect using examples. He also attempts to defend the Quran against academic claims that it has some actual grammatical errors, some of which were apparently noted by companions, by explaining them as just another type of iltifat.^[1]

A more recent (open access) academic article by Linguist and leading expert in the Quranic reading traditions, Marijn van Putten, describes some of these grammatical problems and the unsatisfactory classical attempts to explain them, as well as others which were not covered by Haleem's article. His focus is on the canonical reciters of the Quran who sometimes departed from strict adherance to the Uthmanic text of the Quran in their readings in order to correct the errors and for other reasons.^[2]

Professor Suleiman Mourad has commented on other (mostly non-iltifat) grammatical problems in the Quran: "There are a few grammatical mistakes in the Qur'an - sometimes a sentence starts in the singular and ends in the plural (e.g., 9:49-50), or two particles are connected when they should not be (e.g., 3:178), or some vowels go wrong in the declensions (e.g., 22:78). This from the viewpoint of a strict linguist. From the traditional vantage point, since the Qur'an is miraculous, these are not errors."^[3]

Grammatical errors sometimes excused as iltifat

A'isha's remarks on grammatical errors by the scribes

Aisha explained to her nephew 'Urwa b. Zubayr that three Quranic verses which contain ungrammatical case markers were errors by the scribes (accusative case when it should be nominative case or vice versa). This tradition was known to the prominent 2nd century grammarian al Farra, passed to him by Abu Mu'awiyah from ʿUrwa's son Hisham.

Haleem rejects the narration, which al-Suyuti insisted had a sahih chain of transmission, because some scholars (though not Bukhari nor Muslim) weakened Abu Mu'awiyah in Hadith.^[4] Van Putten notes that Haleem's position raises more questions than answers and points out that it is nevertheless an early tradition, known to al Farra. Moreover, some early Quranic reciters clearly regarded 20:63 as an error as they attempted to correct for it.^[5]

Haleem attempts instead to explain 5:69 and 4:162 (and a similar issue in 2:177) as examples of iltifat, as did a few classical Islamic scholars. 20:63 is not addressed by Haleem, but this too will briefly be discussed below as it is the most famous grammatical error in the Quran.

Historian Sean Anthony has remarked that the Aisha tradition is also narrated from Hisham without Abu Mu'awiyah, and that there is "a lot of special pleading on Haleem's part" in his attempts to explain these errors as iltifat.^[6]

4:162 and 2:177

The problem is that wa-l-muqīmīna (and the establishers in prayer) is in the accusative case rather than the expected nominative case (muqīmūna).

Van Putten concisely explains the issue: "Q4:162 wa-l-muqīmīna ‘and the establishers’ is unexpected, because it has the case inflection that we would have expected if the verse had started with lākinna ‘but’, which governs the accusative, rather than the semantically more-or-less identical but morphosyntactically distinct lākin ‘but’, which governs the nominative. But lākin could not be read as lākinna because in that case ar-rāsiḫūna ‘the ones who are firm’ should have been in the accusative case as well."^[7]

The same kind of problem occurs in another verse, where wal-ṣābirīna (and [those who] are patient) is in the accusative case when the nominative (ṣābirūna) is expected.

Haleem, like the classical scholars Zarkashi and Zamakshari, regards both verses as examples of iltifat. In both cases he favours the view that the ungrammatical accusative case is intended to single out / draw attention to the word in order to indicate praise.

Haleem argues that highlighting the words by means of these grammatical errors would be understandable as ṣābirīn (patience) is mentioned four times in surah 2, and prayer occurs nine times in surah 4.^[8]

Critics see these as contrived explanations, not least as both are very long surahs in which many words occur multiple times. To illustrate their point, they note that ṣābirīn and derivatives from the same root appear many times also in surah 3, but without any such "deliberate" grammatical error. And the word for establishing prayer in 4:162 occurs nine times in surah 2 without errors.

5:69

Van Putten concisely explains the issue: "Wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾūna ‘and the Sabians’ is unexpected for the same reason hāḏāni ‘these two’ [in 20:63] is unexpected, the topicalizer ʾinna precedes, but fails to trigger the expected accusative in this word. This is especially striking because the same word occurs in virtually identical verses Q22:17 and Q2:62 in the expected accusative form wa-ṣ-ṣābiʾīna."

Haleem regards this as another example of iltifat in grammatical case marker. In this instance he suggests the intention is to highlight that even the Sabians who meet the conditions will have no fear on the last day.^[9]

Critics point out that surah 5 is far more concerned with Christians than Sabians (who are mentioned only in that verse of the surah, 5:69 itself).

Moreover, as mentioned by van Putten in the above quote, Quran 2:62 and Quran 22:17 each with same opening phrase have no grammatical error. Haleem claims this is due to the context of Surah 5, which has a few verses emphasising the opportunity for people of the book to be forgiven, and that the Sabians are intentionally highlighted by means of the grammatical error because they are even further astray.

20:63

While not classed as iltifat nor discussed by Haleem, the remaining example in the A'isha narration is worth a few remarks. Van Putten describes 20:63 as the most famous grammatically problematic verse in the Quran. It has two canonical readings, both of which are grammatically awkward: ʾinna hāḏāni la-sāḥirāni “These two are sorcerers!” or ʾin hāḏāni la-sāḥirāni “these two are nought but sorcerers.” The first of these readings is grammatically awkward because in strict Classical Arabic grammar ʾinna ‘verily, indeed’ should be followed by a noun in the accusative, and that is how it is treated with almost complete consistency throughout the Quran, e.g., Q37:133 wa-ʾinna lūṭan la-min-al-mursalīna “And indeed Lot was among the messengers.”

Van Putten then goes on to describe the unsatisfying attempts to explain this and the even more awkward alternative reading.^[10]

Several non-canonical readers simply choose to correct the verse.^[11] Even Abu 'Amr, one of the seven main canonical readers of the Quran, took the liberty to correct the grammar here by changing hāḏāni to hāḏayni (thereby ignoring the standard Uthmanic text).^[12]

Sean Anthony has confirmed that early Quranic manuscripts contain the grammatically erroneous text and do not accommodate Abu 'Amr's oral recitation correction to it.^[13]

Examples commonly considered to be iltifat

• This is not a complete list of examples. Every category has only one example
• Some examples are debatable, but the purpose is to show all kinds of iltifat that were suggested

In pronouns

The Quran in some verses switches pronouns in unexpected ways. The most common are switches between the 1st and the 3rd person (over 140 instances 3rd to 1st person, and over 100 instances 1st to 3rd person).

Change from 1st to 2nd person

This example is considered very debatable as it is the only example of its type in the Quran and the two pronouns probably don't have the same referent. In verse 36:22 a man asks his people:

The more expected pronouns might be "who created me and to whom I will be returned". But the iltifat in this case allows it to be interpreted as "why should I not worship He who created me" being the reason for the belief and "and to whom you will be returned" as a warning to the people.

Change from 1st to 3rd person

In this verse it cannot be clearly seen in the translation (Sahih International):

It begins with an instruction to say "I am the messenger" (1st person) but ends up referring to him in the 3rd person ("his messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in allah..").

As can be seen, translators added quotation marks (not a feature of the original text) so that the first part of the verse is the speech of Muhammad (which Allah commands him to say). Then, "So believe in Allah and His Messenger" is interpreted as the speech of Allah rather than Muhammad himself speaking with iltifat.

Change from 3rd person to 1st person

This example is clear. In the first verse "We" refers to Allah in 3rd person, then Allah is referred to in the 1st person:

Notice also a famous awkwardness in the 2nd verse. Suddenly, "we" now refers to angels. Translators always add clarifications in brackets to smooth over the abrupt change in narrator (neither Gabriel nor angels are mentioned in the original text). One possibility is that this was the result of an editing oversight when the Quran was compiled.

Change from 3rd person to 2nd person

Again it is somewhat disguised in the translation, but the people are referred to as "they", then the next verse addresses them as "you". The "[And it will be said]" and quotation marks were added by translators:

Without the interpolation in brackets introduced in some translations, it reads "and they will be adorned.. indeed this is for you a reward".

Change from 2nd person to 3rd person

This example is frequently cited by critics as a grammatical error in which it is hard to discern any rhetorical benefit or intentional iltifat. The switch of pronoun occurs within a single clause of the sentence:

Change from 2nd person to 1st person

This example is debatable. "The Lord" is in the 3rd person the whole time. The difference is only in the possessive pronouns:

The expected reading without iltifat would have been "Indeed, your Lord is Merciful and Affectionate".

In verbs

Change from past tense to command

Again, it can't be seen in the translation (Sahih International):

It doesn't say in present tense "and that you maintain", but rather the imperative "maintain!" (أقيموا) ^[14]. ٍSo it's "My lord ordered justice and maintain yourselves", which is ungrammatical and awkward to most ears. Some translations solve the problem by interpreting "My Lord has ordered justice" as a very short sentence, then "and maintain" as the start of a new sentence.

Change from present tense to command

"I call Allah to witness" is followed by a command "witness!" (the "[yourselves]" was added by translators):

It would be more natural to say "I call Allah to witness and I call you to witness" (أشهد الله واشهدكم).

Change from past tense to present

Sahih International translation patched it:

In reality "you denied" is in the past, but "you killed" is actually in the present: "you kill" (تقتلون).

Yusuf Ali made a more precise translation:

The Sahih International translation "a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed" (with both verbs in the past) would be the expected reading here.

Change from present tense to past

This one can't be seen in the translation at all:

It seems that the verbs are both in future tense, however, the first one is in the present ^[15] and the second in the past ^[16]. So "the day the horn is blown, they were terrified".

In number

Arabic words have singular, dual and plural forms.

Change from singular to dual

"You come to us" is singular ^[17], but "you two may have" is dual ^[18]

This example is classified as change of addressee by Haleem.

Change from singular to plural

When the light of the fire lighted around him, Allah took their light:

Change from dual to singular

"remove you" was dual ^[19], but "you would suffer" was singular ^[20].

This also seems to suggest, strangely, that if Adam and Eve were removed from paradise, then only Adam would suffer.

Change from dual to plural

It starts with "settle" as dual (Moses and his brother), then "make your houses" is plural. And "give good tidings" is singular (perhaps addressing Moses).

Change from plural to singular

Both "we" and "me" refers to god:

Change from plural to dual

55:33 is in the plural, 55:34 in the dual:

In verb tense/mood

"you assumed" is imperfect tense, whereas the other verbs are in the perfect (past) tense.

Haleem proposes that the imperfect tense verb here is intended to give a feeling that it is happening in the present.^[21]

See also

• Spelling Inconsistencies in the Quran
• Tadmeen

References