Textual History of the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
→‎Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes: I removed a claimed "grammatical error" because it's not an error. In Arabic it's decided if it's sabi'een or sabi'oon based on what part of speech it is (I'm an Arab, I can explain more if needed)
[checked revision][unchecked revision]
mNo edit summary
(→‎Diacritical Marks and Grammatical Mistakes: I removed a claimed "grammatical error" because it's not an error. In Arabic it's decided if it's sabi'een or sabi'oon based on what part of speech it is (I'm an Arab, I can explain more if needed))
Line 190: Line 190:
The following are just a few examples from among many grammatical ''mistakes'' which show that the Qur'an is not flawless.
The following are just a few examples from among many grammatical ''mistakes'' which show that the Qur'an is not flawless.


1. ''Sabi'een'' or ''Sabi'oon'', one must be wrong (5:69, 22:17)  
1. ''Butunihi'' is a mistake in 16:66. It must be ''Butuniha'', because it is referring to the plural (cattle).


2. ''Butunihi'' is a mistake in 16:66. It must be ''Butuniha'', because it is referring to the plural (cattle).
2. ''Kon fayakoon'', meaning "be and it is", must be ''kon fakana'', meaning "be and he was" in 3:59, because it refers to the past not present.
 
3. ''Kon fayakoon'', meaning "be and it is", must be ''kon fakana'', meaning "be and he was" in 3:59, because it refers to the past not present.


==Corruption of Previous Scriptures==
==Corruption of Previous Scriptures==
em-bypass-1
32

edits

Navigation menu