Some Orientalists, both new and old, have claimed that the Qur'an has grammatical errors in it. The issue is not the particular grammatical issues they raise. Rather, it is that their entire methodology in this regard is unacademic, incoherent, and possibly even dishonest. Were the same standards applied to scientific analysis of empirical data, for example, no one would take it seriously.
The Arabic language spoken at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was a collection of dialects, a subset of which has survived to this day. This language, with its multitude of variants, is collectively known as Classical Arabic. The Pre-Islamic Arabs were mostly illiterate, had a strong oral tradition, and took their language very seriously. Dialects of Arabic were called, "languages" (Ar.
lughat) and non-Arabic people and tongues were referred to as being, "non-articulate" (Ar.
a3jami). It was as if they only considered dialects of Arabic to be speech. There were no codified rules for Arabic. The way eloquent people spoke defined the language, and anything else was an error. Because of the high standing of poetry in Arab society, poetic license was a standing exception to this rule. This was the
descriptive age of Classical Arabic.
The spread of Islam led to the primary texts of Islam (the Qur'an and Prophetic utterances) spreading to people who spoke entirely different languages, as well as those who spoke forms of Arabic other than those used in these texts. (The Qur'an and Prophetic utterances include multiple dialects of Arabic.) In order to preserve the Arabic of Islam, scholars began codifying proper usages of Arabic grammar and morphology. Thus began the
prescriptive age of Classical Arabic.
Without doubt, the Qur'an contains difficult grammatical constructs. Any book that aims at reaching the outer limits of human ability will contain constructs more difficult to parse than, "See Jack run." If this is the case with books authored by humans, how could it be otherwise with Scripture? The first flaw that Orientalists fall into is that they fail to distinguish between the descriptive and prescriptive ages of Classical Arabic. The rules of Classical Arabic were formed based on the Qur'an, Prophetic utterances, Pre-Islamic poetry, and limited selections from Post-Islamic literati. Thus, by definition, one cannot judge the Qur'an according to the rules of Classical Arabic. These texts just mentioned are the raw, empirical data while grammatical rules are the theory. If there ever was an incoherent methodology, it would be to judge empirical data as wrong because it doesn't agree with theory. Even worse than this are the attempts of some Orientalists to judge Qur'anic constructs according to the rules of Modern Standard Arabic, a highly-simplified subset of Classical Arabic.
The Qur'an is not a new book. Grammatical analysis of Qur'anic constructs is not something that Muslims sat around waiting for Orientalists to come by and do for them. Yet, when Orientalists raise their concerns about grammar in the Qur'an, they seldom quote classical works of Qur'anic exegesis and grammar. One does not find references to
Al-Zamakhshari,
Al-Alusi,
Al-Sameen Al-Halabi,
Abu Hayyan,
Al-Razi, Al-Jamal,
Al-Sawi,
Ibn Hisham,
Al-Nasafi or
Al-Suyuti in their works. All of these scholars had addressed the issues that Orientalists raise long before the word, "Orientalism" existed. If one does not believe what Islamic scholars have written, then, as an academic, one is still obliged to reference it and rebut it. Thus, the second flaw of the Orientalists is that they do not reference prior literature. What standards of academic scholarship allow one to ignore earlier works? Assuming that Orientalists are ignorant of the texts they fail to reference is a bit far-fetched. However, assuming as much would be giving them the benefit of the doubt, for if they know of these texts and refuse to reference them it amounts to academic dishonesty, which is worse than ignorance.
If one submits that the Qur'an cannot be judged according to the rules of Classical Arabic (and,
a fortiori, Modern Standard Arabic), one can then ask: What would constitute a valid criticism of Qur'anic grammar? Since the Qur'an was revealed during the descriptive era of Classical Arabic, the only proof allowable would be that the poets and literati of the time objected to it. Any magnificent text, whether human or Divine, will push language to its limits and introduce terms and constructs that were previously unknown. Thus, simply recognizing that the Qur'an contains unusual and previously-unknown constructs would not constitute a proof against it. It would have to be further than that: poets and their admirers would have to have openly balked, expressed revulsion, or ridiculed it for it to be considered criticism. After all, based on the times, the Qur'an was not politically correct: it told people that they would burn in Hell for worshiping idols. Thus, the pagan Arabs had every reason to find fault with it. If one takes a cynical approach and claims that all criticism was erased from history by opportunistic authors or the killing of critics, this is problematic on two fronts: firstly, love of the Arabic language and admiration of its literature was too widespread to contain by killing off or silencing opponents, and secondly, classical Muslim authors have traditionally courted controversy, including the most blasphemous interpretations and baseless stories in their works for the purpose of academic honesty.
Taking a step backwards, when proving the existence of an unusual grammatical construct in the Qur'an or elsewhere, classical grammarians will often reference a
shahid, a quotation from Pre-Islamic poetry that uses the same construct without resorting to poetic license. Clearly, the existence of a
shahid proves that the Qur'anic construct was acceptable. However, the converse is not true: the lack of a
shahid does not prove that the construct is invalid. As mentioned earlier, every text that pushes the limits of human understanding will introduce new constructs. If a speaker of a language introduces a new construct during the descriptive phase of the language's evolution and it gains widespread acceptance, it is now, by definition, correct. The sole proof that can be used against Qur'anic usage is what was mentioned above: that the literati of the time balked at it, expressed revulsion, or ridiculed it. There is no proof that any of this happened.
There is a need for higher standards in Orientalist writings. Coherent thought, quoting references, and academic honesty are the fundamental requisites of any discipline, yet they are sadly lacking from works that claim grammatical errors in the Qur'an.
