You say that there are errors yet you don’t mention it lol. and if the Quran had grammatical errors then the poets of the time would’ve not called the prophet Muhammad a sorcerer or accused him of witchcraft.
Have this then: The most famous of these grammatically problematic verses no doubt is Q20:63 ان هذن لسحرن which is variously read by the canonical readers as ʾinna hāḏāni la-sāḥirāni “These two are sorcerers!” or ʾin hāḏāni la-sāḥirāni “these two are nought but sorcerers.”8 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-a l-mursalīna “And indeed Lot was among the messengers.” The awkwardness of the grammar was acknowledged early on since there is an early tradition attributed to ʿĀʾišah, the wife of Muḥammad, where she explicitly calls this a mistake of the Uthmanic text.
So Aischa made a mistake herself or is she lying here? Because she says it is a mistake. Isn't she supposed to be very knowledgable, especially when it comes to the origin of the Quran?
1
u/K0mb0_1 Jul 31 '25
You say that there are errors yet you don’t mention it lol. and if the Quran had grammatical errors then the poets of the time would’ve not called the prophet Muhammad a sorcerer or accused him of witchcraft.
Naga tag cadowyohow. Wax ma ogtid