Skip to main content
Refutations

Does the Quran Have Arabic Grammar Mistakes? Every Objection Answered

32 min read 7115 words

Responding to Grammatical Objections Against the Quran

Table of Contents

Introduction

About This Article Critics of the Quran have raised a series of objections alleging grammatical errors in the Quranic text — arguing that the Arabic deviates from standard grammatical rules in ways that would not be acceptable in correct Arabic expression. This article addresses each objection in turn, demonstrating that every instance reflects established Arabic grammatical rules, recognized rhetorical devices, or legitimate variant readings documented by classical grammarians and scholars of the Arabic language.

Q.106 — The Conjoined Word in the Nominative Case (Al-Ma’idah 5:69)

Al-Ma’idah 5:69 “Indeed, those who have believed and those who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians — who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness — will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.”
The Objection The conjoined word “and the Sabeans” (wa-l-Sabi’un) should have been placed in the accusative case after the subject of “inna” — as was done in Al-Baqarah 2:62 and Al-Hajj 22:17. The use of the nominative here is a grammatical error.
The Answer If there were only one relative pronoun in the sentence, this objection might carry some weight — but the rule does not require the second relative pronoun to be subordinate to “inna.” The waw here is one of resumption, not simple conjunction to the first sentence. Therefore “and the Sabeans” is raised as the subject of a new sentence resumed after the first, with its predicate omitted — the understood meaning being “and the Sabeans are likewise,” i.e., the same ruling applies to them.
The Rhetorical Benefit The benefit of not conjoining the Sabeans with those before them is that the Sabeans are the most astray of the sects mentioned in the verse. The phrasing therefore implies: all these sects, if they believe and do righteous deeds, Allah will accept their repentance — even the Sabeans; if they believe, they too will receive the same reward. This construction highlights their case as the most extreme example and confirms the breadth of the divine mercy.

This expression is not strange in the Arabic language. The classical Arab poet Bishr ibn Abi Khazim al-Asadi used the same construction:

Bishr ibn Abi Khazim al-Asadi — Poetic Evidence “If you cut the forelocks of the people of Badr, then deliver them and take captives in chains / Otherwise, know that we and you are rebels, as long as we remain in discord.”

In the second verse, “an” is a verb-like particle and “na” is its subject in the accusative case. The waw conjoins “you” — a separate pronoun in the nominative — as a subject, and “rebels” is the predicate of “an.” “Or you” is raised, with the second predicate deleted. He could have said “that I am rebels and you are rebels” but instead resumed with presentation and deleted the predicate, to draw attention to the fact that those addressed are more characterized by rebellion.

A further classical example from Dabi’ ibn al-Harith al-Barjami:

Dabi’ ibn al-Harith al-Barjami — Poetic Evidence “Whoever spends the evening in the city on a journey / For I and Qiyar are strangers to it.”

Here “Qiyar” is raised as a sentence conjoined to the subject of “inna” in the accusative case. The intended meaning: I am a stranger to it, and Qiyar is also a stranger — yet the conjoined word appears in the nominative by the same principle of resumption.

Similar usage is found in the poetry of Qays ibn al-Khatim: “We are with what we have and you are satisfied with what you have. Opinions differ.”

Additional Grammatical Explanation It was also said: The word “inna” makes the subject accusative in form but it remains nominative in position (mahall). Therefore it is linguistically correct for “and the Sabeans” to be conjoined to the position of the subject of “inna” — whether before the predicate came or after it. Alternatively, it is conjoined to the pronoun in “the Jews.”

Q.107 — The Subject Appears in the Accusative Case (Al-Baqarah 2:124)

Al-Baqarah 2:124 “And when his Lord tested Abraham with certain commands, and he fulfilled them, He said, ‘Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people.’ He said, ‘And of my descendants?’ He said, ‘My covenant does not include the wrongdoers.’”
The Objection The subject “the wrongdoers” (al-zalimin) should have been raised to the nominative case. Why does it appear in the accusative?
The Answer The verb yanalu is a transitive verb meaning “to include” or “to encompass.” In this verse “My covenant” is the subject (fa’il) and “the wrongdoers” is the direct object (maf’ul bihi). The structure is therefore grammatically correct as written: My covenant does not encompass the wrongdoers.

An example of comparable usage: “He was wronged, and we are sorry for the humiliation he received.” The verb nala also carries the meaning of “to obtain” — for example: “The wrongdoer received his punishment.”

Classical Lexical Support The classical dictionaries in Lisan al-Arab (11/685) record: “The Arabs say: I received a favour from someone — meaning I obtained a favour from him.” The transitive usage of yanalu is fully documented in classical Arabic lexicography.

The Imamate and covenant of leadership here also means prophethood. This is Allah’s answer to Ibrahim’s request that prophethood continue in his descendants — Allah agreed, but excluded the wrongdoers, as if He intended to say: except the wrongdoers from your descendants.

Q.108 — The Predicate Does Not Follow Its Feminine Noun (Al-A’raf 7:56)

Al-A’raf 7:56 “And do not cause corruption on the earth after its reformation. And invoke Him with fear and hope. Indeed, the mercy of Allah is near (qarib) to the doers of good.”
The Objection The predicate should follow its feminine noun in gender and say qaribah (feminine), not qarib (masculine).
The Answer The word qarib is of the morphological form fa’il — and the fa’il form is used identically for both masculine and feminine in the Arabic language. The grammatical gender marking is not required for this form.
The Five Forms Common to Both Genders The masculine and feminine are equal across five morphological forms in Arabic: (1) fa’ul — e.g., a patient man and a patient woman; (2) fa’il — e.g., a wounded man and a wounded woman; (3) mif’al — e.g., one who slaughters excessively; (4) fa’il with a kasra on the meem — e.g., miskeen for both a poor man and a poor woman; (5) mif’al with kasra on the meem and fatha on the ‘ayn. Since qarib falls under fa’il, no feminine marker is required.

Q.109 — Feminization of the Number and the Plural of the Counted (Al-A’raf 7:160)

Al-A’raf 7:160 “And We divided them into twelve tribes, as nations.”
The Objection The number should have been mentioned with the counted noun in the singular: “twelve tribe” (as the Arabic rule for numbers 11–99 requires the distinguishing noun to be singular accusative).
The Answer The distinguishing noun (tamyiz) of “twelve” here is not “tribes” (asbat) — rather, it is understood from the Almighty’s saying “And We divided them,” and the intended meaning is twelve portions, i.e. twelve groups. The construction is at the highest level of eloquence: the distinguishing feature was omitted because it is indicated by “And We divided them,” and in its place a description of the groups of the Children of Israel — namely, the tribes — was mentioned.
Al-Qurtubi’s Explanation According to al-Qurtubi: when the word “nations” (umam) came after “tribes,” the gender shifted accordingly. The word “tribes” (asbat) refers to the descendants of Jacob’s sons. If the tribes were made the distinguishing noun and it were said “twelve tribes,” the statement would be incomplete — because “tribe” (sibt) can refer to a single person, which would reduce Jacob’s tribes to twelve men only. That is why the tribes were pluralized and “nations” (umam) was added after, because each group of Jacob’s tribes was a large community.

Q.110 — A Plural Pronoun Referring to a Dual (Al-Hajj 22:19)

Al-Hajj 22:19 “These are two opponents who disputed about their Lord.”
The Objection The pronoun referring to the dual should have been dualized: “two opponents who disputed about their Lord” with a dual pronoun, not a plural.
The Answer The sentence in the verse is a resumption leading into the narration of the story of the duellists at Badr — who were Hamza, Ali, and Ubaydah ibn al-Harith on one side, and Utbah, Shaybah the sons of Rabi’ah, and al-Walid ibn Utbah on the other. The meaning is that these people became two categories in their dispute, and under each category is a large group of people. One category are the monotheists who prostrate to Allah, and another group are those upon whom punishment is due — as stated in the verse before it. The plural pronoun therefore refers not to two individuals but to two camps each containing multiple people.

Q.111 — The Relative Pronoun Is Singular When the Referent Is Plural (At-Tawbah 9:69)

At-Tawbah 9:69 “And you plunged like those who plunged.”
The Objection The relative pronoun (alladhi) refers to a plural pronoun and should therefore be plural (alladhina): “you engaged in it like those who engaged in it.”
The Answer The related preposition and noun are omitted, and the intended meaning is: “like the conversation they engaged in.” It is as if the verse says: you engaged in the conversation that they engaged in. The omission of the attached phrase is a recognized device in Arabic and does not constitute an error. The singular form is used because the reference is to the act itself — the discourse or conduct — not to the individuals, which is a well-attested feature of Arabic relative constructions.

Q.112 — The Verb Conjoined to the Accusative Appears in the Jussive Mood (Al-Munafiqun 63:10)

Al-Munafiqun 63:10 “And spend from what We have provided you before death comes to one of you and he says, ‘My Lord, if only You would delay me for a short term so I could give charity and be among the righteous.’”
The Objection The verb conjoined to the accusative (wa-akun) should have been made accusative (wa-akuna) since it is conjoined to fa-us-diq which is accusative in response to lawla.
The Answer The word wa-akun is in fact read in both the accusative and the jussive across the various Quranic readings, and both are correct. As for the accusative — it is apparent, because it is conjoined to fa-us-diq which is accusative in form in response to lawla. As for the jussive — it is because fa-us-diq, although accusative in form, is jussive in position (mahall) by a condition understood from the preceding lawla akhkhartani (“if only You would delay me”). The word fa-us-diq is therefore conditioned upon the delay — and what is conditioned upon a condition takes the jussive position even when it is accusative in form.
Classical Grammatical Rule The scholars established a rule: conjoining to a position that is jussive by a condition understood from what precedes it is permissible in Arabic. If there were no fa’, the word us-diq would be jussive — so conjoining to the position of fa’ is permitted. The waw here is from the category of conjoining a sentence to a sentence, not a verb to a verb, and it is jussive in the category of the request (command), because the request is like the condition.

Q.113 — A Plural Pronoun Referring to a Singular Antecedent (Al-Baqarah 2:17)

Al-Baqarah 2:17 “Their example is like that of one who kindled a fire; then when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light (nuruhum).”
The Objection The pronoun referring to the singular subject “one who kindled a fire” should have been singular: “Allah took away his light (nurah),” not their light.
The Answer The verse does not liken a group to one single person — it likens their story to the story of one who kindled the fire. The fire illuminated not only the one who lit it but also those surrounding him. Allah’s punishment was therefore to take away all of their sight — the entire group. The example in Al-Jumu’ah 5 uses the same structure: “The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah but did not uphold it is like that of a donkey who carries volumes.”

Allah gives the example of a people, one of whom lit a fire. When it illuminated what was around the one who made this fire, it also illuminated his surroundings — and Allah took away the sight of all of these people. The parable describes a collective reality through a single representative example, and the plural pronoun correctly refers to the group being described.

On the Eloquence of “Dhahaba” (Took Away) Allah says dhahaba bi-nurihim — “took away their light” — rather than simply adhhaba nurahum. The word dhahaba carries the meaning of carrying something and going with it, as if God wanted to remind them that they see with the light of God and in His company. Since they chose the path of darkness, God took His light and left them in the darkness of their souls in which they chose to remain. This adds a layer of meaning absent from the simpler form.

Q.114 — The Conjoined Word Appears in the Accusative Instead of the Nominative (An-Nisa 4:162)

An-Nisa 4:162 “But those among them who are firm in knowledge and the believers believe in what has been revealed to you, and what was revealed before you, and those who establish prayer and give zakah and believe in Allah and the Last Day — those — We will give them a great reward.”
The Objection The phrase “and those who establish prayer” (wa-l-muqimin al-salat) should have been raised to the nominative to match its subject. Why does it appear in the accusative?
The Answer “And those who establish prayer” (wa-l-muqimin) is in the accusative for the purpose of ikhtisas — specification and praise — as if the meaning is: “and I single out for special praise those who establish prayer.” This is an interjectional sentence meaning “and I single out and honour” — the word is the object of an omitted verb which is “and I praise.” The specification here is on account of the elevated status of prayer, as it is the first thing for which a person will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment.
Rhetorical Beauty This construction draws the listeners’ ears to the extraordinary importance of what has been said. The word wa-l-muqimin appears in the accusative as an emphatic aside within the sentence — a recognized and well-documented Arabic rhetorical device that was not invented for the Quran but was already present in classical Arabic usage. As for wa-l-mu’tun (and the giving of zakah) which follows, it is in the nominative because it is conjoined with the sentence preceding it.

Q.116 — The Plural of Abundance Is Used Where Paucity Is Intended (Al-Baqarah 2:80)

Al-Baqarah 2:80 “The Fire will not touch us except for a few days (ayyaman ma’dudata).”
The Objection Since the Jews intended paucity (a small number of days), the plural of paucity (ayyam) should have been used, not the plural of abundance (ayyam). It should say “a few days” using the appropriate form.
The Answer The Quran uses both forms across its text: Al-Imran 24 says “except for a few days” (ayyaman ma’dudata), Al-Baqarah 203 says “in a few days” (ayyaman ma’dudat), and Al-Hajj 28 likewise. Both plural forms are attested in Quranic and classical Arabic usage.
Grammatical Explanation If the noun is masculine, the original form of its plural uses the taa: believing men, broken cups. If it is feminine, the original form uses alif and taa: believing women, broken jars. However, the alif-taa plural may also appear rarely with masculine nouns (e.g., hammam, hammamat). Allah spoke in Al-Baqarah using the original form, and in Al-Imran using the derivative form — both are permitted. In the broken plural of an inanimate noun, description by the singular feminine or the plural is permissible: we say “towering mountains” and “towering mountains” — both are correct. Furthermore, in another opinion, ma’dudat means “a few” (as in “a few dirhams”) while ma’dud is also used for a small number.

Q.117 — The Plural of Scarcity Is Used Where Abundance Is Intended (Al-Baqarah 2:183–184)

Al-Baqarah 2:183–184 “O you who have believed, decreed upon you is fasting as it was decreed upon those before you that you may become righteous — for a specified number of days (ayyaman ma’dudat).”
The Objection The intended number is 30 days, which is a large number, so the plural of abundance should have been used. The plural of scarcity (ayyam) is inappropriate here.
The Answer “A specified number of days” (ayyaman ma’dudat) carries the meaning of a known, predetermined number — or a limited amount. It is as if Allah is saying: I have shown mercy to you and made it easier for you — I did not impose upon you fasting the entire year, nor most of it. If I wanted, I could have done that, but I showed mercy and imposed upon you only a limited number of days.
Grammatical Note As established above, the broken plural for an inanimate object may be described by the singular feminine or the plural interchangeably. The use of ma’dudat here does not constitute an error but is a legitimate morphological choice that also carries the rhetorical benefit of emphasizing Allah’s mercy in limiting the fast.

Q.118 — A Proper Noun Appears in the Plural Form (As-Saffat 37:123–132 and At-Tin 95:1–3)

As-Saffat 37:123–132 “And indeed, Ilyas (Ilyasin) was among the messengers… Peace be upon Ilyas (Ilyasin)… Indeed, he was among Our believing servants.”
At-Tin 95:1–3 “By the fig and the olive and Mount Sinai (Sinin) and this secure city.”
The Objection (Two Claims) First: “Ilyasin” is a plural form used instead of the singular proper noun “Ilyas” — this is linguistically wrong and done only for forced rhyme. Second: “Sinin” is a plural form used instead of the singular proper noun “Sinai” — likewise linguistically wrong for the sake of rhyme.
The Answer The name Ilyas is an Arabization of Hebrew — a foreign proper noun, like Ibrahim and Abram. It is correct to pronounce it both Ilyas and Ilyasin. They are two names for one prophet. Since the name is not originally Arabic, it cannot be said that any of its legitimate pronunciations contradict the Arabic language. The people of the language do not object to what they have agreed upon in pronouncing a foreign name in one form or more.

Similarly, “Sinai” is pronounced Sinin, Sayinin, and Sinai, with the letter sin pronounced with a fatha or kasra in both. This is simply a matter of the same place having similar variant names — just as Mecca is also called Bakkah.

Key Principle Foreign proper nouns that have been Arabized are not subject to the same morphological rules as original Arabic words. Variant pronunciations of Arabized names are documented in classical Arabic and cannot be called grammatical errors.

Q.119 — An Active Participle Appears Instead of a Verbal Noun (Al-Baqarah 2:177)

Al-Baqarah 2:177 “Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but righteousness is one who believes in Allah (man amana bi-llah)…”
The Objection The correct form should be “but righteousness is that you believe in Allah” (an tu’mina) because righteousness is the faith itself, not the believer. Using the believer (man amana) instead of the act of believing is a category error.
The Answer Imam al-Razi explains that a word has been omitted in this verse — as if Allah intended to say: “but righteousness is all righteousness that leads to great reward — the righteousness of one who believes in Allah.” A similar construction appears in At-Tawbah 19: “Do you consider the one who gives water to the pilgrims like one who believes?” — meaning: do you consider the one who gives water like the faith of one who believes? The likeness occurs either between two verbal nouns or between two agents.

The word “righteousness” (birr) here can also be intended to mean the righteous person himself — as in “and the good end is for righteousness” (Taha 132) meaning for the righteous. Similar: “Have you considered if your water were to become sunken?” (Al-Mulk 30), meaning sunken water. The word stands for the person characterized by it.

On the Questioner’s Underlying Premise It appears the questioner follows the Pauline approach, which separates faith from works — leading him to expect a contradiction. But Islam teaches that faith is itself an action. Righteousness is therefore the action of the believer, and the verse is saying: righteousness is what a person does — believes in Allah, gives in charity, fulfills covenants, is patient. Faith in Allah includes actions of the heart that motivate actions of the limbs: fear, submission, trust, dread, and hope. The verse is internally consistent.
James 2:18–20 — The Bible’s Own Contradiction of Paul “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God — you do well; even the demons believe and shudder. But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith apart from works is dead?”

The Old Testament itself confirms that each person is accountable for their own actions:

Deuteronomy 24:16 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
Ezekiel 18:20–22 “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father… But if the wicked turn from all his sins and keep all My statutes and do what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of his transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him.”

Q.120 — The Subject of an Appositional Word Is in the Accusative (Al-Baqarah 2:177)

Al-Baqarah 2:177 “…and those who fulfill their covenant when they have made it, and who are patient in poverty and hardship and at the time of battle.”
The Objection The subject of the appositional word “and those who are patient” (wa-l-sabirina) should have been raised to the nominative to match its subject, giving “and those who are patient” (wa-l-sabirun).
The Answer “The patient ones” (al-sabirina) here is in the accusative as the object of an omitted verb meaning “I single out the patient ones for praise.” The conjunction here is a case of a sentence being conjoined with another sentence, not a simple grammatical conjunction of a noun to another noun. This is the same ikhtisas (specification for praise) device documented in Q.114 above, here applied to the patient as a further mark of their elevated status.

Q.121 — A Present-Tense Verb Is Used Where the Past Tense Is Expected (Al Imran 3:59)

Al Imran 3:59 “Indeed, the example of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, ‘Be,’ and he was (fa-yakun).”
The Objection The situation requires the past tense — He said “Be” and it was — so the correct form should be the past tense (fa-kana), not the present tense (fa-yakun).
The Answer The present tense (fa-yakun) is used here to indicate that Allah’s ability to create from dust and bring something into existence has not ended — it is ongoing, present, and extends into the future in every time and place. The One who created Adam from dust and said “Be” and he was, is equally able to create in the present and the future. The present tense communicates the eternality and continuing actuality of divine power, not a one-time past event.
Scholarly Confirmation Al-Qurtubi said: “The future tense can be in the place of the past tense if the meaning is known.” The context in the verse is: if Allah wills something, what He wills will happen — and this applies at any time. Missionaries who have cited classical commentators saying “the meaning is: so it was” have mistakenly concluded that the commentators were correcting a Quranic error. In fact the commentators were simply explaining that the sense conveys a past fulfillment — not saying that the present-tense form is wrong.

Q.122 — No Answer Is Given to “Lamma” (Yusuf 12:15)

Yusuf 12:15 “So when they went with him and agreed to put him in the bottom of the well, and We inspired him, ‘You will surely inform them of this affair of theirs while they do not perceive.’”
The Objection Where is the answer (jawab) to the conditional word lamma (“so when”)? If the waw before awhayna (“We inspired”) were deleted, the meaning would have been correct. The absence of an explicit answer is a grammatical deficiency.
The Answer The answer to lamma here is omitted — the understood meaning is “they made him in it” or “they carried out their plot and sent him with them.” The omission of a self-evident answer is one of the high rhetorical techniques of the Quran: it does not mention details that are completely clear from context, trusting the reader’s intelligence to supply what is obvious. This is a recognized feature of Arabic eloquence (hadhf — omission), documented extensively in classical Arabic and Quranic grammar.

Q.123 — A Shift in Pronoun Reference Creates Apparent Confusion (Al-Fath 48:8–9)

Al-Fath 48:8–9 “Indeed, We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner, that you may believe in Allah and His Messenger and support him and honor him and glorify Him morning and evening.”
The Objection There is confusion of meaning due to a shift from addressing Muhammad ﷺ to addressing others. The accusative pronoun in “support him” and “honor him” (ta’azziruh and tuwaqqiruh) refers to the Messenger mentioned last, while “glorify Him” (tusabbihuh) refers to the name of Majesty mentioned first. Nothing in the wording specifies the referent in a way that removes ambiguity. If “honor and respect him and glorify him” refers to the Messenger, it is kufr because glorification is for Allah alone. If it refers to Allah, it is kufr because Allah does not need anyone to strengthen Him.
The Answer After Allah said “Indeed, We have sent you as a witness and a bringer of good tidings and a warner,” He explained the benefit and reasons for sending associated with the lam of justification — so that the Messenger and all people would know the reason for his being sent. Therefore He said: “That you may believe in Allah and His Messenger and support him (ta’azziruh) and honor him (tuwaqqiruh) and glorify Him (tusabbihuh) morning and evening.”

The pronouns are entirely unambiguous in their referents: “support him and honor him” refer to the Messenger ﷺ, while “glorify Him” refers to Allah. The shift in referent within a sentence is a well-known Arabic device used throughout the Quran and classical literature.

The Address Structure The address here is first to the Messenger in the context of his sending, then turns to those who believe in him to explain the reasons for sending this Messenger. It is as if a teacher addressed one of his students in front of the rest of the class and said: “I have sent you to your colleagues so that you all know the exam date.” The address begins with one person and then broadens to include all those affected. The shift is not confusion — it is deliberate and purposeful rhetorical expansion.

Q.124 — A Non-Declinable Noun Receives Tanwin (Al-Insan 76:4 and 76:15)

Al-Insan 76:4 “Indeed, We have prepared for the disbelievers chains (salasila) and shackles and a Blaze.”
Al-Insan 76:15 “And there will be served to them vessels of silver and goblets of crystal (qawarira).”
The Objection Both “chains” (salasil) and “goblets of crystal” (qawarira) receive tanwin in these verses, even though they are non-declinable (mamnu’ min al-sarf) — and therefore should not receive tanwin. This is a grammatical error.
The Answer (on salasil)* “Chains” (salasil) is not among the morphological weights of nouns that are prevented from declension in the plural form. The prevented-from-declension plural requires either two letters after the plural alif, or three letters with a sukoon in the middle. Examples of prevented plurals: masajid (two letters after alif), masabih (three letters, middle with sukoon). The word salasil does not meet these conditions in the same way; it is read with tanwin in one of the established dialects of the Arabs which inflects all otherwise-non-declinable nouns in prose. Alternatively, the tanwin in salasil replaces a letter of attribution. (Al-Kashshaf by al-Zamakhshari, Vol. 4, p. 167)
The Answer (on qawarira) Returning to the Quran, qawarira is not definite in all readings — it is read without definite article according to Asim and many others. Moreover, the two grammarians al-Kisa’i al-Kufi and Nafi’ al-Madani read qawarira in the declined form (with tanwin), and this is grammatically permissible in the Arabic language to fit the pauses (waqf) in the verse endings. The variant is not an error — it is a documented reading with the authority of major Quranic transmitters.

Q.125 — The Predicate of a Feminine Noun Is Masculine (Ash-Shura 42:17)

Ash-Shura 42:17 “Allah is He Who has sent down the Book with the truth and the Balance. And what can make you know? Perhaps the Hour is near (qarib).”
The Objection The predicate of la’alla should follow its subject “the Hour” (al-sa’ah) in the feminine gender and say qaribah, not the masculine qarib.
The Answer The predicate of la’alla here is omitted because it is clearly evident — the intended meaning is “perhaps the occurrence (wuqu’) of the Hour is near.” The noun wuqu’ is masculine, so the predicate qarib (masculine) is correct.

There is also a further benefit: mercy (rahma) and womb (rahim) share the same root among the Arabs, so they sometimes carry the predicate on the meaning. Comparable usage appears in the Almighty’s saying: “This is a mercy from my Lord” — where the demonstrative pronoun came in the masculine form despite referring to a feminine-rooted concept. Similarly: “And the angels after that will be your support.”

The Five Forms Common to Both Genders As established in Q.108, the morphological form fa’il — which includes qarib — is the same for both masculine and feminine. Therefore qarib in this verse is grammatically correct on multiple grounds: the omitted masculine predicate, the fa’il form, and precedent from elsewhere in the Quran.

Q.126 — The Quran States the Obvious (Al-Baqarah 2:196)

Al-Baqarah 2:196 “But whoever cannot find the means — then a fast of three days during Hajj and seven when you have returned. Those are ten complete days (thalathat ayyamin fi al-hajj wa sab’atin idha raja’tum, tilka ‘asharatun kamilah).”
The Objection Why say “those are ten complete days” when three plus seven obviously equals ten? This clarifies the obvious, which is unnecessary and inelegant in an eloquent book.
The Answer Emphasis is a well-known and recognized method in Arabic speech. Compare: “But blind are the hearts which are within the breasts” (Al-Hajj 46) — everyone knows that hearts are within breasts; and “Nor a bird that flies with its wings” (Al-An’am 38) — birds fly with their wings by definition. A person might also say: “I heard it with my ears and saw it with my eyes.” Speech expressed with many phrases and known by many attributes is further from forgetfulness and negligence than speech expressed with a single phrase.
Three Additional Benefits of “Complete” (Kamilah) Imam al-Tabari and others identified multiple layers of meaning in the word kamilah: First, it is a word in place of a guidance that takes its place. Second, it means that the reward of the one who performs this fast is complete — like the reward of those who bring the guidance (the hady) and are able to do so. Third, the Hajj of the one who performs this fasting is complete — like the Hajj of one who did not undertake tamattu’. These are not empty repetitions but three distinct wisdoms packed into one word.

Q.127 — A Subject Pronoun Appears Alongside an Explicit Subject (Al-Anbiya 21:3)

Al-Anbiya 21:3 “And those who did wrong whispered secretly (wa-asarr al-najawal-ladhina zalamuu).”
The Objection The subject pronoun in “whispered secretly” should be deleted because the subject “those who wronged” (alladhina zalamuu) is already explicitly present.
The Answer The structure is entirely in accordance with the rules of the Arabic language by agreement of linguists — even where they differed regarding to which agent the verb is attributed. The majority hold that the verb is attributed to the pronoun, and the explicit noun is an appositional substitute (badal) for it.

The presence of a dual or plural sign in the verb before an explicit subject noun is the language of the Tayy and Azd Shanu’ah tribes — and the Quran was revealed in languages other than only the Qurayshi dialect. This was inevitable and fully documented. Moreover, this specific expression also appears in the Qurayshi dialect, including in the words of Abdullah ibn Qays ibn al-Ruqayyat mourning Mus’ab ibn al-Zubayr, and in the poetry of Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Utbi:

Poetic Evidence — Abdullah ibn Qays “He took on the fight against the apostates himself, and Mubad and Hameem had surrendered him.”
Poetic Evidence — Muhammad ibn Abdullah al-Utbi “The seductresses saw the gray hair appearing on my cheeks, so they turned away from me with their radiant cheeks.”

Q.128 — The Address Shifts from the Present to the Absent Mid-Sentence (Yunus 10:22)

Yunus 10:22 “Until, when you were in the ships and they sailed with them with a good wind, and they rejoiced in it. A violent wind came upon it…”
The Objection The address shifted from the second person (“you were in the ships”) to the third person (“they sailed with them”) before the meaning was complete. It would be more correct to maintain the second-person address throughout.
The Answer — Three Reasons for the Shift

First: The intended purpose is exaggeration in condemnation — as if Allah is describing their condition to others to astonish them, calling upon the witnesses to further denounce and condemn. The rhetorical purpose is to arouse the mind and draw attention to the ingratitude of those described.

Second: Allah’s address to His servants is through the tongue of the Messenger ﷺ. In this sense it is like reporting from an absent party — and whoever places the absent in the place of the addressee naturally returns to the absent mode.

Third: The transition in speech from the mode of absence to the mode of address (iltifat) is a form of drawing near and honouring, as in Al-Fatihah: “Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful” — all in the third person — then the shift to “You alone do we worship and You alone do we ask for help.” This indicates that the servant has moved from the position of absence to the position of direct presence before the Lord of the worlds.

Why the Shift Returns to the Third Person at the End Since there is something at the end of the verse that indicates transgression on the earth after being saved, He changed back to the third person so as not to address the believers with what is not appropriate for them — transgression without right. This shift indicates hatred, alienation, and expulsion — appropriate for those who respond to Allah’s blessings with ingratitude. Two purposes are served: exaggeration in description and expression of divine alienation from such people.

Q.129 — A Singular Pronoun Refers Back to Two Antecedents (At-Tawbah 9:62)

At-Tawbah 9:62 “And Allah and His Messenger are more deserving that they should please Him (yurduh).”
The Objection The pronoun should be dual, referring back to both Allah and His Messenger — “they should please them” (yurdahumaa) rather than the singular “they should please Him” (yurduh).
The Answer — Six Explanations

First: No one is dualized with Allah. Allah is not mentioned jointly with anyone in general terms — He must be mentioned alone to magnify Him.

Second: The intended purpose of all acts of obedience and worship is Allah, so He limited mention to Himself.

Third: It is possible that the dual is intended and He was satisfied with mentioning the singular — as in: “We are satisfied with what we have and you are satisfied with what you have. Opinions differ” — meaning we are each satisfied with what we have.

Fourth: The One who knows secrets and the inner self is Allah, and sincerity of heart is known only to Allah — so for this reason He singled Himself out for mention.

Fifth: The Messenger’s satisfaction is derived from and dependent upon Allah’s satisfaction. Disagreement between the two is impossible. Therefore mentioning one was sufficient, as it is said: “Zaid’s kindness and his generosity refreshed me and made me happy” — using a single predicate for both. The scholars said: the singular pronoun is used here to indicate the connection and unity between the two satisfactions.

Sixth — Sibawayh’s View: The verse is actually two sentences, and the predicate of one of them was deleted because the second indicates it — the full assumption being: “And Allah is more deserving of their satisfaction, and so is His Messenger.” This is Sibawayh’s grammatical explanation.

Q.130 — The Subject of the Lightened “In” Is Raised to the Nominative (Taha 20:63)

Taha 20:63 “Indeed, these two are magicians (in hadhan la-sahiran).”
The Objection The subject of the lightened form of “inna” (in) should appear in the accusative case. It should say “indeed these two magicians” (inna hadhayni la-sahirayn) in the accusative, not the nominative (hadhan… sahiran).
The Answer The word “in” here is the lightened (mukhaffafa) form of “inna.” When the lightened “in” is followed by a verb, it is necessarily neglected (has no grammatical force). However, when followed by a noun, it is usually neglected — as in the classical example: “Indeed, Zayd is generous” (in Zaydun la-karim), where the subject appears in the nominative.

When the lightened “in” is neglected in this way, its predicate must be coupled with the open lam (lam al-fariq) to differentiate it from the negative “in,” preventing confusion between the two. The subject of the lightened “in” is always a deleted pronoun called the pronoun of the matter (damir al-sha’n), and the predicate is a sentence. Here the predicate-sentence is “these two are magicians” (hadhan la-sahiran).

Why the Nominative Is Grammatically Correct Here The use of the nominative (hadhan) with the lightened “in” is not an error — it is the regular and expected grammatical form when the lightened “in” is neglected (has no force). The subject remains nominative in position and in form. The objection confuses the full “inna” (which requires the accusative) with the lightened “in” (which, when neglected, leaves its apparent subject in the nominative). These are two distinct grammatical constructions.

This article is part of the OpenIslam Wiki — Quranic Accuracy and Historical Objections series.