Islam Imploding

Why Does the Qur’an Contain Grammatical Errors and Foreign Words If It’s Divine?

Subtitle:

The Alleged Linguistic Miracle Collapses Under Scrutiny

🧩 Introduction: The Claim of Inimitability

Muslim theologians assert that the Qur’an is a linguistic miracle—a flawless composition beyond human ability. This is the basis of the doctrine of i‘jaz al-Qur’an (inimitability of the Qur’an). The Qur’an itself boasts:

Q 12:2 – “Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an so that you may understand.”

Q 41:44 – “Had We sent this as a Qur’an in a foreign tongue, they would have said: ‘Why are its verses not explained in detail? A foreign tongue and an Arab [messenger]?’ Say: It is for those who believe, a guidance and healing…”

And yet, the Qur’an contains:

Grammatical errors
Foreign (non-Arabic) vocabulary
Inconsistent syntax and incoherent shifts in grammar and person

This presents a devastating internal contradiction:

How can the Qur’an be “clear Arabic,” divinely authored, and inimitable—while failing the very standards of the Arabic language?

⚠️ The Problem of Grammatical Irregularities

Here are just a few of the many grammatical anomalies that early grammarians, Islamic scholars, and modern linguists have identified in the Qur’an:

📘 Example 1: Subject-Verb Agreement Failure

Q 63:10 – “…fa-aṣṣaddaqa wa-akun mina aṣ-ṣāliḥīn”
Translation: “…so I may give charity and be among the righteous.”

Problem:
“Akun” (I be) should be "fa-akūna" with the subjunctive particle “fa” requiring a subjunctive mood. Instead, “akun” is in the indicative mood.

Why it matters:
This violates basic Arabic grammar (naḥw). A student of Arabic would be marked wrong for this in class.

📗 Example 2: Plural + Dual Mismatch

Q 22:19 – “…khisāmani ikhtasamū fī rabbihim…”
Translation: “These are two opponents who have disputed about their Lord…”

Problem:
“Khisāmani” is dual (two), but the verb “ikhtasamū” is plural (three or more). In classical Arabic, the verb must agree in number with the subject.

Why it matters:
A divine author fluent in classical Arabic should not make such mistakes—unless the “miracle” includes broken grammar.

📕 Example 3: Gender Confusion

Q 7:56 – “…inna raḥmata Allāhi qarībun mina al-muḥsinīn”

Problem:
“Raḥma” (mercy) is a feminine noun. The adjective should agree and be feminine: qarība. But it is given as masculine: qarībun.

🗣 The Problem of Foreign Words

The Qur’an insists it is in “clear Arabic.” Yet it contains scores of foreign words, borrowed from Syriac, Hebrew, Persian, Greek, and Coptic.

Examples include:

Word in Qur’an	Origin	Meaning
Injil	Greek euangelion	Gospel
Firdaus	Persian pardis	Paradise
Sijjil	Persian sang-o-gil (stone and clay)	Stone/clay scroll
Iblis	Greek diabolos	Devil
Malakūt	Aramaic	Kingdom/power

Even the word Qur’an itself is debated: is it from Syriac (qeryānā, “recitation”)? Arabic (qara’a, to read)? The origin is murky.

🧠 Why This Matters

Q 16:103 – “We know that they say, ‘It is only a human being who teaches him.’ The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, while this is clear Arabic.”

This verse denies the influence of foreign tongues. Yet the Qur’an is full of loanwords.

How can a book claimed to be "pure Arabic" be saturated with non-Arabic vocabulary?

🔥 The Inescapable Contradiction

The Qur’an makes two core claims:

It is in perfect, clear, pure Arabic (Q 16:103, Q 12:2).
It is inimitable—humans cannot produce anything like it (Q 2:23, Q 10:38).

But both claims fall apart when:

It violates Arabic grammar.
It borrows non-Arabic words.
It includes linguistic inconsistencies.

This isn’t a miracle. It’s a linguistic Frankenstein—assembled from multiple languages and marred by syntactical confusion.

📚 What Early Muslim Scholars Admitted

Islamic grammarians and exegetes themselves admitted these problems—but redefined the rules to make the Qur’an fit.

Examples:

Sibawayh (8th century), the father of Arabic grammar, had to invent exceptions to explain Qur’anic irregularities.
Al-Zamakhshari admitted that some verses “appear anomalous” but argued they were part of the Qur’an’s divine eloquence.

This amounts to special pleading:

“It breaks the rules—but because it’s the Qur’an, that’s okay.”

🧨 Five Devastating Implications

1. Human Fingerprints All Over

Grammatical errors and foreign words suggest the Qur’an was composed by someone with limited Arabic mastery and contact with other languages—likely Muhammad himself, or scribes under his influence.

2. The “Clear Arabic” Claim Is False

You cannot have a book that claims to be in “clear Arabic” while being riddled with grammar violations and foreign expressions.

3. The “Miracle” Argument Implodes

If it’s truly miraculous and inimitable, why is it less grammatical than basic Arabic poetry composed centuries before?

4. Divine Eloquence Shouldn’t Need a Glossary

The average Arab of the 7th century would not understand Persian, Greek, or Syriac words. Why would a divine message be incomprehensible without outside knowledge?

5. The Qur’an Fails Its Own Test

The Qur’an dares critics to find contradictions or inconsistencies (Q 4:82). Yet grammar and lexical contradictions are right in the text.

🧠 Five Unanswerable Questions for Muslims

Why does a perfect book in “clear Arabic” contain non-Arabic vocabulary?
Why does it violate the rules of Arabic grammar?
How can it be inimitable if it doesn’t meet classical Arabic standards?
Why did early Muslim grammarians have to bend the rules to defend it?
Would God deliver His final revelation in a way that defies the clarity He Himself demands?

📌 Final Thoughts: The Language of Man, Not God

The Qur’an is not a linguistic miracle.
It is a historical document—marked by:

Imperfect Arabic
Borrowed terminology
Changing syntax and structure

What you’re seeing is not divine precision.
You’re seeing a man-made composition shaped by regional languages, oral storytelling, and evolving grammar—common to the 7th-century Hijaz.

If God speaks, He speaks clearly, consistently, and correctly.
The Qur’an fails on all three counts.