What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube |
Arabic was proven to date back more than 8,000 years ago.
Is there a contradiction in Noble Verses 5:69, 22:17 and 2:62 on Al-Saabi'oon (الصابئون) and Al-Saabi'een (الصابئين) Words?
The sections of this article are:
1- Allah Almighty's Divine Claims in Noble Verses
5:69, 22:17 and 2:62.
2- The Islamic Response.
1- Allah Almighty's Divine Claims in Noble Verses 5:69, 22:17 and 2:62:
Let us look at what Allah Almighty Said in the Noble Verses:
|Noble Verse(s) 5:69|
[005:069] Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Arabic (from right to left):5:69 ان الذين امنوا والذين هادوا والصابئون والنصارى من امن بالله واليوم الاخر وعمل صالحا فلا خوف عليهم ولاهم يحزنون
|Noble Verse(s) 22:17|
[022:017] Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- God will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for God is witness of all things.
Arabic (from right to left):22:17 ان الذين امنوا والذين هادوا والصابئين والنصارى والمجوس والذين اشركوا ان الله يفصل بينهم يوم القيامة ان الله على كل شئ شهيد
|Noble Verse(s) 2:62|
[002:062] Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
Arabic (from right to left):2:62 ان الذين امنوا والذين هادوا والنصارى والصابئين من امن بالله واليوم الاخر وعمل صالحا فلهم اجرهم عند ربهم ولاخوف عليهم ولاهم يحزنون
How come two different Arabic words, الصابئون and الصابئين were used to refer to the Sabians when the words of the first parts of the three Noble Verses above are almost virtually the same? Is this a grammatical error in the Glorious Quran?
2- The Islamic Response:
The following answer was given to me by brother Bassam Zawadi; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.
Sheikh Salih Al Munajjid has already addressed this argument...
The word al-Saabi’een (in the accusative) appears in Soorat al-Baqarah and Soorat al-Hajj, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians [wa’l-saabi’een ], whoever believes in Allaah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”
“Verily, those who believe (in Allaah and in His Messenger Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and the Sabians [wa’l-saabi’een], and the Christians, and the Majoos, and those who worship others besides Allaah; truly, Allaah will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Verily, Allaah is over all things a Witness”
The same word appears in the nominative form in Soorat al-Maa’idah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Surely, those who believe (in the Oneness of Allaah, in His Messenger Muhammad and all that was revealed to him from Allaah), and those who are the Jews and the Sabians [wa’l-saabi’oon] and the Christians, — whosoever believed in Allaah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”
In the first two verses, there is nothing difficult about the grammar, because the word al-saabi’een follows the conjunction waw (and) is in agreement with the word alladheena (those who); it is the noun of the particle inna (translated here as “verily”) and as such appears in the accusative form of the sound masculine plural, in accordance with the rules of Arabic grammar.
Where the confusion arises is in the third verse quoted, from Soorat al-Maa'idah, where the word appears in the same position with regard to word order, but appears in the nominative form.
The grammarians and mufassireen explained this in several ways, and they mentioned several well-known similar usages in Arabic. It is sufficient here to quote just three of them, which are among the most well known.
1 – The word order in the verse differs from everyday usage. Based on that, the meaning is that those who believe, and those who are the Jews and the Christians, whosoever believed in Allaah … on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve, and the same applies to the Sabians. So the subject appears in the nominative, as is indicated by the waw of the sound masculine plural. There is a similar example in Arabic verse where the poet says:
Faman yaku amsa bi’l-madeenati rahlahu fa inni wa qayyaarun biha la ghareeb
(Whoever ends up in Madeenah with his saddle, then Qayyaar and I are strangers).
The point here is that the word Qayyaar – which is the name of his horse or camel – appears in the nominative here (qayyaarun) because it is the subject. It does not appear in the accusative even though it is preceded by the particle inna (inni = inna + the yaa (i) which is the accusative suffix representing the first person singular pronoun following the particle inna).
2 – The word al-saabi’oon is the subject and the word al-nasaara (Christians) is in agreement with it. The phrase man aamana Billaah (whoever believed in Allaah) is the predicate of al-saabi’oon . The predicate of inna is omitted here, as is indicated by the predicate of the subject al-saabi’oon . A similar usage in Arabic appears in the line of verse:
Nahnu bima ‘indina wa anta bima ‘indika raadin wa’l-amru mukhtalif
(We with what we have and you with what you have are content, even though it is different).
The point here is that the subject nahnu (we) is not followed by its predicate, because the predicate of anta (you) is sufficient. The predicate of anta – raadin (content) – includes the predicate of the first subject, nahnu (we). What these words mean is: we are content with what we have and you are content with what you have.
3 – The word al-saabi’oon appears in conjunction with the word that takes the place of the noun of inna. If any of these particles – inna and its “sisters” – comes at the beginning of a nominal sentence that is composed of a subject and predicate, the noun of inna was originally nominative because it is the subject, before the word inna was introduced. Hence the word al-saabi’oon is nominative because it is a word that takes the place of the noun of inna.
See Awdah al-Masaalik by Ibn Hishaam, with a commentary by Muhiy al-Deen (1/352-366); and the Tafseer al-Shawkaani wa’l-Aloosi, on this verse.
What you have mentioned, about your certain faith in the words of Allaah, is what is expected of every Muslim. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Do they not then consider the Qur’aan carefully? Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”
One of the things of which we must be certain is that this phrase, with this pronunciation, was revealed like this. This is how it was pronounced by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), this is how the Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") learned it from him and recited it, and wrote it in the Mus-hafs, and they were pure Arabs. This became a new principle by means of which we learned a new usage of conjunctions in Arabic, even though it is not a common usage, but it is very eloquent and evocative… (End quote)
Ibn ‘Aashoor tried to explain the eloquence of this word al-saabi’oon appearing in the nominative. He said words to the effect that: the nominative in this context is unusual, so it makes the reader pause and wonder why this word is put in the nominative, when it would usually appear in the accusative.
See the commentary on the verse from al-Maa'idah in Tafseer Ibn ‘Aashoor. (Source)
There is neither a grammatical error nor a contradiction in the Glorious Quran. It's just that one has to be very well versed in Arabic in order for him/her to understand the meaning of a certain Word based on its:
Once all of this is understood, then the person can understand what Allah Almighty is talking about in the Glorious Quran. Please visit:
The Noble Quran - Contradictions lies, History of Preservation, Worship, and Prophecies and Miracles.
Ask me any question section.
Islam and the Glorious Quran - Questions and Answers.
Arabic was proven to date back more than 8,000 years ago.
Jesus' Original Name:
Prophet Jesus' original name was Eesa, as this is also his Islamic name. The article (Eesa) also gives ample Hebrew references and proofs. Even in Latin, it is Iesu, and in Greek it is Iesus. There is also a great deal of evidence that Jesus spoke and preached in Arabic. Not only that, but Greek wasn't even that popular in Palestine. Islam's claims are very strongly supported. See proofs below.
Did early Christians preach Prophet Muhammad in Rome?
Did the early believers preach Prophet Muhammad in Corinth, Antioch, Rome and all other places? Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, was the Jews' Messiah and final Prophet. In both the Glorious Quran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ahmed was prophesied to come. Ahmed in the Quran is Prophet Muhammad's prophetic name. Also, see below the Dead Sea Scroll image. The New Testament too predicts the coming of three:
Roman massacres:So did the early believers preach the coming of Prophet Ahmed or Muhammad? The answer is quite possible, but Muhammad would've been phase 2 for them and not phase 1. Jesus was the early believers' immediate Prophet, not Muhammad. And all of the details that they had were about Jesus, not Muhammad. It is also important to know that the following seven Roman Emperors have thoroughly burned all (burnt all) of the early believers' writings:
What we have
today from "gospels" and "New Testament" were
100 years to 300 years after Jesus'
departure from this earth. So, the current
writings that we have are not original
writings. Also, to appease the Roman Empire's
3-headed pagan religion and practices, the pagan
3-headed trinity was invented 
Many lies had been fabricated after the original
writings were all lost. The Jews and Christians
of Arabia, however, did have writings that
predicted the coming of Prophet Muhammad. These
were some of the original texts that survived. Why wasn't Prophet Muhammad preached by the early Christians in Jerusalem, Arabia, Africa and Europe? Early cities like Antioch, Corinth, Rome and others were never taught the coming of Prophet Muhammad. Doesn't this prove that Islam is false? But he was preached!
Why wasn't Prophet Muhammad preached by the early Christians in Jerusalem, Arabia, Africa and Europe? Early cities like Antioch, Corinth, Rome and others were never taught the coming of Prophet Muhammad. Doesn't this prove that Islam is false? But he was preached!
From Why Jews settled in Arabia section:
Jesus also preached in Arabic:
See the clear proofs in the following:
Prophet "AHMAD" is found in
Send your comments.
Back to Main Page.
What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube