Going back to Q 9:31 and Matteo's alternative reading thereof, there is an interesting observation made by Shawkat Toorawa that might be of importance to the matter. According to Toorawa, the majority reading, wa-l-masīḥa (accusative), is used here in a unusual sense, compared to wa-l-masīḥi (genitive), which is the minority reading (apparently, some read it in genitive). This seems to back up Matteo's proposal that the verse is more tangible if al-masīḥ is not read in the accusative, but in the genitive, regardless if his interpretation of the verse as supporting the divinity of Jesus is true or not. What is your take on this, guys?
As Kropp has demonstrated, there is no declension effective in the Quran :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeclensionThe declension in this text is ineffective as the words are placed like in all analytic languages which have no declension like English, Spanish, French, etc. The declension in Quranic Arabic is artificial and were the work of the grammarians. Kropp is a scientific and he is perfectly right about that. A language is determined by the place words have in a phrase. I practised Latin and Greek : the word can be placed anywhere, the phrase is understandable because of declension. It is not possible in English, Spanish, French because they have no declension. The
rasm of Quranic Arabic is like English, Spanish, French regarding the place of the words and it needs none declension. The fact that grammarians added declension whereas there is no need to understand the phrase is an artificial feature added by them (because there was use of declension in "poetry", etc). This has complicated the understanding of the text which was more simple to understand.
In conclusion, genitive, accusative, etc in the Quranic text are nonsense and cannot be the ground to understand it. Matteo (et al.) makes a mistake in considering that declension gives an indication about the meaning of the text.