Acts17apologetics fluent in classical Arabic; Quran 26:16 is a grammatical blunder?

In answer to the video "A Grammatical Error in the Quran (Surah 26, Verse 16)"

There are sometimes people who have no grasp of the Quranic language and much less the grammar of later classical Arabic which itself relies on the Quran, but these people nevertheless dare speaking of grammatical errors in the Quran. 

Firstly, there is no contemporaneous written text to the Quran that we know of from which the Quran could possibly deviate. The Quran in fact is the first ever Arabic book, the first writing that marked the transition of the Arabs from an oral to written culture. Therefore, from the onset, to assert grammatical errors in the Quran is untenable. The Quran simply spoke in the dialect of the Quraish tribe with all their peculiarities and standards of language

"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly" "Indeed, we have revealed this as an Arabic Quran so that you may understand".

The only real standard of comparison would be another writing, form of literature, grammar rules from the Quraish tribe contemporaneous with the Quran. Again, of this, we have none, except for the orally transmitted pre islamic poetry. It was put to writing at approximately the same time as the earliest grammarians of Kufa and Basra, non-natives of the Hijaz and the Arabic of the Quraysh, were debating the rules of the language. They sometimes quoted this poetry in support of their position, meaning the written form might purposefully or unintentionally reflect the views of a certain grammar school. In short, we simply have nothing directly from the Quraishi tribe to compare it against to source mistakes in the Quranic language.

Therefore, the best and primary source to understand the Quran's usage of its language is the Quran itself. This is the approach any great Muffasir has taken to understand the Quran. Other sources of analysis including studies through detailed lexicons remain a secondary source of analysis.
It would be equally erroneous to claim that the Quran contained linguistic flaws when the ancient text of a particular dialect of people is compared against modern standard Arabic or any regional Arabic dialects today. The Quran simply has no comparison to be compared against.

Many languages today provide exceptions to their standard grammatical usages. Today's classical grammar 'rules' can be at variance with the Quran on which it has heavily relied on as a source, but to suggest the Quran is at variance with the grammar known to us today is illogical and unwarranted.

With that being said we may proceed to the supposed error of 26:16, which actually is a highly eloquent liguistic device, meant at creating a hybrid meaning, as is done elsewhere. This device is used in 26:16 adressing Musa, where God tells him to introduce himself and his brother with the following

"Then go to Pharao and say to him: we are rasul of the Sustainer of the worlds".

The singular rasul/messenger is used while its pronoun is in the dual form we/inna. Firstly, exceptions to general grammar rules exist in every language. One can only try arguing for an inconsistency if the exception never repeats in a similar grammatical context. It isnt the case here. All throughout the Quran, there are similar appeals to exceptional grammatical rules in order to eloquently convey an idea, including in a case almost identical to 26:16. In 38:21-3 the singular khasmi/litigant is used for 2 litigants. One of the reasons is that, in this deeply intricate story, the litigants were both one in principle and objective, even physically synchronized. Jesus and Mary are qualified as a singular sign from God 23:50,21:91. The prophet Ibrahim is described to be by himself an ummat/nation 16:120 because of embodying the qualities that could make an entire nation to succeed, being the leader/imam of mankind 2:124. In fact in the same sura at verse 26:77 the Quran uses the singular "enemy" with the pronoun "they". Just as in 26:16, the purpose is to lump up a group to indicate unity of principle and essence. That pattern is found throughout the sura with the description of the unified mission of the messengers across time and space. An interesting observation is the Quran's use of baraa'un in 43:26 to describe Ibrahim's dissociation from his nation's polytheism. Baraa'un is the intensive form of baraa', and it is used for single, dual or plural subjects. Because Ibrahim is elsewhere described as an ummah by himself, the Quran here applies the flexible form of the word instead of bareeun as is used in many places for singular subjects like the prophet, the believers or Allah 6:78,9:3etc. This is another evidence of the Quran's consistency in language.

The reader familiar with the intricacies of Arabic, as well as attentive to context and a holistic approach of the Quran will not be confounded by these linguistic devices. We arent talking here of added meanings to words like "person" so as to try and make sense of the trinitarian mystery that the father, the son, the spirit are one being but 3 different persons.

In 22:19 ikhtasamu/they dispute, is in the 3rd person plural instead of the dual form like its subject. This is because, starting from verse 8, God exposes the different parties composing the Non-Muslim side. The combination of the dual and plural in one sentence demarcates between Muslims and Non-Muslims as well as implies that there are subgroups among the non-Muslims.

The same device is used in 49:9, but this time in regards the believers. Another similar switch in pronouns occurs in 29:10 where a plural verb is related to a singular pronoun. It speaks of hypocrites and among their known traits was to be counted among the sincere believers who always uttered their adhesion to the cause with a single voice, as is sometimes quoted in the Quran, hence the singular pronoun.

To appreciate the meaningfulness of that choice of word from the point of view of Quranic eloquence, it is necessary to put the verse 26:16 in its context. 

Moses, who had fled Egypt because he was wanted for manslaughter, is anxious at the prospect of delivering the divine message to the ruthless Pharao. Thinking he had no credibility left in the eyes of the Egyptians because of the accusation of murder, he had lost all self-confidence in his ability to properly deliver the message and convince his audience 26:10-13. At that first meeting with God at the sacred valley of Tuwa to where he had been attracted by a burning bush, Moses prays to God to facilitate that task by increasing his eloquence and providing him with Harun as a helper and associate in the matter 19:52-3,20:9-36,28:33-5. God accepts, commanding him that when they both come face to face with Pharao, to introduce themselves as a single messenger of God. This is the ultimate reassurance Musa needed prior to his confrontation with Pharao, to share the burden of prophecy with Harun to the point that he and his brother are one, the epitome of association as per his prayer.  

At that first encounter with the Egyptian royals, Moses requests that Pharao sends the Israelites with them, in an attempt to end their exploitation as slaves. That initial contact had the form of a mild mannered dialogue, with Pharao reminding Moses of the time spent in the same household, to make Moses feel indebted. Moses replied that he owed Pharao nothing considering his hypocritical behavior; accepting on one hand an Israelite in his household while enslaving other Israelites. Furthermore, that Moses was raised inside Pharao's household, testified more to the mercy and omniscience of God who allowed a chain of causality with far-reaching consequences to occur, than Pharao's supposed goodness. The true question Pharao should be asking himself is why Moses wasnt brought up in his real home with his father and mother caring for him? It was because of Pharao's great oppression, forcing Moses’ mother to put her son in a wooden box upon the river until it reached, with God's will near Pharao's palace.

Instead of addressing the issue of the Israelite slaves, the ruler, in a typical attitude of an arrogant person utterly defeated in an argument, resorts to character assassination, trying to discredit Moses who was claiming to be sent by the divine, then proceeds by disrespectfully questioning Moses' beliefs, finally threatening him with imprisonment 26:18-29. Now Moses tries reasoning with Pharao one last time, telling him he is a messenger, delivering the truth 7:104-5. But seeing that Pharao would not listen, and that his life and that of his brother were now at risk, pulled out his final card and said that he has brought undeniable proof for his prophethood claims, so Pharao should not delay further the sending of the Israelites with him. It is interesting to note how Moses is still trying to delay the performance of those miracles, because miracles if denied, precipitate the destruction of a people. But upon Pharao's insistence Moses performed the miracles with which he was sent 26:32-3. He would display the same compassionate attitude when challenged to perform the miracles a second time 20:61-2. These miracles displayed by Moses, the rod into serpent followed by the shining hand, were appropriate metaphors of the prophet's message that preceded; a message of awe and hope in the Lord of all things. 

Seeing these impressive miracles threw a cold on the whole audience, with Pharao and his notables not wanting to remain defeated in their confrontation with Moses. They decided to give him and his brother a time of respite while emissaries were sent to gather the kingdom's best magicians who would be able to defeat Moses publicly 26:34-37,7:111-114,10:75-9. They did not want to slay them immediately following their spectacular display and silencing of the Egyptian elite, or else they would turn them into heroic martyrs. Their killing would be more appropriate after the revenge of Pharao and his notables, when they defeat Moses' miracles publicly at a second encounter. 

For this second encounter 20:42-48 God directly orders Moses to go with his brother Aaron to Pharao. Moses doesnt express, neither prior nor after the command, the same anxiety as when he was told to go to Pharao the first time, and neither is there a request to be assisted by his brother. This is because it has already happened before and Aaron is now a prophet, sharing the burden of prophethood with Moses. 

This time the only fear expressed is one that both of them felt, and both communicated it to God. They feared they might be killed if they go to Pharao. God then speaks to them both, comforting them, telling them to introduce themselves to him with

"Surely we are TWO messengers/rasulaa of your Lord.."

this time, since there was no question of appeasing Moses' fears personally and as much as was the case before, the dual rasulaa is used. This is how consistent and surgicaly precise the Quran is in its choice of words, and these youtubers thinking they found the holy grail with their grammatical error actually exposed another of its countless eloquent devices.