Produce One Chapter Like It by Hamza Andrea Tzortzis

“There is no consensus on the nature of the Qur’ānic challenge”.

There is a difference of opinion concerning the Qur’ānic challenge. Some scholars maintain that the challenge is about the meaning, rather than the literary features or linguistic devices.

Others argue that the challenge refers to God preventing people from being able to produce anything like the Qur’ān, a doctrine espoused by the Al-Mu‘tazila, the ‘rationalist’ school of Islamic theology. Notwithstanding the difference of opinion amongst the scholars, none of them denied that there was something special about the literary and linguistic nature of the Qur’ānic discourse. It is important to note that the argument expressed in this essay is not dependent on any formal doctrine. The argument does not attempt to prove any doctrine to be true, it aims to linguistically investigate the inimitability of the Qur’ān’s shortest chapter. Since it can be illustrated that the Qur’ān’s shortest chapter is linguistically remarkable, one should stand in the possibility that there is something special about the Qur’ānic discourse. Whether one doctrine is more coherent than the other is not of primary importance, the objective is to—through exhibiting the remarkable linguistic and literary nature of Al-Kawthar—encourage engagement with the Qur’ān, which will facilitate Divine mercy and guidance.

“Pre-Islamic and classical poetry can be analysed in the same way”.

There are a few key reasons why the Qur’ān cannot be compared to pre-Islamic poetry or classical poetry, like that of the highly acclaimed poet Al-Mutanabbi. With regards to being incomparable to pre-Islamic poetry, it is important to note that the Arabs of the 7th century achieved unparalleled linguistic and literary mastery, yet they failed to challenge the Qur’ān, and the leading experts of the time testified to the inimitable features of the Qur’ān. One of the best linguists of the time, Walīd ibn al-Mughīra, exclaimed:

“And what can I say? For I swear by God, there is none amongst you who knows poetry as well as I do, nor can any compete with me in composition or rhetoric—not even in the poetry of jinns! And yet, I swear by God, Muhammad’s speech [meaning the Qur’an] does not bear any similarity to anything I know, and I swear by God, the speech that he says is very sweet, and is adorned with beauty and charm.”71.

Significantly, the Arab polytheists in the 7th century initially accused the Prophetصلى الله عليه وسلمof being a poet. This was an easier thing to do than going to war and fighting the Muslims. The Arab’s who perfected their use of the Arabic language and poetry studied for years under a master.

None of them came out to expose Muhammadصلى الله عليه وسلمas being one of their students. The very fact that Muhammadصلى الله عليه وسلمwas successful in his message demonstrates that he succeeded in showing the poets and linguists of the time, that the Qur’ān is indeed miraculously inimitable. If the Qur’ān was not inimitable, any poet or linguist could have produced something better or similar to the Qur’ānic discourse. Expert in Islamic studies Navid Kermani makes this point clear:

“Obviously, the Prophet succeeded in this conflict with the poets, otherwise Islam would not have spread like wildfire.”72.

In fact, the pre-Islamic poet Labīd ibn Rabī’ah, one of the famous poets of the Seven Odes, embraced Islam due to the inimitability of the Qur’ān. Once he embraced Islam, he stopped composing poetry. People were surprised, for “he was their most distinguished poet”.73 They asked him why he stopped composing poetry; he replied, “What! Even after the revelation of the Qur’an?”74.

Concerning, the Qur’ān being compared to the classical poetic masters such as Abu at-Tayyib Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Mutanabbi al-Kindi, it is important to note that Al-Mutanabbi was considered an unmatched poetic genius by many Arabs. Some have argued that although other poets have used the same panegyric genre and poetic metre as the great poet, they have not been able to match his level of eloquence and stylistic variance. If this is true, then it may undermine the Qur’ān’s inimitability. However, this acclamation of Al-Mutanabbi is unfounded.

The first thing to note is that this contention is vague. Al-Mutanabi did not write a book of over seventy-thousands words, like the Qur’ān. His collection of poems contains poems that are unrelated to each other and not placed into chapters. Also, there have been imitations of Al-Mutanabbi’s work by the Jewish poets Moses ibn Ezra and Solomon ibn Gabriol.

Interestingly, the Andalusian poet Ibn Hani’ al-Andalusi was known as the Al-Mutanabbi of the West.75.

One significant point is that medieval Arabic poetry did not create new literary genres. This was due to the fact that it depended on previous poetic work. The academic Denis E. McAuley writes that medieval poetry largely hinged “more on literary precedent than on direct experience.”76 In classical Arabic poetry, it was not unusual for a poet to attempt to match a predecessor’s poem by writing a new one in the same poetic metre, rhyme and theme. This was considered normal practice.77 It is not surprising that Professor of Religion Emil Homerin explored the literary expression of Ibn al-Farid, and described his work as “very original improvisations on al-Mutanabbi”.78.

To highlight further the fact that Al-Mutanabbi can be emulated, he disclosed that he borrowed work from another poet, Abu Nuwas.79 Many medieval Arab literary critics such as Al-Sahib ibn ‘Abbad and Abu Ali Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hatimi wrote criticisms of Al-Mutanabbi.

Ibn ‘Abbad wrote al-kashf ‘an masawi’ shi’r al-Mutanabbi and Al-Hatimi wrote a biographical account of his encounter with Al-Mutanabbi in his al-Risala al-Mudiha fi dhikr sariqat Abi al-Tayyib al-Mutanabbi.80 The conclusions of these literary criticisms imply that although his work is the product of genius, they can be emulated. Al-Hatimi presents a stronger polemic against Al-Mutanabbi and argues the case that his poetry does not have a unique style and contains errors. Professor Seeger A. Bonebakker, who studied Al-Hatimi’s literary criticism of Al-Mutanabbi, concludes that his “judgement is often well-founded and one almost ends up feeling that Mutanabbi was, after all, a mediocre poet who was not only lacking in originality, but also had insufficient competence in grammar, lexicography, and rhetoric, and sometimes gave evidence of incredibly bad taste.”81.

“If Shakespeare is an unparalleled literary genius, then the Qur’ān’s inimitability is a human endeavour”.

Willam Shakespeare is arguably the greatest English playwright that ever lived. A common objection to the argument in this essay is that Shakespeare seems to be unmatched in the history of the English language, therefore he is inimitable. Considering his unparalleled literary and linguistic skills, the Qur’ān’s inimitability can be explained in reference to a literary genius.

There are a few reasons why this objection is misplaced.

Firstly, the inimitability of Al-Kawthar is very different from Shakespeare’s masterpieces.

Al-Kawthar’s frequency and nature of literary and linguistic features are incomparable to any three lines that Shakespeare has written. Considering how Al-Kawthar was revealed, the background context, the intertextuality, its structure, its optimal interrelation between style and meaning, this point is not controversial.

Secondly, Shakespeare did not display sustained matchless eloquence, or inimitable expressions that were expressed without any amendments or revisions. Mark Forsyth argues that Shakespeare’s abilities developed over time:

“Shakespeare was not a genius. He was, without the distant shadow of a doubt the most wonderful writer who ever breathed. But not a genius. No angels handed him his lines, no fairies proofread for him. Instead, he learnt techniques, he learnt tricks, and he learnt them well…. Shakespeare got better and better and better, which was easy because he started badly, like most people starting a new job.”82.

In fact, Shakespeare’s initial works were, according to Forsyth, “… not very good.”83

Thirdly, Shakespeare’s literary forms are not unique. His sonnets are written predominantly in a frequently used metre called the iambic pentameter, a rhyme scheme in which each sonnet line consists of ten syllables. The syllables are divided into five pairs called iambs or iambic feet.84

Finally, since the blueprint of Shakespeare’s work is available, it is not surprising that the English dramatist Christopher Marlowe has a similar style, and that Shakespeare has been compared to Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher and other playwrights of his time.85