"Babu yarjejeniya a kan yanayin kalubalen Alkur'ani."

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

Akwai saɓanin ra'ayi game da ƙalubalen Alƙur'ani. Wasu malamai suna ganin cewa ƙalubalen yana kan ma'anarsa, ba kan sifofin adabi ko dabarun harshe ba.

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.

Wasu sun ce ƙalubalen yana nufin Allah ya hana mutane iya samar da wani abu kamar Alƙur'ani, wata akida da makarantar Al-Mu‘tazila, makarantar 'masu hankali' ta ilimin tauhidi a Musulunci, ke goyon baya. Duk da bambancin ra'ayi tsakanin malamai, babu ɗayansu da ya musanta cewa akwai wani abu na musamman game da yanayin adabi da harshe na maganar Alƙur'ani. Yana da muhimmanci a lura cewa muhawarar da ke cikin wannan makala ba ta dogara da wata akida ta musamman ba. Muhawarar ba ta yunƙurin tabbatar da cewa wata akida gaskiya ce ba; manufarta ita ce yin nazarin harshe kan rashin iya kwaikwayon surar Alƙur'ani mafi gajarta. Tun da za a iya nuna cewa surar Alƙur'ani mafi gajarta tana da ban mamaki ta fuskar harshe, ya kamata mutum ya yarda da yiwuwar cewa akwai wani abu na musamman a maganar Alƙur'ani. Ko wata akida ta fi wata daidaito ba shi ne babban abin la'akari ba; manufar ita ce, ta hanyar nuna yanayin harshe da adabi mai ban sha'awa na Al-Kawthar, a ƙarfafa mutane su yi nazarin Alƙur'ani, wanda hakan zai jawo rahamar Allah da shiriya.

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.

"Za a iya nazarin waƙoƙin zamanin jahiliyya da na zamani na gargajiya ta hanya guda."

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

Akwai dalilai da dama da suke nuna cewa ba za a iya kwatanta Alkur'ani da waƙoƙin zamanin jahiliyya ko waƙoƙin gargajiya ba, kamar na shahararren mawaƙi Al-Mutanabbi. Dangane da rashin kamantuwarsa da waƙoƙin zamanin jahiliyya, yana da muhimmanci a lura cewa Larabawan karni na 7 sun kai ga ƙwarewa ta harshe da adabi wadda ba a taba kaiwa ba, duk da haka sun kasa kalubalantar Alkur'ani, kuma manyan masana na zamanin sun shaida siffofin Alkur'ani marasa kwatanci. Ɗaya daga cikin mafi kyawun masana harshe a zamanin, Walīd ibn al-Mughīra, ya ce:

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:

"Me kuma zan ce me? Gama ina rantsuwa da Allah, babu wanda yake cikinku da ya san waka kamar yadda na sani, kuma babu wanda zai iya yin gogayya da ni a cikin hada waka ko fasaha ta magana, ko ma a cikin wakar aljannu! Duk da haka, ina rantsuwa da Allah, maganar Muhammad ﷺ [wato Alkur'ani] ba ta yin kama da komai da na sani, kuma ina rantsuwa da Allah, maganar da yake fadi tana da dadi sosai, kuma an yi mata ado da kyau da kwarjini."71.

“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.

Abin lura shi ne cewa, a karni na bakwai, mushrikan Larabawa da farko sun zargi Annabi Muhammadﷺ da zama mawaƙi. Wannan ya fi sauƙi a gare su fiye da zuwa yaƙi da fada da Musulmi. Larabawan da suka kware sosai wajen amfani da harshen Larabci da waƙe-waƙe sun shafe shekaru suna karatu a ƙarƙashin malami.

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.

Babu ɗaya daga cikinsu da ya fito ya fallasa Muhammadﷺ a matsayin ɗaya daga cikin almajiransu. Kasancewar Muhammadﷺ ya yi nasara a saƙonsa kaɗai ya nuna cewa ya nuna wa mawaƙa da masana harshe na lokacin cewa Alƙur’ani haƙiƙa mu’ujiza ce wadda ba a iya kwaikwayonta. Idan Alƙur’ani ba mu’ujiza ba ce wadda ba a iya kwaikwayonta ba, kowane mawaƙi ko masanin harshe zai iya samar da wani abu mafi kyau ko kama da tsarin maganar Alƙur’ani. Masanin nazarin ilimin Musulunci Navid Kermani ya bayyana wannan magana a fili:

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:

A bayyane yake, Annabi ﷺ ya yi nasara a wannan gwabzawa da mawaƙan, in ba haka ba, da Musulunci bai yaɗu kamar wutar daji ba.72.

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

A hakika, mawaƙin zamanin jahiliyya Labīd ibn Rabī’ah, ɗaya daga cikin shahararrun mawaƙan Mu’allaqāt Bakwai, ya karɓi Musulunci saboda rashin iyawar kowa ya kwaikwayi Alƙur’ani. Da zarar ya karɓi Musulunci, ya daina yin waƙa. Mutane sun yi mamaki, domin shi ne “mafi shahara a cikin mawakansu”.73 Suka tambaye shi dalilin da ya sa ya daina yin waƙa; ya amsa da cewa, “Yaya! Ko bayan saukar Alƙur’ani?”74

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.

Dangane da kwatanta Alkur'ani da manyan mawakan larabci na gargajiya irin su Abu at-Tayyib Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Mutanabbi al-Kindi, yana da muhimmanci a lura cewa Al-Mutanabbi an dauke shi a matsayin mawaki mai basira wanda babu wanda ya kai shi a idanun larabawa da yawa. Wasu sun yi jayayya cewa ko da yake wasu mawaka sun yi amfani da irin salon yabo da bahr (mizanin waka) iri daya da babban mawakin, ba su iya kai matakinsa na fasaha da bambancin salo ba. Idan wannan gaskiya ne, to hakan na iya raunana matsayin Alkur'ani na rashin kwatancewa. Sai dai wannan yabon da ake yi wa Al-Mutanabbi ba shi da tushe.

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.

Abu na farko da za a lura da shi shi ne cewa wannan da'awar ba ta bayyana sosai ba. Al-Mutanabbi bai rubuta littafi mai fiye da kalmomi dubu saba'in ba, kamar Alkur'ani. Tarin wakokinsa ya ƙunshi wakoki waɗanda ba su da alaƙa da juna, kuma ba a raba su zuwa babi-babi ba. Haka kuma, akwai masu koyi da aikin Al-Mutanabbi a tsakanin mawakan Yahudawa, Musa ibn Ezra da Sulaiman ibn Gabirol.

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.

Abin sha'awa, mawaƙin Andalus Ibn Hani' al-Andalusi an san shi da Al-Mutanabbi na Yamma.75.

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

Wani muhimmin batu shi ne cewa waƙoƙin Larabci na zamanin tsakiya ba su ƙirƙiri sababbin nau'o'in adabi ba. Wannan saboda sun dogara ne kan aikin waƙoƙi da suka gabata. Masanin ilimi Denis E. McAuley ya rubuta cewa waƙoƙin zamanin tsakiya sun fi dogara "kan abin da aka riga aka yi a adabi fiye da kwarewar kai tsaye."76 A cikin waƙoƙin Larabci na gargajiya, ba abu ne sabo ba ga mawaƙi ya yi ƙoƙarin daidaita waƙar wanda ya gabace shi ta hanyar rubuta sabuwa a cikin irin wannan mizanin waƙa, rhyme da jigo. An dauki wannan a matsayin al'ada ta yau da kullum.77 Don haka ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa Farfesa a fannin Addini Emil Homerin ya binciko yadda Ibn al-Farid ya bayyana adabinsa, kuma ya kwatanta aikinsa da cewa "sababbin kirkire-kirkire masu zurfi bisa al-Mutanabbi."78

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.

Domin nuna ƙarara cewa ana iya koyi da Al-Mutanabbi, ya bayyana cewa ya aro aiki daga wani mawaƙi, Abu Nuwas.79 Malaman adabin Larabci da yawa na zamanin tsakiya, kamar Al-Sahib ibn ‘Abbad da Abu Ali Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hatimi, sun rubuta suka game da Al-Mutanabbi.

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 ya rubuta al-Kashf ‘an masawi’ shi’r al-Mutanabbi, shi kuma Al-Hatimi ya rubuta tarihin rayuwarsa game da haduwarsa da Al-Mutanabbi a cikin littafinsa al-Risala al-Mudiha fi dhikr sariqat Abi al-Tayyib al-Mutanabbi.80 Sakamakon wadannan sukar adabi yana nuna cewa duk da cewa aikinsa kirkirarren basira ne, za a iya yin koyi da shi. Al-Hatimi ya fi karfi wajen sukar Al-Mutanabbi, yana kuma bayar da hujjar cewa waqoqinsa ba su da salo na musamman kuma suna dauke da kurakurai. Farfesa Seeger A. Bonebakker, wanda ya yi nazari kan sukar adabin Al-Hatimi game da Al-Mutanabbi, ya kammala da cewa “hukuncinsa sau da yawa yana da tushe mai karfi, kuma kusan mutum yana jin cewa Mutanabbi, a karshe, mawaqi ne matsakaici wanda ba wai kawai babu asali a cikin aikinsa ba, har ma yana da rashin isasshen kwarewa a nahawu, ilimin ma’anar kalmomi, da balaga, kuma wani lokaci yana nuna munanan dandano kwarai da gaske.”81

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.

"Idan Shakespeare ƙwararren marubuci ne wanda babu kamarsa, to, rashin iyawar Alƙur'ani ta zama abin da ɗan Adam zai iya yi."

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

Willam Shakespeare shi ne mai yiwuwa ya zama marubucin wasan kwaikwayo mafi girma na harshen Ingilishi da aka taɓa samu. Wata shakka da aka saba gabatarwa ga hujjar da ke cikin wannan makala ita ce, Shakespeare da alama ba shi da abokin hamayya a tarihin harshen Ingilishi, don haka ba za a iya kwaikwayon sa ba. La’akari da fitattun basirarsa ta adabi da harshe, za a iya bayyana rashin iya kwaikwayon Alkur’ani ta hanyar komawa ga wani babban mawallafin adabi.

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.

Akwai dalilai da yawa da ya sa wannan ƙin yarda bai dace ba.

There are a few reasons why this objection is misplaced.

Da farko, rashin iyawar a kwaikwayi Al-Kawthar ya bambanta sosai da manyan ayyukan Shakespeare.

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

Al-Kawthar ta fi kowace layi uku da Shakespeare ya rubuta yawan abubuwan adabi da na harshe da kuma irin su, ba za a kwatanta su ba. Idan aka duba yadda aka saukar da ita, yanayin tarihinta, alakarta da sauran nassoshi, tsarinta, da yadda salonta da ma'anarta suka dace da juna sosai, wannan magana ba ta da cece-kuce.

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.

Na biyu, Shakespeare bai nuna fasaha mai dorewa wadda babu wanda zai iya kwaikwayo ba, ko kalmomi masu ban mamaki da aka faɗa ba tare da wani gyara ko sake dubawa ba. Mark Forsyth ya bayar da hujjar cewa ƙwarewar Shakespeare ta bunƙasa a hankali a kan lokaci.

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 ba babban basira ba ne. Shi ne, ba tare da wani inuwa mai nisa ba na shakku, marubuci mafi ban mamaki da ya taɓa rayuwa. Amma ba babban basira ba. Babu mala'iku da suka ba shi layukansa, babu aljanu da suka gyara masa rubutu. Maimakon haka, ya koyi dabaru, ya koyi dabaru na sana'a, kuma ya koye su sosai…. Shakespeare ya ci gaba da inganta, sannu a hankali, ya ƙara ingantawa da ƙara ingantawa, wanda hakan ya zama mai sauƙi domin ya fara ba da kyau ba, kamar yadda yawancin mutane ke farawa a sabon aiki.”82."

“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.

A gaskiya, ayyukan farko na Shakespeare ba su da kyau sosai, a cewar Forsyth.83

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

Na uku, siffofin adabi na Shakespeare ba su keɓanta ba. Sonnet ɗinsa galibi an rubuta su a cikin wani salon waƙa da ake amfani da shi sosai da ake kira iambic pentameter, tsarin ƙafiya wanda kowace layi ta sonnet ta ƙunshi harafi goma (sillables). Waɗannan sillables ɗin an raba su zuwa rukuni biyar na biyu-biyu da ake kira iambs ko ƙafafun iambic.84

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

A ƙarshe, tun da tsarin aikin Shakespeare yana nan a bayyane, ba abin mamaki ba ne cewa marubucin wasan kwaikwayo na Ingilishi Christopher Marlowe yana da salo mai kama da nasa, kuma cewa an kwatanta Shakespeare da Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher da sauran marubutan wasan kwaikwayo na zamaninsa.85

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