“关于《古兰经》挑战（i'jāz）的性质，学界并无共识。”

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

关于《古兰经》的挑战，学者们存在不同的看法。有些学者主张，这种挑战针对的是其含义，而不是其文辞特征或修辞手法。

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.

其他人则认为,这一挑战指的是真主使人无法写出与《古兰经》相似的任何内容,这一教义为伊斯兰神学中的"理性主义"学派穆尔太齐赖派所主张。尽管学者们意见不一,但没有一位否认《古兰经》的话语在文学和语言上具有某种特殊之处。需要指出的是,本文的论证并不依赖于任何正式的教义。本文并不试图证明任何教义为真,而是旨在从语言学角度考察《古兰经》最短章的无法模仿之处。既然可以说明《古兰经》最短的章节在语言上十分卓越,人们就应当承认《古兰经》话语中可能存在某种特殊之处。至于哪一种教义更为融贯,并非首要问题。本文的目标是通过展示《考赛尔》章在语言和文学上的卓越特质,鼓励人们接触《古兰经》,从而促成真主的慈悯与引导。

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.

“前伊斯兰时期和古典诗歌同样可以用这种方式进行分析。”

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

有几个关键原因说明，《古兰经》不能与蒙昧时代的诗歌或古典诗歌相提并论，比如备受推崇的诗人穆泰奈比的作品。就其无法与蒙昧时代诗歌相比而言，需要注意的是，七世纪的阿拉伯人在语言和文学上达到了无与伦比的造诣，然而他们未能应战《古兰经》，而当时的权威专家也见证了《古兰经》无可模仿的特质。当时最杰出的语言学家之一，瓦利德·本·穆吉赫拉曾感叹道：

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:

“我还能说什么呢？我指着真主发誓，你们中没有人比我更懂诗歌，也没有人能在作诗或修辞上与我相比，甚至jinn（精灵）的诗歌也不能与我相比！然而，我指着真主发誓，穆罕默德ﷺ的言辞（指《古兰经》）与我所知的任何东西都毫无相似之处。我指着真主发誓，他所说的话非常甜美，并且充满了美感与魅力。”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.

值得注意的是，公元七世纪的阿拉伯多神教徒最初指控先知穆罕默德ﷺ是诗人。这比发动战争、与穆斯林交战要容易得多。阿拉伯人在语言和诗歌方面的造诣，是跟随名师学习多年才达到的。

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.

他们中没有一人站出来揭露穆罕默德ﷺ曾是他们的学生。穆罕默德ﷺ能够成功传达他的使命，这一事实本身就表明，他向当时的诗人和语言学家证明了《古兰经》确实具有无法模仿的神迹性。如果《古兰经》不是无法模仿的，任何诗人或语言学家都能够创作出胜过或类似于《古兰经》文辞的作品。伊斯兰研究专家纳维德·克尔马尼（Navid Kermani）清楚地阐明了这一点：

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:

显然，先知ﷺ在与诗人的这场论战中取得了胜利，否则伊斯兰教就不会如野火般迅速传播。72.

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

事实上,伊斯兰教出现之前的诗人、"七悬诗"最著名的诗人之一拉比德·本·拉比娅,因《古兰经》的无与伦比而皈依伊斯兰教。他一旦皈依伊斯兰教,便停止了作诗。人们感到惊讶,因为他"是他们最杰出的诗人"。73 他们问他为何停止作诗;他回答说:"什么!在《古兰经》降示之后,还作诗吗?"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.

关于将《古兰经》与阿布·塔叶布·艾哈迈德·本·侯赛因·穆坦纳比·金迪等古典诗歌大师相比较，需要指出的是，穆坦纳比被许多阿拉伯人视为无与伦比的诗歌天才。有人认为，尽管其他诗人也使用了同样的颂诗体裁和诗律，但他们无法达到他那种雄辩与风格变化的水平。如果此说属实，那么它可能会动摇《古兰经》的不可模仿性。然而，对穆坦纳比的这种推崇是没有根据的。

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.

首先需要指出的是，这一论断含糊不清。穆太奈比并没有写过一部像《古兰经》那样、字数超过七万的著作。他的诗集里的诗篇彼此并无关联，也没有分章编排。此外，犹太诗人摩西·伊本·以斯拉和所罗门·伊本·盖博罗尔曾模仿过穆太奈比的作品。

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.

有趣的是，安达卢西亚诗人伊本·哈尼·安达卢西（Ibn Hani’ al-Andalusi）被称为“西方的穆塔纳比”。75

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

一个重要的观点是，中世纪阿拉伯诗歌并未创造新的文学体裁。这是因为它依赖于前人的诗歌成就。学者丹尼斯·E·麦考利（Denis E. McAuley）写道，中世纪诗歌在很大程度上取决于“文学先例，而非直接经验”。76 在古典阿拉伯诗歌中，诗人模仿前辈、以相同的诗律、韵脚和主题另作一首诗，并不罕见，这被视为正常的做法。77 因此，宗教学教授埃米尔·霍默林（Emil Homerin）在考察伊本·法里德（Ibn al-Farid）的文学表达时，将其作品描述为“对穆塔奈比（al-Mutanabbi）非常独创的即兴发挥”，也就不足为奇了。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.

为进一步说明阿勒-穆塔奈拜可以被效仿，他坦言自己借用了另一位诗人阿布·努瓦斯的作品。79 中世纪许多阿拉伯文学批评家，如阿勒-萨希卜·伊本·阿巴德和阿布·阿里·穆罕默德·伊本·哈桑·哈提米，都曾撰文批评阿勒-穆塔奈拜。

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.

伊本·阿巴德撰写了《揭示穆太奈比诗歌的缺点》（al-kashf ‘an masawi’ shi’r al-Mutanabbi），哈提米则在其《阐明穆太奈比盗用之事的明确论文》（al-Risala al-Mudiha fi dhikr sariqat Abi al-Tayyib al-Mutanabbi）中，记述了他与穆太奈比相遇的经过。80 这些文学批评的结论暗示：尽管穆太奈比的作品是天才之作，但人们仍可以效仿它。哈提米对穆太奈比提出了更为有力的批驳，并论证其诗歌并无独特的风格，且包含错误。研究哈提米文学批评的学者西格尔·A·博内巴克尔（Seeger A. Bonebakker）教授总结道：其“判断往往有充分依据，几乎让人觉得穆太奈比终究只是一位平庸的诗人，不仅缺乏独创性，语法、词汇学和修辞学的造诣也不足，有时还表现出令人难以置信的糟糕品味。”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.

“如果莎士比亚是无与伦比的文学天才，那么《古兰经》的无法模仿性便是一项人类的事业。”

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

威廉·莎士比亚可以说是有史以来最伟大的英语剧作家。针对本文论证的一个常见异议是：莎士比亚在英语文学史上似乎无人能及，因此他是不可模仿的。鉴于他无与伦比的文学与语言才能，《古兰经》的不可模仿性可以借助一位文学天才来加以解释。

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.

这种反对意见有几点理由站不住脚。

There are a few reasons why this objection is misplaced.

首先，《al-Kawthar》（黑白之章）的无法模仿之处，与莎士比亚的杰作有很大不同。

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

《الكوثر》在文学与语言特征的出现频率与性质上，与莎士比亚所写的任何三行诗相比都无可比拟。考虑到它的降示方式、背景语境、互文性、结构，以及文体与意义之间最佳的相互关联，这一点并无争议。

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.

其次，莎士比亚并没有持续展现出无与伦比的雄辩，也没有那种不经修改、一气呵成的无法模仿的表达。马克·福赛思认为，莎士比亚的才能是随着时间逐步发展的：

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:

“莎士比亚并不是天才。毫无疑问，他是有史以来最出色的作家，这一点没有任何疑问。但他不是天才。没有天使替他落笔，也没有精灵替他校对。相反，他学习技巧，学习窍门，而且学得很好……莎士比亚越写越好，越写越好，越写越好，这并不难，因为他起步很差，就像大多数人开始一份新工作时一样。”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.

事实上，根据福赛思的说法，莎士比亚最初的作品“……并不是很好。”83

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

其次,莎士比亚的文学形式并非独一无二。他的十四行诗主要采用一种常用的格律,称为抑扬五步格,这是一种押韵格式,每行十四行诗由十个音节组成。这些音节被分为五对,称为抑扬音步或抑扬格。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

最后，既然莎士比亚作品的蓝本可以找到，那么英国剧作家克里斯托弗·马洛（Christopher Marlowe）与他风格相近，也就不足为奇了；莎士比亚还曾被拿来与弗朗西斯·博蒙特（Francis Beaumont）、约翰·弗莱彻（John Fletcher）以及同时代的其他剧作家相比较。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