Three Treatises On The I'Jaz of The Qur'An

The Great Boohs o( Islamic Civilization
al-Khattabi, al-Rummani and cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani
Three Treatises
on the UjAz OF
the QurÂn
Quranic Studies and Literary Criticism

Edited by Muhammad Khalaf-Allah Ahmad and Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam
Translated by Professor Emeritus Issa J. Boullata
Reviewed by Associate Professor Terri L. DeYoung
Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization

in Association with Garnet Publishing
Three Treatises
on the Tjaz of
the Qur'an
Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center
for Muslim Contribution to Civilization
Faculty of Islamic Studies

Qatar Foundation for Education,
Science and Community Development
Three Treated
on the Tjaz of
the Qur'an
Quranic Studies and Literary Criticism
al-Khattabi, al-Rummani and cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani
Edited by Muhammad Khalaf-Allah Ahmad and Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam

Translated by Professor Emeritus Issa J. Boullata
Reviewed by Associate Professor Terri L. DeYoung
arnet
Three Treatises on the Fjaz of the Qur’an
Published by
Garnet Publishing Limited
8 Southern Court
South Street
Reading
RG1 4QS
UK
www.garnetpublishing.co.uk
Copyright © 2015 Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center

All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by
any electronic or mechanical means, including information
storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing
from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote
brief passages in a review.
First Edition
ISBN: 9781859643891
British I library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Typesei by Samantha Barden

Jacket design by Garnet Publishing
Printed and bound in Lebanon by International Press:
interpress@int-press.com
Contents
Foreword vii
About this Series ix
Translator’s introduction xi
Editors’ introduction to the third edition xvii
Editors’ introduction to the first edition xix
Analysis of the three treatises 1

The first treatise 1
Editions of the book 1
The idea and method of this treatise 2
The second treatise 3
Analysis of the treatise 4
The third treatise 5
Analysis of the treatise 5
The first treatise

Bayan fjaz al-Qufan (Elucidation of the Qur’an’s Fjaz)
On the elucidation of the Qur’an’s Fjaz 11

The response 25
The second treatise

Al-Nukat fl Fjaz al-Quf’an (Subtleties in the Fjaz of the Qur’an)
(1) Chapter on concision 54

(2) Chapter on simile 56
(3) Chapter on metaphor 60
(4) Chapter on harmony 68
(5) Chapter on periodic rhyme and assonance 69
(6) Chapter on paronomasia (al-tajanus) 70
(7) Chapter on permutation (al-tasrif) 72
(8) Chapter on implication (af-tadmin) 73
THREE TREATISES ON THE PJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
(9) Chapter on hyperbole (al-mubalagha) 74

(10) Chapter on elucidation (al-bayan) 75
[Postscript] Chapter 78
Explaining the aspects [of /cjaz] we mentioned at the beginning of this book 78
THE THIRD TREATISE

Al-Risala al-Shafiya (The Peremptory Treatise)
A chapter 93
A chapter 99
A chapter on what believers in the sarfa are obligated to 105
A concluding chapter 11 1
A chapter 112
Comments and additions
(1) Development of the technical terms of rhetoric up to 117

the fourth century AH
(2) Comments on al-Rummani’s rhetorical ideas by those who came 119
after him and quotations from them
(1) Rhetoric 120
(2) Concision 120
(3) Attestations of concision 122
(4) Simile 123
(5) Metaphor (al-istiâra) 126
(6) Harmony (al-tallPum) 131
(7) Periodic rhyme and assonance (al-fawasi!) 134
(8) Paronomasia (al-tajanus) 138
(9) Beautiful rendition (husn al-bayan) 139
(10) Antithesis (al-mutabaqa) 140
(11) Aspects of the Qur’an’s ijaz 141
(3) A summary of cAbd al-Qahir’s idea about the Qur’an’s Fjaz based 142
on its nazm
Index 149
Foreword
Three Treatises on the Ijaz of the Qur'an is the twenty-third publication in the
series of “Great Books of Islamic Civilization” published by the Muhammad
bin Hamad Al-Thani Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization (CMCC)
at the Faculty of Islamic Studies, Hamad Bin Khalifa University. By publishing
these translations, the Center aims to acquaint English-language speakers
interested in Qur’anic studies with efforts by Muslim scholars who have
devoted their attention to the Qur’an, consolidating their faith in it as a book
far removed from all falsehood and its inimitable nature. As mentioned in the
Qur’an itself:
... [I]t is certainly a Mighty Book. Falsehood may not enter it from the front or
from the rear. It is a revelation that has been sent down from the Most Wise,
the Immensely Praiseworthy (Fussilat: 42).
Muslim scholars have exerted tremendous efforts since ancient times on the
theme of the inimitability of the Qur’an. These efforts constitute a significant
part of the Islamic library, despite the fact that they have not seen the light of day
until now. A brief glance at the vast corpus of such works might well lead one to
approve of the old adage that previous generations have left nothing for later ones
— notwithstanding, of course, the fact that the Qur’an is perennially inspirational:
To all of these as well as those We shall provide the wherewithal of this life
in the present world by dint of your Lord’s Bounty; and from none shall the
Bounty of your Lord be withheld (Banu Isra’il: 20).
The CMCC believes that the publication of the Three Treatises on the Tjaz
of the Qur'an authored by Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim
al-Khattabi (319—388 ah), Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn Îsa al-Rummani (296-386 All)
and Abu Bakr cAbd al-Qahir ibn cAbd al-Rahman al-Jurjani (400-471 AH),
along with other such works in the field of Qur’anic studies, serve a two¬
pronged purpose. On one hand, they contribute positively to ongoing academic
deliberations over the hermeneutics and critical studies of Holy Scriptures;
on the other hand, they provide cogent, incontrovertible evidence of Muslim
intellectual endeavor from the very outset, as well as the fact that, in keeping
with the exigencies of time and space, Muslims exhausted their academic efforts
to the maximum.
In a like manner, they prompt contemporary Muslim scholars to continue
the debate in accordance with the requirements and challenges of contemporary
THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
times - especially in light of the efforts made by many in our times who consider
themselves experts in modern Qur’anic reading and interpretation, and who
—
have come - in one measure or another under the influence of contemporary
Western hermeneutical approaches to the Qur’an.
We pray to the Almighty to bless and reward the authors with His mercy
and favor, as well as those who were involved in bringing out this book by way
of translation, revision and publication, and to accept all our endeavors.
May God’s prayers and peace be upon the Prophet Muhammad, his
companions and progeny.
Professor Aisha Yousef Al-Mannai

Director, Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center
Doha, 2014
About this Series
This series of Arabic works, made available in English translation, represents

an outstanding selection of important Islamic studies in a variety of fields of
knowledge. The works selected for inclusion in this series meet specific criteria.
They are recognized by Muslim scholars as being early and important in their
fields as works whose importance is broadly recognized by international scholars,
and as having had a genuinely significant impact on the development of human
culture.
Readers will therefore see that this series includes a variety of works in the
purely Islamic sciences, such as Qur’an, hadith, theology, prophetic traditions
(sunna), and jurisprudence (fiqh). Also represented will be books by Muslim
scientists on medicine, astronomy, geography, physics, chemistry, horticulture
and other fields.
The work of translating these texts has been entrusted to a group of
professors in the Islamic and Western worlds who are recognized authorities
in their fields. It has been deemed appropriate, in order to ensure accuracy and
fluency, that two persons, one with Arabic as their mother tongue and another
with English as their mother tongue, should participate together in the translation
and revision of each text.
This series is distinguished from other similar intercultural projects by its
distinctive objectives and methodology. These works will fill a genuine gap in the
library of human thought. T hey will prove extremely useful to all those with an
interest in Islamic culture, its interaction with Western thought, and its impact
on culture throughout the world. They will, it is hoped, fulfil an important role
in enhancing world understanding at a time when there is such evident and
urgent need for the development of peaceful coexistence.
This series is published by Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center for
Muslim Contribution to Civilization (MBHACMCC), now a member of the
Faculty of Islamic Studies of Qatar Foundation, Doha, Qatar. The Center was
established in 1983 under the patronage of H.E. Sheikh Muhammad bin Hamad
al-Thani, the former Minister of Education of Qatar, who also chaired the
Board of Trustees. The Board comprised a group of prominent scholars. These
included His Eminence Sheikh al-Azhar, Arab Republic of Egypt, and Professor
Yousef al-Qaradawi, Chairman, International Union of Muslim Scholars. At its
inception the Center was directed by the late Dr Muhammad Ibrahim Kazim,
former Rector of Qatar University, who established its initial objectives.
Until 1997, the Center was directed by the late Dr Kamal Naji, the Foreign
Cultural Relations Advisor of the Ministry of Education of Qatar. He was
assisted by a Board comprising a number of academicians of Qatar University,
in addition to a consultative committee chaired by the late Dr Ezzeddin Ibrahim,
X THREE TREATISES ON THE I1J A Z OF THE QUR’AN
former Rector of the University of the United Arab Emirates. A further

committee acting on behalf of the Center comprises prominent university
professors who act under the chairmanship of Dr Raji Rammuny, Professor of
Arabic at the University of Michigan. This committee is charged with making
known, in Europe, in America, in Asia and elsewhere the books selected for
translation, and in selecting and enlisting properly qualified university professors,
orientalists and students of Islamic studies to undertake the work of translation
and revision, as well as overseeing the publication process. In 1997, the late
Professor Osman Sid Ahmad Ismafil al-Btll took over as General Supervisor
of the Centre. In January 2009, the CMCC joined the Qatar Foundation
for Education, Science and Community Development as part of the Faculty
of Islamic Studies. In May 2010 Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Naser,
the Chairperson of the Qatar Foundation, named the Center as Muhammad
bin Hamad Al-Thani Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization. The
late Professor Osman remained the Director of the Center until his death in
March, 2011. Since then Professor Aisha Yousef Al-Mannai has taken charge
as the Director.
It would be a shortfall on our part if we did not record our gratitude to
Professor Hatem El-Karanshawy, Dean of the Faculty of Islamic Studies, and
our indebtedness for his unswerving support and patronage since the affiliation
of the Center to the QFIS.
Translator’s introduction
The word ijaz in Arabic means “incapacitation” - that is, “rendering someone
incapable of doing something”. As a theological term applied to the Qur’an, it
refers to the quality of the Qur’an that makes it inimitable because of what is
believed to be its sublime style and divinely inspired content, rendering human
beings incapable of producing the like of it. In this sense, the Qur’an is muîz
(incapacitating) and, as such, it constitutes a mu’-jiza (a miracle) which, in the
view of Muslim theologians, is an evidentiary proof that confirms the prophecy
of Muhammad as a Messenger of God and validates the veracity and authenticity
of his message.
This notion of the Qur’an’s inimitability became an established Muslim
creed by the end of the third century of Islamic history (the ninth century of the
Common Era). To understand how it reached this stage of becoming a dogma
of faith, one has - in the first place - to know about the development of the
Qur’anic text in the twenty-three years (610-632) of its being revealed piecemeal
to Prophet Muhammad (570-632) and his struggle with his contemporaries to
have them accept it as a revelation from God, a struggle that is reflected in the
very text of the Qur’an itself. One has then to know how this dogma has been
later fleshed out by Muslim exegetes, theologians and rhetoricians over the early
centuries of Islamic history.
The prolific Egyptian polymath Jalal al-Din al-Suyutl (d. 1505) devotes
one of his lengthy works, al-Itqan fl Ûlum al-QuPan, to studying the exegetic
sciences of the Qur’an and the authors who wrote on them up to his time. He
states that there are eighty kinds of such sciences and he treats each of them
in detail. One of these sciences, the sixty-fourth kind, deals with the icjaz of
the Qur’an.1 In his account of it, he begins by mentioning some of the authors
—
who wrote on i^jaz namely, al-Khattabl, al-Rummani, al-Zamlukani, al-Imam
al-Razi, Ibn Suraqa and al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani. And then he says:
“Know that a miracle is an act that is a breach of custom, is associated with
a challenge and is impossible to imitate.” Then he adds: “It is either sensory
or intellectual. Most of the miracles of the Israelites are sensory due to their
dim-wittedness and lack of intelligence, and most of the miracles of this umma
—
[this religious community i.e., the Muslims] are intellectual because of their
exceeding intelligence and perfect understanding. And since this religion will
last over time to the Day of Resurrection, it has been specifically endowed with
a lasting intellectual miracle perceptible by the intelligent.”2 This miracle, he
intimates, will continue to be available for verification by human beings until the
end of time, whereas the miracles of the prophets of other religious communities
are not available for continuing human verification and are based on repeated
hearsay as reported in narratives mentioned as part of their scriptures.
Of the many works by Muslim scholars on the ijaz of the Qur’an, this
book entitled Thalath Rasa'il ft Ijaz Ui-Qur'an, contains three important Arabic
treatises from the fourth and fifth centuries of Islamic history, published here in
English translation for the first time:
( 1 ) Bayan Ijaz Ui-Qur'an by Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim
al-Khattabi (319-388 ah)
(2) Al-Nukat fl Ijaz Ui-Qur'an by Abu al-Hasan cAll ibn cIsa al-Rummani
(296-386 ah)
(3) Al-Risala al-Shafiya by Abu Bakr cAbd al-Qahir ibn cAbd al-Rahman
al-Jurjani (... -471 ah).
Muhammad Khalaf-Allah and Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam, the two Egyptian

scholars who edited these three treatises, enriched them by adding a 44-page
postscript with information about the development of the science of rhetoric
film al-balaghd) in Arabic and the evolution of its technical terms, as well as by
comments of later Arab rhetoricians and a summary of al-Jurjanl’s idea about
ijaz from his classic book Dala'il al-Ijaz. Their book has thus become one of
the most useful works in modern times on the ijaz of the Qur’an and also on the
development of studies of Arabic rhetoric and literary criticism.
The Prophet Muhammad’s contemporaries were not rhetoricians or literary
critics, but they recognized the verbal power of the Qur’an, as it was orally
recited to them by him. Some of them believed its message implicitly and were
immediately converted to Islam, but others opposed it vehemently and charged
that its enthralling words were mere magic and only the speech of human beings
(Q. 74:24—25); and, on various occasions, they accused Prophet Muhammad of
being a soothsayer {kahin), a poet (shaîr), even a madman (majnun) in consort
with the gods and demons of their paganism. The Qur’an, however, declared
that he was not (Q. 52:29-31) and that his recitation was a revelation from God
(Q. 69:40—43). It challenged them to produce a discourse like it (Q. 52:33—34)
or ten suras like it (Q. 11:13) or even one sura like it (Q. 10:38). In the end, it
affirmed that if humans and jinn were to combine their efforts and help one
another, they would not be able to produce a similar Qur’an (Q. 17:88) and it
further asserted that sceptical opponents would not be able to produce even a
single sura (Q. 2:23—24) like any one of the Qur’an’s.3
This Qur’anic challenge (tahaddi) has never been taken up successfully
in Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime or later on. There were some attempts at
imitating the Qur’an that al-Baqillanl4 and others recorded, but they were brief
passages of ludicrous hollow parodies that pale in relation to the Qur’an. The
inimitability of the Qur’an was firmly accepted and Muslim thinkers considered
it a miracle authenticating their holy scripture and proving the veracity of
TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION
Muhammad’s prophethood. However, when analysing the elements of this

inimitability, they differed: some of them highlighted the Qur’an’s rhetorically
unsurpassable and sublime style; others its content that includes the teaching
about the oneness of God, the prescriptions for a new organization of society,
the beautiful narratives with moral lessons, the promises of a happy afterlife
in Paradise for those who do good, and the threats of torture in Hell for those
who do evil and so forth - all being matters that no humans could come up with.
Muslim rhetoricians and literary connoisseurs argued in their writings that:
style and content must go hand in hand with each other in order to achieve the
most impressive effect; there are various ranks of excellence in this act; and the
Qur’an is the ne plus ultra in this respect and possesses the quality of inimitability
they ascribed to it. Muslim theologians accepted the rhetorical uniqueness of
the Qur’an and the excellence of its style, but some, like al-Baqillani (d. 1013),
did not think the i^jaz consists of this alone, for he considered the Qur’an’s
information about future events and eschatological happenings to be the first
component of its miraculous character, the second being that the Qur’an
tells about events from the creation of Adam onwards despite Muhammad’s
illiteracy and his ignorance of the contents of the books of the ancients. Another
theologian, cAbd al-Jabbar (d. 1025), maintained that stylistic excellence was an
intrinsic constituent of the Qur’an’s iâz but emphasized that it was its fasaha
(eloquence) fusing wording and meaning in an unmatchable superb manner
that made the Arabs unable to imitate it.5 Another theologian, cAbd al-Qahir
al-Jurjani (d. 1078) who was a major rhetorician and philologist, elaborated on
the relationship of wording and meaning, and systematized a theory of nazm
that others before him had discussed but not with his comprehensive vision
which, in the process, expounded also a theory of meaning. He said that single
words have no distinction over one another and that ideas cannot exist without
words. According to him, it is the choice and arrangement of words, indeed their
nazm, that creates a specific meaning in a distinctive style that only literary taste,
sensibility and long aesthetic experience can help to discern. A change of word
arrangement conveys a different meaning. Although he used more examples
from Arabic verse and less from the Qur’an in his analysis of stylistic excellence
and figures of speech, he was of the opinion that the Qur’an possesses the
most expressive style for the meaning intended in accordance with his theory
of nazm.^ Later on, it was al-Zamakhshari (d. 1144) who, in his exegesis of
the Qur’an entitled al-Kashshaf, put al-Jurjani’s theory of nazm to practical
purposes. His commentary on the Qur’an treats the nazm of every verse in it
and demonstrates repeatedly the inimitable excellence of the Holy Book in
wording and meaning.
With the importance it has in Islamic thought and Qur’anic studies, and with
the effect it exercises on Arabic rhetoric and literary criticism, the inimitability
of the Qur’an has been dealt with by Muslim authors in a large number of
works during all ages of Islamic history up to and including modern times.7
“[Muslim] scholars continue to study ijaz^ generation after generation, in

order to understand it, and each of them offers what he can in his own age; but
someone comes after him who increases the information or disagrees with him.
Meanwhile, ijaz remains an open horizon to every soul earnestly yearning to
be in tune with the Holy Qur’an and its eternal message.”8 And yet few of the
Arabic works on iâz have been translated into Western languages.
The three Arabic treatises in this book are relatively short ones and afford
different points of view and, with the postscript, they offer a variety of literary
and theological approaches to be worth translating in order to give the reader
of English a virtually comprehensive understanding of ijaz and the issues
related to it.
Al-K hattabi, the author of the first treatise, is a Sunni Muslim who
emphasizes the rhetorical uniqueness of the Qur’an as a source of its ijaz.
He has excellent literary taste and great intellectual subtlety, and recognizes
the powerful psychological effect of the Qur’an’s superb style. He rejects
arguments that say the Qur’an’s prophecy of future events is a component of
ijaz and, to support his rejection, he says that not every Qur’anic verse tells
of the future and that the Qur’an’s challenge is to produce one sura like it with
no specific content or subject matter. He equally rejects the idea of the sarfa,
which claims that God turned away (sarafa) human beings from imitating the
Qur’an and deprived them of the knowledge to do so by saying humans and
jinn will never produce the like of the Qur’an (Q. 17:88). Al-Khattabi says that
speech is made up of words containing meaning, ideas conveyed by words and
structure organizing them, and he believes that the Qur’an has the most eloquent
wording, the best ideas and the most beautiful structure - all being matters that
human knowledge cannot encompass because of their countless varieties.
Al-Rummani, the author of the second treatise, is a Mufiazili theologian
who believes in the rhetorical uniqueness of the Qur’an as well, and he writes
at length on its balagha (rhetoric). But he says that there are other components
to the idea of the Qur’an’s Ijaz, and they include its truthful information
about future events, its breach of custom with regard to literary genres and
its creditable analogy to all other religious miracles considered similarly
inimitable. The sarfa is also a component of the Qur’an’s ijaz in his view for,
despite abundant motives, imitating the Qur’an was abandoned; and although
all humans were challenged, they were unable to imitate it. In his opinion, it
is possible for humans to produce only lower kinds of balagha but the Qur’an
remains the highest kind and is inimitable.
Al-Jurjanl, the author of the third treatise, is an Ashcari theologian who, as
mentioned earlier, was a major rhetorician and philologist who elaborated on
the relationship of wording and meaning, and systematized the theory of nazm
in Arabic stylistics and, by extension, in ijaz discussions related to Qur’anic
studies. Fie also emphasized that literary taste, sensibility and long aesthetic
experience are needed to appreciate the Qur’an’s ijaz and, in accordance with
TRANSLATOR’S INTRODUCTION
his theory of nazm, he maintained that the Qur’an possesses the most expressive
style for the meaning intended in it. His treatise, al-Risala al-Shafiya, is
profitably supplemented in the postscript by a summary of his idea about i^jaz
based on his theory of nazm and is taken from his book Dala?il al-Fjaz.
In the end, the reader of this book will come out with a fairly comprehensive
and informed idea about the Qur’an’s iâz in Islamic thought and its influence
on the development of Arabic rhetoric and literary criticism. But, in certain
sections, the book is not easy reading and it occasionally has dense argument.
My translation has attempted to remain as lucid as possible and to be conveyed
in readable modern English. Professor Terri L. DeYoung of the University of
Washington, USA, has carefully and conscientiously reviewed my translation
and made suggestions to enhance it, for which I am grateful. It is with great
pleasure that I present it to the English reader.
Issa J. Boullata, PhD (London)

Emeritus Professor of Arabic Literature
Institute of Islamic Studies
Montreal, July 14 2013
McGill University, Montreal
THREE TREATISES ON THE If AZ OF THE QUR’AN
Notes
1 See Jalal al-Din cAbd al-Rahman al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan ft '■Ulum al-Qur>dn, 4 vols., ed.
Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Cairo: Dar al-Turath, 1967, third printing 1985), Vol. 4,
pp. 5-23.
2 Ibid. The intellectual miracle that al-Suyuti means is the inimitability of the Qur’an i.e.,
-
its ifaz.
3 Sec my article “The Rhetorical Interpretation of the Qur’an: if az and related topics”,
Chapter 7 in Approaches lo the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, ed. Andrew Rippin
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 139-157; reprinted (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press,
2012), Chapter 7, pp. 139-157.
4 See al-Baqillanl, If az Ui-Qur'an, ed. Ahmad Saqr (Cairo: Dar al-Macarif bi-Misr, |T954]),
pp. 238-240.
5 Sec cAbd al-Jabbar al-Asadabadi, al-Mughni ft Abtvab al-Tawhid wa-l-Âdf Vol. 16, If az
Ui-Qur'an (Cairo: Wizarat al-Thaqafa wa-l-Irshad al-Qawmi, 1960).
6 See cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani, Dala'il al-If az, eds Muhammad cAbduh and Muhammad
al-Shanqiti, annotated and published by Rashid Rida, sixth printing (Cairo, 1960); and idem,
Asrar al-Baldgha, ed. Hellmut Ritter (Istanbul, 1954).
7 Sec my article “The Rhetorical Interpretation of the Qur’an: if az and related topics”, in
Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qur'an, cd. Andrew Rippin (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 137-157. See also my book If az al-Qur^dn al-Karim âbr
al-Tdrikh\ Mukhtarat (Beirut: al-Mu’assasa al-cArabiyya li al-Dirasat wa al-Nashr, 2006).
8 From my introduction to ibid., p. 26.
Editors’ introduction to the third edition
The fourth and fifth centuries after the Hijra were a fertile period in the history
of Qur’anic studies and of literary-critical studies. In this period, the theories
of scholars about the Qur’an’s ijaz became mature, and the major approaches
and methods of uncovering its mysteries used by them were set down.
Three years ago, we were fortunate to edit, with God’s help, three treatises
on ijaz that represent these methods: the first by a Hadi th narrator who was
[also] a linguist; the second by a Mufiazilite theologian who was [also] a
grammarian; and the third by a Shafifite Sunni who was [also] a rhetorician. The
fact that the first and second editions of these treatises sold out indicated that
scholars were interested in them and benefited from them. This encouraged us
to issue a third edition.
Meanwhile, several books studying the Qur’an and its ijaz have been
published since the appearance of the first edition. We shall here mention some
of them because of their importance and relation to the topic of these three
treatises.
The first book was Majaz al-Quân by the well-known language scholar
Abu TJbayda [d. 209 ah/824 CE], which is one of the earliest studies of the
Qur’an designed to uncover the mysteries of Qur’anic style. It was published
by al-Khanji in Cairo in 1955.
The second book was Maâni al-Quân by the Kufan language scholar
al-Farra’ [d. 207 ah/822 ce]. It is mostly interested in variant readings of the
Qur’an and in explaining them. It was published by Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya
in 1955.
The third book was Bayan Mushkil al-QuBan by Ibn Qutayba [d. 276 ah/
889 ce], the language scholar and litterateur, author of Al-Malarif, Adab
al-Katib, lUyun al-Akhbar and al-Shi^r wa al-Shu^ra?. It is an important book
with a predominantly literary and linguistic orientation, though not without
occasional jurisprudential references, and it is a significant milestone with
regard to the topic of the relationship between studies of the Qur’an’s style
and Arabic literary criticism. For this reason, it is the closest of these books to
the topic of the three treatises that we have edited. It was edited by Al-Sayyid
Saqr and published by ^sa al-Babi al-Halabi in 1955.
The fourth book was Manhaj al-Zamakhshari fi Tafsir al-QuBan wa Bayan
Bjazih by al-Sawi al-Juwaynl. It was published by Dar al-Macarif in Cairo in
1959. It is a master’s thesis in Arts, written at the Department of Arabic in the
University of Alexandria, Egypt.
The fifth book was al-Mughni by al-Qadi 'Abd al-Jabbar [d. 415 ah/
1025 CE], published in the “Turathuna Series” [of Dar al-Macarif in Cairo],
xviii THREE TREATISES ON THE IJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
The sixth book was Nukal al-lntisar li-Naql al-Qur'an by al-Imam

al-Baqillani [d. 403 AH/1013 CE], edited by Dr Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam and
published by Munsha’at al-Macarif in Alexandria in 1973.
And thus, the scholarly movement of editing and publishing the library
of Qur’anic and literary studies by noted authors goes on, laying down the path
to the development of Quranic studies and connecting modern scholars with
their glorious Islamic legacy.
Muhammad Khalaf-Allah
Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam
Editors’ introduction to the first edition
Some of the phenomena noticed by modern research were the links between
Qur’anic studies and Arabic rhetorical and literary-critical studies, as well
as their reciprocal influences. What drew attention to this matter was the
confluence of two great tendencies observed in books of literary criticism and
—
rhetoric especially those written in the Hijri Middle Ages1 — one of the two
tendencies originating in manifestations of Qur’anic eloquence and the other in
qualities of literary excellence in poetry and prose.
The Department of Arabic at the University of Alexandria showed great
interest in this matter2 and drew the attention of its students and graduates to
it. As a result, some of them dealt with aspects of it in their theses for advanced
degrees, and some others proceeded to search for manuscripts in the Qur’anic
library in order to edit and publish those that could shed light on this topic.
We thought to participate in this effort by publishing three treatises on
the fydz of the Qur’an by authors with diverse points of view and different
methods. The first of them was a Hadith narrator who was [also] a linguist and a
litterateur; the second was a MuTazilite theologian who was [also] a grammarian;
and the third was a Shafihte Sunni [who was also a rhetorician].
As for the Hadith narrator who was a linguist and a litterateur, his name was
Abu Sulayman Hamd3 ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Khattabi4 al-Busti. He
was born in Rajab, 319 AH and lived in Bust,5 from which he took his surname
and in which he died.
Growing up, he loved learning and spared no effort to acquire knowledge. He
travelled widely in the Islamic countries to acquire it from well-regarded scholars:
he went to Iraq and studied in Basra and Baghdad; he went to Hijaz and lived
in Mecca for some time, then he returned to Khurasan and stayed in Naysabur
for two years or more and wrote some of his books there. He then set out for
Transoxiana and ended his travels in Bust, where he remained until he died.
He was a generous, righteous and temperate man. He traded in the
possessions he legally owned and he liberally spent on the scholars among his
friends and followers.
He acquired learning from the prominent scholars of his age and travelled
seeking [the Prophet’s] Hadith from its masters and, with diligence, became a
master of it himself.
He learned jurisprudence from Abu Bakr al-Qaffal al-Shashi, Abu cAll ibn
Abi Hurayra and other ShafPite legists. Some of his language and literature
teachers were Baghdad’s select scholars in his age, of whom we will mention
Isma'il al-Saffar, Abu cUmar al-Zahid, Abu al-cAbbas al-Asamm, Ahmad ibn
Sulayman al-Najjar, Abu cAmr al-Sammak and others.
THREE TREATISES ON THE F/AZOF THE QUR’AN
Many people transmitted learning from him. Among them were Abu Mascud
al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Karablsl al-Busti, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan (the reciter of the Qur’an), Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn al-Hasan al-Sajazi
(the legist),6 Abu cAbd Allah Muhammad ibn CA1I ibn {Abd Allah al-Nasawi,
Abu Hamid al-Isfaraylni, al-Hakim al-Naysaburi and others.
He had a highly regarded position vis-a-vis learning. His contemporaries
praised him and poets fervently extolled his merit. Al-Samcani said about
him, “A meritorious master of great importance and exalted standing”, and
al-Thacalibi composed [laudatory] poetry about him. Among others who
spoke in glowing terms of him, who mentioned him and glorified him, and
who composed [laudatory] poetry about him was al-Hafiz Abu Tahir al-Silfi
al-Asbahani, who resided in Alexandria and was its legist, religious scholar and
Hadith narrator in the sixth century AH, who also wrote a commentary on the
introduction to al-Khattabl’s book MaWim al-Sunan and spoke highly of him
more than once in it.
Al-Khattabi died in 388 AH' after a life full of learning and letters. His
writings include good poetry, some of which was cited by al-Thacalibl in his
Yatimat al-Dahr from which quotations were made by YaqUt, Ibn al-cImad,
al-Subkl, Ibn Khallikan and others who included his biography [in their works].
As for his books, they are many, in which Hadith and jurisprudence
predominate. Hereafter we will mention the titles of those of them mentioned
in the biographies we consulted: Ma^dlim al-Sunan* Gharib al-Hadith? Tafsir
Asms3 al-Rabb Azza wa Jalla or Sharh Asma* Illdh al-Husna^ Shark al-AdHya
al-Mddhura, Sharh al-Bukhari, Kitab aKIzla or [Kitab] al-Btisam^ Isiah Ghalat
al-Muhaddithin,n Kitab al-Arusl, Kitab Ayan al-Hadith^ Kitab al-Ghunya
'■an al-Kaldm wa Ahlih, Kitab Sharh Da'awat li Abi Khuzayma, Bayan I'jdz
Ui-Qur'an^ and Kitab Ma'alim al-Tanzil.
As for the Muhazilite, he is Abu al-Hasan cAll ibn cIsa al-Rummanl,15 born
in 296 AH in Samarra or Baghdad. He grew up in poverty, sought learning
diligently and earned a living as a copyist of manuscripts. In language and
grammar, he was a student of a group of leading scholars like Abu Bakr ibn
Durayd, Abu Bakr al-Sarraj and al-Zajjaj. In theology, he graduated at the hands
of his Muhazilite master, Ibn al-Ikhshld.
Biographers say that al-Rummani was fond of learning, widely knowledgeable
and well conversant with literature and the sciences of language and grammar.
That is why he was called a grammarian, theologian, scholar of the Arabic
language and author of literary works. Furthermore, he had an inclination to
logic, philosophy and astronomy, and the effect of these sciences was clear in his
works and his style of writing. He excelled in the sciences of the Qur’an and its
exegesis, and wrote works on them. He took part in public life in Baghdad and
participated in its important political events, and was loved and appreciated by
Baghdad’s masses as well as its elite. He died in 386 AH after a long, fruitful and
eventful life.
EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION TO THE FIRST EDITION
His scholarly standing is evident to us in what his contemporary Abu

Hayyan al-Tawhidi wrote about him, stating that he had never seen anyone as
knowledgeable in grammar, as prolific in theology, as insightful into doctrines,
as deep in elucidating difficult matters and as clear in explaining problems
as al-Rummani was - all this, in addition to his piety, integrity, religiosity,
conviction, eloquence, as well as humour, decency and cleanliness. Ibn Sinan
said of him, “He is well known in literature.”
Of the scholars who considered him an authority and quoted him were Ibn
Rashiq, Ibn Sinan, Ibn Abi al-Isba' al-'Udwani al-Misri, al-Suyuti and others.
At the end of this book, we quoted some examples of their comments on his
writings and the benefits they derived from him.
Of his books mentioned in the sources are the following: al-Tafsir al-Kabirf'
al-Jami fl cUlum Ui-Qur'an, al-Nukatfi Bjaz a I-Qur'an, Alifat Ui-Qur'an, Sharh
Meduni Ui-Qur'an li al-Zajjaj, Iltifat Ui-Qur'an, Sharh Kitabay al-Madkhal wa
al-Muqtadab li al-Mubarrad, Kitab al-Ishtiqaq al-Kabir, Sharh Kitab Slbawayhi,
Nukat Slbawayhi, Aghrad Kitab Slbawayhi, al-Masa'il al-Mufrada min Kitab
Slbawayhi, Sharh Mukhtasar al-Jarmi, Kitab Sharh al-Masa'il li al-Akhfash,
Sharh al-Alif wa al-Lam li al-Mazini, Sharh Kitab al-Mujaz wa al-Usill li
Ibn al-Sarraj, Kitab al-Tasrif, Kitab al-Hija', Kitab al-Ijaz fl al-Nahw, Kitab
al-Mubtada' fl al-Nahw, al-Ishtiqaq al-Saghir wa al-Alfaz al-MutaradifaM'
Sources say that he has about one hundred books to his name.
As for the Shafi'ite Sunni, he is Abu Bakr 'Abd al-Qahir ibn 'Abd al-Rahman
al-Jurjani who lived in the fifth century AH and died probably in 471 AH.
In spite of his scholarly standing, we have found only short biographies of
him. They all agree that he was a scholar of wide culture, a theologian of the
Ash'arite school, a legist of the Shafi'ite school, and that he learned grammar at
the hands of Abu al-Hasan Muhammad ibn al-Hasan, the nephew of the famous
Abu 'All al-Farisi. Some biographies mention that he learned literature and
literary criticism from al-Qadl 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Jurjani.
Among 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani’s works are the following: al-Mi'a ft
al-Nahw, Dala'il al-Tjaz, Asrar al-Balagha and al-Risala al-Shdfiya.w
Notes
1 This is clear in Kitab al-Sina'-atayn by Abu Hilal al-'Askari (fourth century ah),
DallPil al-Ijaz by cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani and Sirr al-Fasaha by Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji (fifth
century ah), al-Mathal al-Sa'ir by Diya5 al-Din ibn al-Athir (seventh century ah) and
at-Tiraz byYahya ibn Hamza al-'Alawi (eighth century AH).
2 See for example the paper of M. Khalaf-Allah presented to the 21st International Conference
of Orientalists in Paris in 1948 entitled “The Theory of 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani in hisHrrar
al-Balagha" and the paper he presented to the 22nd International Conference in Istanbul
THREE TREATISES ON THE IJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
m 1951 entitled Qur’anic Studies as a Factor in the Development of Arabic Literary

Criticism”, which was published in The Faculty of Arts Journal., No. 6 in 1953.
3 Some of his biographers called him Ahmad, such as Yaqut and al-Samcani, and said that when
he was asked whether his name was Hamd or Ahmad, he would reply, “I was named Hamd
but people wrote Ahmad.”
4 An ascription to Zayd ibn al-Khattab, brother of [Caliph] cUmar ibn al-Khattab.
5 A city in the region of Kabul.
6 He is the transmitter of the manuscript of Bayan Fjaz al-Qudan that we are editing.
7 It was also said he died in 386 AH. See his biography in Irshad al-Arib by Yaqut, ed.
Margoliouth, 2:81-83; ed. al-Rifaci, 4:246; Al-Ansah by al-Sam^nl, 202; Bughyat al-Widat by
al-Suyuti, 239; Tadhkirat al-Hujfaz by al-Dhahabi, 2:223-224; Shadharat al-Dhahab by Ibn
al-cImad, 3:127; Tabaqat al-Shqfdiyya by al-Subki, 2:218-222; Ûyun al-Tarikh by Ibn Shakir
(Taymuriyya Library, No. 1386), 12:127; Ibn Khallikan, ed. Muhyi al-Din, 1:153-155; and
Khizanat al-Adab by al-Baghdadi, cd. al-Sawl (1934), 4:301-311.
8 It is a commentary on Abu Dawud’s Sunan, of which there is a manuscript at Dar al-Kutub
Library [in Cairo] and there are others in the libraries of Didan in India and in Algiers. See
Brockelmann, 1:161.
9 In it, he supplemented the books of Abu cUbayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam and Abu Muhammad
cAbd Allah ibn Muslim ibn Qutayba, both of which were entitled Gharib al-Hadlth. There is
a manuscript of it in the cAshir Afandi Library in Istanbul.
10 As it is occasionally called in some sources.
11 There is a manuscript of it at El Escorial Library [near Madrid, Spain],
12 There is a manuscript of it in the Asetaneh Library [in Istanbul, Turkey].
13 Al-Samcanl calls it A'dam al-Hadith ft Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari, and there is a manuscript of it
in Mosul.
14 The manuscript of which we are editing. There is another manuscript of it in Leiden in the
Netherlands, as mentioned by Brockelmann in al-Khattabi’s biography.
15 With u after the R and a double m, it is an ascription to rumman (pomegranates) and [a
reference to a person] trading in them, or an attribution to al-Rumman Palace in Wasit, [Iraq].
16 We have a manuscript of it and there is another in Leiden, The Netherlands, as Brockelmann
mentioned in his biography.
17 It is sometimes called al-Jami' al-Kabirfi Tafsir al-Qudan. At Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya (the
Taymuriyya Library), there is an exegesis of “Juz’ camma” [which is part of it].
18 This book was printed in Cairo. See [al-Rummani’s] biography in Mid-jam aTUdaba^ by
Yaqut al-Hamawi, ed. Margoliouth, 5:280ff, in Shadharat al-Dhahab by Ibn al-cImad, 3:109,
in Tarikh Baghdad, by al-Khatib, 11:16, printed by al-Sacada Press, 1931 GE, in al-Ansab
by al-Sam^ni, 258, in Tabaqat al-Nahwiyyin by al-Zabldi, 55, in al-Imta' ma al-Mu* anasa
by Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi, 1:133, in Dhikr al-Mu'tazila by al-Murtada, 65, in Bughyat
al-Wu'at by al-Suyuti, 443, printed by al-Khanji Press in 1326 AH, and in Brockelmann’s
Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, Supplement 1:175, see last section, part B.
19 For his biography, see Dumyat al-Qasr by al-Bakharzi, 108; Tabaqat al-Shafi'iyya by
al-Subki, 3:262; al-Nujum al-Zahira by Ibn Taghribirdi, 5:108; Bughyat al-Wu'at by
al-Suyuti, 310; Shadharat al-Dhahab by Ibn al- cImad, 3:340; and Brockelmann, 1:286-287
and Supplement 1:502-504 (biography number 287).
Analysis of the three treatises
The first treatise

It is Boyan Ijaz al-Qur’dn by Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad ibn
Ibrahim al-Khattabi, narrated by Abu al-Hasan al-Sajazi (the legist). In editing
it, we depended on a photocopied manuscript at Dar al-Kutub written in clear
Maghrib! script with some vocalization. It is not without some grammatical
errors at times. On its title page is written:
Kitab Bayan Fjaz al-Qur’an

Written by Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad Ibrahim al-Khattabi,
God be pleased with him
Narrated by Abu al-Hasan '■All ibn al-Hasan al-Sajazi, the legist,
God have mercy on him
It has an authorizing permission saying that it is narrated on the authority of

al-Shaykh Abu cAbd Allah Muhammad ibn Hayyan al-Fihri, authorized by
al-Shaykh cAbd Allah al-Hajraml, who was authorized by the legist al-Shaykh
Abu Tahir al-Silfi al-Asbahani on the authority of al-Shaykh cAbd Allah
Muhammad ibn Barakat the grammarian, authorized by al-Shaykh Abu al-Qasim
Sacd ibn 'All al-Zanjani, on the authority of Abu al-Hasan al-Sajazi, who was
authorized by the author himself. This authorizing permission was dated in the
year five hundred and sixty-six [ah].
At the end of the manuscript, a colophon says:
The [copying of the] book was completed with praise to God and with His help
- may God grant blessing and peace to Muhammad and his family, and praise
be to God, Lord of the worlds - in the beginnings of the year one thousand and
six [ah]. May God make us know its good and protect us from its evil.
At the end of [the manuscript], there is also a confirmation that it was reviewed
and was compared with the original manuscript. The manuscript consists of
23 folios and each of its pages has 21 lines, with 12 to 14 words per line.
Editions of the book

(A) The edition of Mr 'Abd Allah al-Siddiq printed in 1953 CE/1372 AH at Dar
al-Ta’lif Press in Cairo, consisting of 125 pages of the large size.
2 THREE TREATISES ON THE PJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
It is printed from the original manuscript on which we ourselves depended.

We reviewed this printing and found some problems which we pointed out
where they occurred, and we referred to them in the footnotes by [using] the
symbol A [in our edition].
It is to be observed generally that [the editor] sometimes dealt freely with the
text in a manner not required by the context and that he would often resort to an
unnecessary interpretation. In his footnotes, he showed interest in commenting
on the hadiths, reports and religious transmissions that occurred in the treatise.
(B) The edition of Dr Abdul Aleem, Dean of the Department of Arabic at the
Islamic University of Aligarh in India.
It was printed in Bombay in 1372 ah/ 1953 CE at the Khaleel Sharaf Press
and published by the Department of Arabic at the University of Aligarh.
The editor depended in this printing on the Leiden manuscript to which we
and Brockelmann referred. That is why this edition was important to our second
edition of the treatise. By reviewing it, it was possible for us to reread some of
the unclear expressions of the manuscript [published in our first edition], and to
amend some words so that they would be more suitable. However, we noticed
many errors and misreadings which reduce the importance of this edition.
The idea and method of this treatise

In this treatise, al-Khattabl says that people in ancient and modern times went
to great lengths about its purport but reached no conclusion. He discusses the
concept of the sarfa (turning away)1 and of the Qur’an’s foretelling of future
events, but he does not accept them as an explanation for the secrets of its Tjaz.
He turns to the topic of the Qur’an’s eloquence and finds fault with believers
in it who merely depend on tradition, who have neglected investigation and
who are unable to persuade [others]. He then deals with the subject in his own
way and mentions the three elements of commendable speech. He states that
the Qur’an’s eloquent qualities have partaken of each of these elements and
have thus achieved a kind of speech that combines gravitas and delight which,
if taken separately, are like opposites. That is why their combination in the
nazm (the well-arrayed style) of the Qur’an is a virtue specific to it, which the
All-Knowing, the Most Kind [God] has made possible so that it may be a clear
miracle of His prophet. Humans have rather been unable to imitate it because
their learning does not encompass all the words of the language and their usages,
and human comprehension is unable to perceive all the meanings of the things
denoted by those words, and human knowledge is ever too incomplete to fully
apprehend all the styles in which those words harmonize and interconnect with
one another.
The Qur’an is only inimitable because it is conveyed by the most eloquent
words arrayed in the most beautiful styles of composition, and because it contains
ANALYSIS OF THE THREE TREATISES 3
the most perfect ideas concerning the unity [of God], what is permissible and
what is forbidden etc. And it is known that coming up with such matters
and combining their diversities in a manner so that they become [undoubtedly]
orderly and harmonious is something that the power of human beings is
incapable of.
The essence of the rhetorical eloquence that has all these qualities consists
of putting each word that is part of speech in its specific and most suitable
place among all the words of different kinds. This is the reason why people
gave up and shrank from imitating the Qur’an because to imitate it was an
insurmountable burden and caused them insuperable difficulty.
Al-Khattabl refutes the specious arguments of objectors to the style of
the Qur’an.
What is interesting in al-Khattabi’s treatise is the analysis he offers of certain
texts in a beautiful artistic way. He reveals in it his literary taste and his insight
into the locations of beauty in speech. At the end of his treatise, he mentions
another aspect of iljaz which, he says, people have neglected to recognize -
namely, the Qur’an’s effect on people’s hearts and its influence on their souls. It
is to be observed that this idea is the one around which cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjanl’s
investigation revolves in his Asrar al-Balagha, for he considers the source of
rhetorical eloquence in speech to be its influence on souls.2
The second treatise

It is Al-Nukat ft Ijaz al-Quân by Abu al-Hasan cAh ibn flsa al-Rummani. In
editing it, we depended on three manuscripts:
(A) A manuscript in the Baghdadli Wahbl Library in Asetaneh [Istanbul |, of

which there is a photocopy in the Municipal Library of Alexandria, taken from
a microfilm in the Institute of Manuscripts that belongs to the League of Arab
States. On its title page, there is [the] number 62 and the title:
Kitab al-Nukat fl Icjaz al-Qur’an

Written by al-Shaykh al-Imam Abu al-Hasan lAli ibn Asa al-Rummani
who died in 384 ah, may God Most High have mercy on him
The manuscript ends with the date 652 AH when it was copied by the pen of
Muhammad cAbd aMAzlz al-Ansarl, and it is written in nafis script. It consists
of 22 folios and has 17 lines to a page, with 10 to 12 words per line. Some pages
have corrections in the margin and some others have waqf seals and the name
of the collection. We have adopted this manuscript as the primary one, and
reviewed the following two manuscripts according to it.
(B) The second manuscript is the first copy of two in the Taymuriyya
Collection at Dar al-Kutub Library [in Cairo], and its number is 298 Tafsir
Khatt. On its title page there is the following text in the handwriting of Ahmad
ibn Isma'll ibn Muhammad Taymur:
This is one of the manuscripts we copied in Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] at the

Budayriyya Library.
And in the last line, there is the following:
It appears that Chapter 10 on “Beautiful Rendition” [beginning] on page 49 is

missing from this manuscript.
It ends with a colophon that says:
The [copying of this] manuscript was completed by the poor and weak servant
[of God] Muhammad Amin ibn al-Shaykh 'Umar al-Danaf al-Ansarl, servant of
al-Haram al-Sharif and al-Masjid al-Aqsa al-Munlf [i.e., the Noble Sanctuary
and the Exalted Farthest Mosque], may God forgive him, his parents and all the
Muslims. Amen. 15 Rabi' II, of the year 1318 AH.
The manuscript is written in clear naskh script, and we refer to it [in this book]
by the symbol Tl.
(C) The third manuscript is the second copy of the two in the Taymuriyya
Collection [in Dar al-Kutub Library in Cairo], and its number is 534 Tafsir
Khatt. It is written in modern script and dated 1318 AIL It is by the pen of the
same copyist as the second manuscript and is of the same size, and we refer to
it [in this book] by the symbol T2.
The two Taymuriyya manuscripts, Tl and T2, are copied from the same
original manuscript preserved at the Budayriyya Library in al-Quds [Jerusalem],
and it is a copy narrated by al-Qadi Abu al-Hasan ibn al-Husayn who died in
the year 492 AH.3
Analysis of the treatise

The treatise is in the form of an answer to a question posed to the author
asking him to “review the subtleties of the Qur’an’s i^jaz without long
arguments”. The answer can be summarized in that aspects of [the Qur’an’s]
i^jaz are evident in seven things: [1] abandonment of imitation [of the Qur’an]
despite abundant motives and great need; [2] challenge to all; [3] the sarfa\
[4] eloquence; [5] true foretelling of future events; [6] breach of custom; and
[7] comparison of it with all other miracles.
Of these seven things, the author directs his attention to eloquence
and says that it is of three classes: one is of the highest class; another is
of the lowest class; and another is intermediate between the highest class and
the lowest. After the author explains each of these, he confines eloquence
to ten categories,4 which arc: [1] concision (al-ijaz)’, [2] simile (al-tashbihy,
[3] metaphor (al-istFara)’, [4] harmony (al-talcPum)’, [5] periodic rhyme and
assonance {al-fawasilf, [6] paronomasia (al-tajanus')’, [7] variation (al-tasrify,
[8] implication (al-tadmm)’, [9] hyperbole {al-mubalaghd)\ and [10] beautiful
rendition (husn al-baydn).
He then continues and explains these categories one by one, defining the
topic and dividing it into parts, and giving examples of each by quoting a
succession of verses from the Qur’an. He rarely quotes lines of poetry or
proverbs in prose, unless there is a need to compare the Qur’anic verses with
instances of similar meaning in Arabic usage.
Having finished with defining the ten categories of eloquence he intended,
he offers a few pages at the end of his book to define the other six things
he referred to at the beginning of the book which, with rhetorical eloquence
(al-balagha'), constitute aspects of faz in his opinion.
The author’s style in dealing with his subject is scholarly and logical, and it
needs effort to be understood in many places. It is dominated by a theological
stamp and particularly a Muhazilite intent in interpreting the Qur’an.
The third treatise

It is Al-Risala al-Shafiya ft al-F-jaz by cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjanl.
In editing it, we depended on a manuscript photocopied from the original
preserved in the collection of Dar al-Kutub [in Cairo], The first page of the
treatise in the collection begins with number 190 and ends with number 208.
It is written in clear and vocalized naskh script marred by many orthographic
and vocalization errors. On the first page, there is the following sentence in the
copyist’s handwriting: “This treatise is taken from his book entitled Dal&il
al-Fjazy By referring to the printed book Data'll al-Rjaz, we found out that the
text of this treatise is not taken from it [word for word]. The treatise consists
of 18 folios of medium size, plus a few lines. It has 18 lines per page, each with
12 to 14 words. It is not dated, and some pages have w^/'seals.
Analysis of the treatise

In this treatise, cAbd al-Qahir [al-Jurjani] deals with some aspects of the
concept of i^jaz, particularly the proof of ifaz on the strength of the inability
of the Arabs to imitate (mu'-arada') the Qur’an. He states that the crucial factor
6 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
here is the inability of the Arabs who were contemporaries of the Messenger
[of God], peace be upon him, and not orators and eloquent men who lived
in later times. On this basis, cAbd al-Qahir [al-Jurjani] goes on to study the
conditions of the Arabs when the Qur’an was recited to them and they were
challenged by it.
The indication of conditions is that people customarily do not concede to
their enemies any virtue when they find a way to deny. cAbd al-Qahir [al-Jurjani |
discusses this point at length and gives examples of the conditions known
concerning society and poets [at this time].
Of the many reports available, he tells those of Ibn al-Mughira, cUtba ibn
Rabi'a and Abu Dharr. He concludes that, on the basis of these conditions and
reports, it must be decisively said that the Qur’an is a miracle, because its breach
of custom is akin to turning a stick into a serpent and to resuscitating the dead
as an evidential proof to all people.
In the course of his treatise, cAbd al-Qahir [al-Jurjani] turns his attention
to matters in the literary field and shows that poets vary as to their ranks and
the degrees of eloquence and ineloquence in their verse. Then at the end of
his treatise, he discusses the concept of the sarfa and refutes the arguments of
those who believe in it. He supplements his treatise with brief, independent
sections in which he explains some aspects of the topic further and responds to
certain objections.
It is evident from the organization of this treatise that cAbd al-Qahir
[al-Jurjani] wrote it to confirm the reality of i^jaz, and not to demonstrate its
subtleties. As for discussing in detail the subtleties of ijaz with regard to the
eloquence of speech and its nazm (word choice and arrangement), cAbd al-Qahir
[al-Jurjani] went into detail discussing it in his independent large book he
entitled Dalatil al-Fjaz, which is a well-known printed book. At the end of our
“Comments and additions”,5 we have included a sufficient portion of it to show
his point of view about the rhetorical aspects of iljaz so that the benefit might be
completed and the concept perfected.
Muhammad Khalaf-Allah
Muhammad Zaghlrd Sallam
Alexandria, 1376 AH/ 1956 CE
Notes
1 A belief that God turned the Arabs away from imitating the Qur’an by taking away their
competence and knowledge to do so. Translator.
2 This idea was explained and discussed by M. Khalaf-Allah in his book Min al-Wujha
al-Nafsiyyafi Dirasat al-Adab wa Naqdih, Chapter 4 (Cairo, 1947).
3 He was a qadi (a judge) and a faqih (a jurist) originally from Mosul, who came to Cairo and
studied jurisprudence according to the ShafTite School. He studied with cAbd al-Rahman
ibn al-Nahhas and Abu Sacid al-Mallnl, and ended up being awarded cUluww al-Isnad in
Cairo. He was a judge for some time, then he resigned and became a recluse. He was said to
be a religious and pious man. Abu Nasr al-Shirazi collected twenty volumes of his work and
entitled them Al-KhiNyyat. Among his other books is Al-Mughnifi al-Fiqh in four volumes.
He was born in 405 ah and lived [a] long [life]; he died at the age of eighty-eight in the year
492 AH and was buried at al-Qarafa Cemetery in Cairo. Sec Ibn Khallikan, ed. Muhyl al-Din,
2:7, and Ibn al-cImaad, 3:398.
4 See “Comments and additions” [which follows the three treatises in this book, pages 117-
118], [where] we gave a brief account of the development of the terminology of the science
of rhetoric up to the fourth century AH in which al-Rummani and al-Khattabi lived.
5 See [“Comments and additions”, part (3), pages 142-147].
The first treatise
Bayan Fjaz al-Qur’an

(Elucidation of the Qur’an’s Fjaz)
by
Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad

ibn Ibrahim al-Khattabi
319 ah-388 aii

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
And may God hless and grant peace to Muhammad and his family
On the elucidation of the Qur’an’s /jaz

Abu Sulayman said:1
People have spoken a lot on this subject in old and modern times. They
went to great lengths but reached no conclusion, as we have come to find out.
The reason is the difficulty in knowing the essence of fyaz in the Qur’an and in
knowing how to understand its manner. As for [the Qur’an] being established2
in the mind as a text incapacitating human beings and impossible of ever being
imitated in any way, this thought has no place [in our study], for the truth of
the matter is so clear that we don’t need to prove it by more than mentioning
the current state of affairs which has been continuing since [the Qur’an] was
revealed and up to our present time. The Prophet, may God bless him and grant
him peace, challenged all the Arabs to come up with one sura (chapter) like it;
but they were unable to do that and they gave up. The Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace, continued to ask them to do that for twenty years;
he reproached them severely, disparaged their religions, and discredited their
opinions and discernment. So they declared [a] war on him in which many died,
blood was shed, family relationships were cut off and wealth was lost.
If the [Qur’an] imitation was within their power, they would not have
taken upon themselves those serious matters, nor would they have undertaken
those destructive acts or abandoned the mild ease of just using words, adopting
instead the onerous difficulty of rugged deeds. This is not what a rational man
would do or an intelligent person would choose. The Prophet’s tribe of Quraysh
was particularly known to be a people of grave discernment, ample minds and
great intellects. They had eloquent orators and sublime poets among them.
God Most High described them in His Book as argumentative and quarrelsome,
and He said, praise be to Him, “[T]hey did not cite him [i.e., Jesus] to you as
an example save to dispute; indeed, they are a contentious people” (Q. 43:58).
And He said, praise be to Him, “and warn with it a people given to contention”
(Q. 19:97). In keeping with Arab speech and according to current custom, and
with the presence of need and the exigency of necessity, how was it possible for
them to ignore it, to overlook it, and not seize the opportunity and realize success
and victory if it were not for their inability and their preventing incapacity?
It is known that if a rational man is very thirsty and fears dying of thirst, and
if there is water near him that he can drink but he does not drink it and thus
dies of thirst, [we should judge3] him to have been unable to drink it and to
have had no power to do so. This is clear and not difficult for any rational person
to understand.
Among the many things said about it, I say that this is the clearest evidence
and the easiest to understand; for it will persuade anyone who wants to know
the manner of ijaz as an essential aspect of the Qur’an.
Some people believe that the cause of the Qur’an’s faz is sarfa - that is,
the “turning away” of people’s intentions to imitate it although imitation would
have been possible and it would have not been impossible to achieve. They
argue that, since the hindrance is something beyond the customary, it becomes
a miracle like all other miracles. They say that if God, may He be exalted, had
sent a prophet in the era of prophecies and designated his miracle to be moving
his hand or stretching his leg as he sat among his people, and he was asked,
“What is your miracle [that would confirm the truth of your revelation]?” and
he said, “My miracle is to move my hand or stretch my leg, and no[t] one of
you will be able to do like me”, and he moved his hand or stretched his leg
and they tried to do likewise but could not do so, even when they had healthy
bodies and with no defects in any of their limbs - then this is a miracle indicating
his truthfulness. The truth of a miracle does not depend on the magnitude of
what a prophet performs or on the magnificence of his appearance but rather on
its being a matter that transcends the customary and is a breach of it. Whenever
it is of such quality, it is a miracle indicating the truthfulness of the one
performing it. This would be a likely argument also, but there is a Qur’anic verse
that indicates the contrary where God, praise be to Him, says, “Say, ‘If mankind
and the jinn banded together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they would
not produce the like of it, even though they backed one another’ ” (Q. 17:88). In
this verse, He alludes to a matter that needs effort and diligence, and requires
preparation and coming together; whereas the meaning of the sarfa they have in
mind does not suit this description. So this indicates that the intended meaning
is something else — and God knows best.
Another group of people claims that the Qur’an’s ijaz consists of the
reports of future events that it contains, such as His saying, praise be to Him,
“Alif Lam Mim. The Byzantines have been defeated in the land nearby and,
after their defeat, they will be victorious in a few years” (Q. 30:1-3), and His
saying, praise be to Him, “Say to the Bedouin Arabs who were left behind, ‘You
shall be called [to fight] against a people of great might’” (Q. 48:16), and similar
reports whose predications came true. I say: there is no doubt that this and
similar others of the Qur’an’s reports are one of its kinds of if az manifestations
but it is not a common matter that exists in every sura of the Qur’an; for God,
praise be to Him, has assigned if az as a quality to every sura by itself so that
no one in creation can produce the like, and He said, “Produce a sura like it
and call upon your helpers besides God, if you are truthful” (Q. 2:23) without
specifying [a particular set of suras], and this shows that the meaning cannot be
what they have said it was.
Others claimed that the Qur’an’s if az is connected to its rhetorical
eloquence,4 and these are the majority of scholarly theoreticians. However, it
r
THE FIRST TREATISE 13
is in explaining how this may be so that they encounter problems which are
difficult for them to resolve. I found that most of those who hold this opinion
have accepted this quality of the Qur’an with a sort of uncritical belief as a kind
of postulation without investigation and learned circumstantiation. That is why,
when they are asked to define this rhetorical eloquence specific to the Qur’an
that exceeds others in quality, and to give the sense in which it is distinguished
from other kinds of speech qualified as eloquent, they say, “We cannot describe
it or define it in a way showing clearly the difference of the Qur’an from other
speech; but, on hearing it, those who know it will recognize it as a kind of
indefinable knowledge.” They also refer to other kinds of speech in which there
are qualitative degrees of superiority that those who know will recognize on
hearing, and it will be distinguished in their minds as surpassing in excellence
that speech which it has bettered.
They say that the reason for this may not be detected on investigation but its
effect on one’s soul is so clear that it does not go unnoticed by the learned and
those who know it. They say that a certain instance of speech may have harmony
in one’s hearing and tenderness in one’s soul that another does not possess, even
though both speech samples are eloquent; and yet, no cause for that [difference
in effect] can be discerned.
I say that this is not convincing in a science like this one and that it does
not heal one’s ignorance of it. It is only an ambiguity turned into vagueness.
Someone has given an example of this by citing the verses which Jarir ascribed
to Dhu al-Rumma. Narrators have mentioned that Jarir passed one day by
Dhu al-Rumma who had just composed his poem that begins as follows:
Your eyes were far off from the remains of an abandoned encampment in Huzwa
Effaced by the wind as the caravan of camels was setting out on its way.
He said to him, “Shall I provide you with verses you may add to it?”
Dhu al-Rumma said, “Yes.” So Jarir said:
Genealogists consider the tribe of Tamim

As four great houses of glory:
They consider al-Rabab and Al Taym
And Say and the good Hanzala.
Among them, others are seen as null
Like annulled dialogue in settling blood money.
So Dhu al-Rumma added the verses to his poem. Al-Farazdaq then passed by
him [another time] and asked him whether he had composed any new poetry, so
he recited the poem to him. When he reached these [added] verses, al-Farazdaq
said, “These are not of your composition, for the one who added them is twice
14 THREE TREA TISES ON THE FJAZOF THE QUR’AN
as strong as you!” He recognized [the added verses] by his natural disposition

and became aware of them by his subtle intellect.
As for the one who is not satisfied with knowledge associated with mere
appearances and insists on investigating the deep causes, not being convinced
by initial proofs until he supports them by test results, he says that the harmony
of this speech in one’s hearing and the tenderness in one’s soul, as well as the
beauty and splendour by which it differs from all other speech and has such an
effect on people’s hearts and minds that everyone agrees that it is incomparable
and inimitable speech discouraging all ambitions from matching it - [he says
these] are matters that must have a cause necessitating such judgement and
making them merit such a description. We have therefore examined the external
qualities of such speech and its intrinsic traits, and we have found that none of
these can be confirmed by theory, amenable to analogy or agreeable to general
standards. We concluded that the idea [of iâz] should be sought for itself and
be thoroughly examined with regard to itself. Deep thought and consideration
of available speech examples indicate that its cause6 consists of the fact that
there are different kinds of speech, that their positions in relative rankings
are disparate, and that their degrees of rhetorical eloquence are dissimilar and
unequal. Of these kinds, one is eloquent, sedate and copious; another is clear,
accessible and easy; and a third is permissive, unrestrained and leisurely. And
these kinds form all types of good, praiseworthy speech rather than the ignoble
and blameworthy kind, of which nothing at all exists in the Qur’an.
The first type is the highest and most sublime class of speech; the second
is the intermediate and most direct; and the third is the most intelligible and
the most accessible. The Qur’an’s rhetorical eloquence partakes of all these
types and has a portion of each of these species. By blending these qualities,
it has achieved a pattern of speech that combines magnificence and harmony
which, taken separately, are like two opposites because harmony is a result
of facility (al-suhuld), and copiousness and hardness in speech lead to a kind
of roughness. The combination of these two in its composition, despite their
mutual incongruity, is a virtue specific to the Qur’an that God has made possible
by His subtle power so that it may be a clear miraculous sign for His Prophet
and a proof of the truth of the religion he called for.
It has been impossible for human beings to produce the like of the Qur’an
for many reasons, some of which arc the following: their knowledge is not
sufficiently comprehensive to include all the terms of the Arabic language and
all its words which are the vehicles and conveyors of ideas, nor are their minds
able to understand the meanings of the things conveyed by those words, nor is
their knowledge liable to be perfected in order to exhaustively apprehend all
aspects of composition in which these words can be combined to have concord
and binding relationship with one another, so that these human beings may come
to choose the most excellent (al-afdal) rather than the most beautiful (al-ahsan)
in composition and may produce speech like the Qur’an. Indeed, speech consists
of these three things: words conveying meaning; ideas subsisting in words; and
composition organizing both. If you contemplate the Qur’an, you will find these
matters in it of the highest degree of excellence to the extent that you will not
discover any word more eloquent, more copious or more harmonious than its
words, nor will you discover any composition more beautiful, more concordant
or more appropriate than its composition. As for the ideas in it, it is clear to any
intelligent person that they are what minds will testify to having precedence
in their subject matter and to rising up to the highest ranks of refinement in
their qualities.
These three virtues may exist separately in a variety of speech kinds.
But gathered together in one kind, this will only be found in the Speech of
the All-Knowing, the Almighty, Whose knowledge comprehends everything
in essence and number.
Therefore, understand now and know that the Qur’an is miraculously
inimitable because it has come forth with the most eloquent words compounded
in the most beautiful composition containing the most valid ideas such as
believing in the unity of God, may His power be exalted, declaring Him to be
transcendent in His qualities, calling [humanity] to His obedience, elucidating
the way of worshiping Him, as well as prescribing what is permitted and what
is prohibited, what is forbidden and what is allowed, in addition to admonishing
and correcting, commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil, and
guiding to good qualities (al-akhlaq) and restraining from bad ones. In all this,
it has put every one of these things in its place which cannot be substituted by a
more appropriate one, and nothing can be imagined that is more suitable than it.
The Qur’an has included reports about past ages and about God’s chastisement
of past people who disobeyed and stubbornly resisted; it has also informed
about future events in the remaining ages of time; and thus, it has combined
argument and vindication, proof and result, so that what it has called for, what it
has commanded and what it has prohibited may be of more emphatic exigency.
It is well known that to accomplish such matters and combine their diverse
parts so that they may be organized and harmonious is a thing that humans are
unable to do and their powers cannot attain. And so, people have given up and
have been unable to produce an imitation {muârada) of the Qur’an in meaning
or a contradiction (munaqadd) of it in form. Then those who stubbornly resisted
it and disbelieved it, and refused to acknowledge it said, at one time, that it was
verse (sAzV) when they saw it in the form of rhythmic speech; and, at another
time, they said that it was magic (sihr) when they saw it incapacitated them. They
observed that it had an impact on their hearts and a striking effect on their souls
which rendered them suspicious and puzzled. They could not but recognize
it somehow, and so one of them said, “It has some sweetness and it has some
beauty.” Because of their ignorance and their puzzlement, they said at one time,
“tables of the ancients he has had written down, and they are dictated to him
morning and evening” (Q. 25:5), although they knew that the one saying [the
1ft THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
words] was illiterate and there was no one present to dictate to him or write for
him. And [they said] similar things, the gist of which was to show their ignorance
and incapacity. God, may He be exalted, said about one of their recalcitrant and
devilish men - who was said to be al-Walld ibn al-Mughlra al-Makhzuml - that,
after he had thought long about the Qur’an, was annoyed by it and had racked
his brain in search of something to say, he could say nothing more than, “This
is nothing but the speech of a human being” (Q. 74:25), out of stubbornness and
ignorance of the truth, refusing the evidence and [demonstrating] his inability
to counter it. God, Most High,7 described that condition and great puzzlement
of his by saying, may He be praised, “He reflected and calculated. May death
seize him, how he calculated! Again, may death seize him, how he calculated!
Then he thought. Then he frowned and scowled. Then he turned away and was
haughty. And he said, ‘This is nothing but magic handed down. This is nothing
but the speech of a human being’” (Q. 74:18—25).
Whatever the story was, the Qur’an was miraculously inimitable by their
own admission in words and by their inability to imitate it in fact; and in this
lies the evidence and the confirmation of the miracle - praise be to God.8
Furthermore, know that the essence of rhetorical eloquence combining these
qualities is putting every kind of word contained in speech in the most specific
and suitable place for it. If this place is exchanged for another, the result is
either the change of meaning (which is the corruption of speech) or the loss of
beauty (which is the breakdown of rhetorical eloquence). For in speech, there
are words close in meaning9 which most people think are equal in expressing the
intention of discourse such as: “learning” (al-Wm) and “knowledge”
“praising” (al-hamd) and “thanking” (al-shukr), “miserliness” (al-bukhl) and
“niggardliness” (al-shuhh), “adjective” (al-naty and “quality”; (al-sifa) or as
when you say “sit up” and “sit down”, “yes indeed” and “yes”, “that” and
“this”, “from” and “about”, and other similar nouns, verbs, prepositions and
qualifications which we will mention in detail later on. The fact is that linguists
think otherwise about these words and their order, because each word has a
quality that distinguishes it from another in some of its meanings although it
may share some of them with it. You say “I knew” and “I learned” when you
want to confirm the removal of ignorance. But when you say “I knew”, this
requires one object like “I knew Zayd”; but “I learned” requires two objects as
when you say “I learned Zayd was rational”. That is why “knowing” came to
be used specially in expressing the unity of God, Most High and confirming
His essence. So you say “I knew God” and you don’t say “I learned God” unless
you add to the latter an attribute; and you say “I knew God is just” and “I knew
God is powerful” and other similar attributes.
The truth of the matter here is that “learning” [al-(ilm] is the opposite
of “ignorance” [al-jahl\ and “knowledge” [al-ma^rifa] is the opposite of
“incognizance” [al-nakira]. “Praising” [al-hamd] and “thanking” [al-shukr] may
have a common meaning also: “praising God for His blessings” means “thanking
Him for them”. But “thanking” may be different from “praising” in several
ways; “praising” in the first place may mean “lauding”, but “thanking” can
only be used for “requital”. You say, “I praised Zayd” to mean “I lauded him
for his good manners and conduct”, although he may not have done you any
favor. You say, “I thanked Zayd” when you want to requite him for a favor
rendered to you. Furthermore, “thanking” may be in words as in “praising”
and it may likewise be in acts, as in His saying, may He be exalted, “Work, O
House of David, in thankfulness” (Q. 34:13). If you would like to know the true
difference in meaning between the two words, you would consider the opposite
of each one of them, for the opposite of “praising” is “blaming” [al-dhamm\,
and the opposite of “thanking” is “being ungrateful” \al~kujran\. Additionally,
“praising” may be used for what is liked and what is disliked; but “thanking” is
used only for what is liked.
As for [the difference between] “niggardliness” [al-shuhh] and “miserliness”
[al-bukhl\ some people claim that “miserliness” is depriving others of their
due, while “niggardliness” is the begrudging rancor that a niggard feels when
rendering what is due and letting it go out of his hand. That is why it was said,
“A niggard is more inexcusable than an oppressor.” I have found this meaning
to be contrary to what was narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud, for Ahmad
ibn Ibrahim ibn Malik said, “'Umar ibn Hafs al-Sadusi said to us: Al-Mas'udi
told us on the authority of Jami' ibn Shaddad on the authority of Abu al-Sha'tha’
who said, ‘I said to 'Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud: “O Abu 'Abd al-Rahman, I am afraid
that I have irretrievably perished.” He said, “Why is that?” I said, “Because I
heard God saying, ‘And whoso are guarded against the niggardliness of their
souls - these are the successful ones’ (Q. 59:9). And I am a niggardly man, and
hardly anything goes out of my hand.” He said, “That is not the niggardliness
mentioned by God in the Qur’an. Niggardliness is rather the encroachment
on the wealth of your brother unjustly. But that [which you speak about] is
miserliness - and what an evil it is!’””
As for “adjective” \al-mdt\ and “quality” [«/-«/«] the latter is more general
and the former is more specific; for example, you say, “Zayd is rational and
forbearing” and “'Amr is ignorant and insolent”. Likewise, you say, “Zayd is
black and ugly” and “'Amr is white and handsome”. Applied to them, those
would be “qualities” [in the former two examples] and “adjectives” [in the latter
two]. An “adjective” is hardly used except in describing a trait that doesn’t go
away and doesn’t change such as tallness and shortness, blackness and whiteness,
and similar matters that are intrinsic.
As for someone saying to a friend, “Sit down” [uqûd} and “Sit up” [y/A]
we were told on the authority of aLNadr ibn Shumayl that he entered into
the presence of al-Ma’mun when the latter came to Merv. Al-Ma’mun said
to him, “Sit up.” He replied, “O Commander of the Faithful, I am not lying
down to be told ‘Sit up’.” The caliph asked, “What would you say?” He replied,
“Sit down.” So al-Ma’mun commanded that he be given an award.
The explanation of what al-Nadr ibn Shumayl said becomes clear when
you consider the idiomatic use of the two words together in comparison. You
say, “Standing up and sitting down” and you say, “Mobility and stability”. We
don’t hear people say, “Standing up and sitting up”. People rather say, “The
man sat down after standing up” and “He sat up after lying down” and the like.
As for using “yes indeed” [bala\ and “yes” [naâm], the former is used
in answer to a negative question as when someone asks, “Did you not do
such-and-such?” and his friend answers, “Yes indeed” as God, may He be
exalted, said, “Am I not your Lord? They said, ‘Yes indeed’” (Q. 7:172). As for
“yes”, it is used in answer to a [positive] question, as God, may He be praised,
said, “Have you found what your Lord promised you to be true?”, and they will
say, “Yes” (Q, 7:44).
Al-Farra’ said, “‘Yes indeed’ is only used in response to a question in
which there is denial.” It was related that he said, “When the descendants were
asked [by God], ‘Am I not your Lord?’ if they answered, ‘Yes’ instead of ‘Yes
indeed’, they would have all been unbelievers” [for it would then mean, “Yes,
You are not our Lord”].
As for “this” and “that”, the former is used to point to something near
you, and “that” to something far from you.
As for “from” [min] and “on” [Hw] they differ in several ways, such as when
you say, “I took money from him” and “I took learning on [his authority]”. If
you say, “I heard words from him”, you mean you heard them from his mouth;
but if you say, “I heard a hadith on [his authority]”, this means it is reported [by
others to you]. This is the apparent meaning of the [two] words in most cases,
although in some places their sense may be close. A topic similar to this one is
what Muhammad ibn Sa'dawayh reported to me. He said: Muhammad ibn cAbd
Allah ibn al-Junayd said, “Muhammad ibn al-Nadr ibn Musawir said, ‘JaTar ibn
Sulayman related to us on the authority of Malik ibn Dinar who said, “Al-Hasan
brought us together (me, Abu al-cAliya al-Riyahi, Nasr ibn cAsim al-Laythi
and cAsim al-Jahdari) in order to discuss the Qur’an and a man said, ‘O Abu
al-cAliya, God Most High says in His Book, “So woe to those who pray but are
distracted from their prayers” (Q. 107:5-6), what is this distraction?’ He said,
‘It refers to the person [in the act of prayer] who is not aware of the number [of
genuflections] to be still performed, whether it should be even or odd.’ Al-Hasan
said, ‘Nay, O Abu al-Wliya, this is not it. [The verse] rather refers to those who
are distracted from the statutory time [of their ritual prayer] and so they miss
it.’ Al-Hasan added, ‘Don’t you see God’s words, may He be exalted, “from
their prayers”?””” And this report was related to us likewise by Abu Raja’
al-GhinwI, as related to him by Muhammad ibn al-Jahm al-Sijzi who related
it from al-Haytham ibn Khalid al-Minqari on the authority of Abu flkrima, on
the authority of JaYar ibn Sulayman, on the authority of Malik ibn Dinar. Abu
al-'Aliya was misguided in this because he did not differentiate between ân
[from] and fl [in]. Al-Hasan drew his attention saying, “Don’t you see God’s
words ‘from their prayers’?” This supports the idea that if the distraction causing
the error were in the number [of genuflections] and happening during the act
of performing the prayer, God would have said “in their prayers”; but as He
said “from their prayers” He indicated that the meaning was missing its time.
Similar to this is what al-Qutabl10 says about the saying of God, Most
High, “And he who turns away [ya(shu lan] from the remembrance of the
Compassionate, We shall assign a devil for him, who will be his companion”
(Q. 43:36). He claimed that [yaSZitt] is derived from the saying, [‘ashawtu
ila al-ndr\ “I looked at the fire”; but he was declared to be in error, for the
meaning of God’s saying is rather “he who turns away from the remembrance
of the Compassionate”. He did not distinguish between ‘ashawtu ila [I looked
at] something and ashawtu ‘an [I turned away from] something. This topic is of
great importance and error is often committed in it. A pure Arab [like al-Qutabl]
gave it his attention but he did not do well in dealing with it.
cAbd al-cAziz ibn Muhammad al-Maskini related to me that Ishaq ibn
Ibrahim said: Suwayd related to us saying that Ibn Mubarak said on the
authority of cIsa ibn cAbd al-Rahman who said, “Talha al-Yami said on the
authority of cAbd al-Rahman ibn cAwsaja on the authority of al-Bara’ ibn cAzib
that an Arab Bedouin came to the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him
peace, and said, ‘Teach me to do an act that will admit me to Paradise’, so the
Prophet said, ‘Free a person and liberate a neck.’ The man asked, ‘Are not the
two the same?’ The Prophet replied, ‘No. Freeing a person is merely to just
set him free, but liberating a neck is to help in paying the price [of the freed
slave].’” And so, contemplate how the Prophet organized the two statements,
each requiring a specific meaning denoting a distinct intention.
cAbd Allah ibn Asbat related to me on the authority of his teachers that
[Caliph] Harun al-Rashid brought Sibawayh and al-Kisa’I together in a meeting,
and that Sibawayh asked al-Kisa’i the following question, “Is it [grammatically]
permissible to say, ‘A hornet is almost a scorpion; it is as if he is her [iyyahd], or
she is him [iyyahu\.'"}} Al-Kisa’i said it was permissible and means “as if he is
she [hiya] or she is he [huwa]” . But Sibawayh disagreed. So al-Rashid brought
in a group of eloquent Arab Bedouins residing near the [palace] gate and asked
them about the matter in the presence of the two [grammarians]. They declared
that Sibawayh’s saying was correct and that al-Kisa’i’s was not permissible. It
was opined that this is so because the pronoun iyya is used in the accusative case
only, and here its position in the sentence requires it to be in the nominative case
[huwa or Azj/a]; therefore it [iyyahu or iyyahd] is not permissible. Such matters
are numerous and a thorough study of them would be too long.
Hence, many forebears (al-salaf) dreaded commenting on the Qur’an {tafsir)
and avoided saying anything in this regard lest they should err and go beyond
what was intended, even if they were linguists and well-versed in religion.
Al-Asmaci, who was the leader of philologists, used to refrain from explaining
any of the Qur’an’s uncommon or obscure words. It is related that he was asked
20 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OF THE QUR'AN
about the saying of God, may He be praised, “He infatuated her [shaghafaha}
with love” (Q. 12:30). 12 He was silent, then said, “This is in the Qur’an” and
he quoted the saying of some Arabs about a slave-girl of theirs they wanted to
sell, “Will you sell her when she is a pericardium \shaghaf\ to you?” or some
similar words - and he did not add anything to that.
That is why [Prophet Muhammad], may God bless him and grant him
peace, urged learning the Qur’an’s grammar and seeking the meanings of the
uncommon or obscure words in it. Ismael ibn Muhammad al-Saffar related to
us and said: Muhammad ibn Wahb al-Thaqafi related to me saying: Muhammad
ibn Sahl al-cAskari said to me, cIbn Abi Za’ida reported to me on the authority of
cAbd Allah ibn Sahd al-Maqbarl, on the authority of his father, on the authority
of Abu Hurayra who said, “The Messenger of God, may God bless him and
grant him peace, said, ‘Learn the Qur’an’s grammar and seek [the meanings of]
its obscure words.’”
And thus, if you know all these matters, you will realize that the people were
afraid of imitating the Qur’an and that they flinched because of the difficulties
they felt they would have in doing that. They clearly recognized the places
of those difficulties and knew the criteria and the learning they needed, and
knew that they would be unable to match them. So they abandoned the idea
of imitation because of their inability, and they moved towards combating it
because of their ignorance. But their fate in what they fled from was [as bad] as
their fate in what they were afraid of; “Thus they were vanquished there, and
they returned humiliated” (Q. 7:119), praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds.
Suppose it was said [in argument], “When we recite the Qur’an and
contemplate it, we find that most of its speech is made up of words commonly
used in the conversations and dialogues of the Arabs, and that the portion of
obscure difficult words in it is small in relation to the vast part which is clear.” The
number of its [excellent] passages and beautiful words in relation to its common
and plain ones is meagre. How would they come to believe that they were unable
to imitate it and bring forth something like it, when they were eloquent Arabs
able to move freely in the valleys of speech, knowledgeable, as they were, about
its styles in verse, rajaz^' rhymed prose and other arts? If they wanted and were
convinced of their ability to satisfy their desire, they would have done that with
case. But they were prevented from that by another idea that was stronger in
their minds and more advantageous to them as they thought, namely, to wage war
against [Prophet Muhammad], quickly destroy him and get rid of him. They did
not like to compete with him in words and to imitate him in speech, for that would
take time in discussion and criticism in which claims would be numerous, and
that would conceal the superiority of one speech over the other. Therefore, they
were inclined to this opinion aiming to defeat him and eliminate him, for they
thought they were more powerful than he was and better able to overcome him.
The clarification that we have offered about the qualities of the Qur’an’s
eloquence and its criteria that we have mentioned necessitate that we drop the
question [of imitating it] from being addressed to ourselves. We have claimed
that they are matters that no human being is capable of achieving, even if he
were the most eloquent and the most knowledgeable of people regarding speech
and the styles of rhetorical arts. We have mentioned the reason for that and we
have made clear the significance of it all. When dealing with eloquence as the
cause of the Qur’an’s inimitability, we have not limited ourselves to single words
of which its speech is made up, ignoring its content, which constitutes its ideas,
and overlooking its form, which organizes its composition.
With regard to the words of the language, a scholar14 said that they are one
of the three elements that only a prophet can have comprehensive knowledge
of. cUmar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, who in eloquence
was the cream of the crop, used to read the saying of God, may He be exalted,
“And fruits and abb" (Q. 80:31), and wonder what abb meant, and he would
think to himself and say, “What is abb?" Then [in self-deprecation,] he would
say, “This is affectation on your part, O Ibn al-Khattab.” Ibn cAbbas, who is
the interpreter par excellence of the Qur’an and the inheritor of its learning, used
to say, “I don’t know the meaning of hanan, ghislln or al-raqim. Is there any
gibberish in the language of the Arabs?” The meanings [of such words] were
only received from the exegetes who understood them according to the context
of the [Qur’an’s] discourse.1’
As for the ideas that the words convey, they are more difficult to conceive
because they are the result of pondering and cogitation. And as for the forms
of [word] organization, the need for culture and proficiency in achieving them
is even greater because they are the bridles of words and the reins of ideas
that control the flow of speech, joining one part of it with the next and creating
an image of it in the soul, and thus constituting rhetorical elucidation.
If the matter is as we have described, it is to be known that agility of the
tongue and fluency are not sufficient for it; nor is anyone who is endowed with
some spontaneous intuition and eloquence able to take up the cause and assume
the task [of imitating rhe Qur’an] unless he combines them with the other
criteria we have mentioned and in the manner we have specified. But this is out
of the question and utterly unattainable: “If mankind and jinn were to gather
together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like
thereof, even if they should back one another” (Q. 17:88).
As for what they say about the paucity of uncommon words in the Qur’an
in relation to the plain ones in it, uncommonness of words is not one of
the criteria we mentioned in defining eloquence. Barbarous uncommon words
occur frequently only in the speech of barbarous people and in that of the
uncivil brutish Arabs who have embraced arrogance and don’t know how to
organize speech and choose the best words and styles for it. Such speech is
not considered the most excellent. The most preferable is rather the moderate
pattern that the Qur’an has come by, for it joins eloquence and magnificence
to fluency and facility. Among adjectives meaning “tall”, there are about
22 THREE TREATISES ON THE /'/AZOF THE QUR’AN
sixty that are considered uncommon or obscure, most of which are ugly and
hideous such as: âshannaq, '■ashamat, '■atannat, shawqab, shawdhab, salhab,
quq, qaq, tut and tat. Eloquent people have conventionally agreed to discard
them and abandon their use in plain speech and they preponderantly preferred
taml [tall]. This indicates that eloquence attaches no importance to the use
of uncommon or obscure words [as an enhancement] and does not utilize them
at all.
Suppose it is said, “We do not admit to your claim that the expressions
occurring in the Qur’an are the most eloquent and the most beautiful because we
find things in it that are contrary to this description in the opinion of linguists
and knowledgeable people, such as:16
“[1] His saying, ‘And the wolf ate him’ (Q. 12:17). In such a case, the verb to be
used for beasts of prey especially is ‘devour’, and it is said, ‘The beast devoured
him’. This is the preferred eloquent word for this meaning; as for ‘eating’, it is
general and not specific to any one kind of animal.
“[2] Similarly, His saying, ‘That is an easy measure’ (Q. 12:65). They say, ‘What
has “easy” or “difficult” to do with measurements of weight and volume, and
what do they have in common with all this? You do not hear an eloquent person
say, “I weighed an easy measure to Zayd” when he means it is little in number
or in quantity.’
“[3] Similarly, His saying, ‘And the leaders among them departed [saying],
“Walk, and be steadfast to your gods’” (Q. 38:6). Walking in this instance is
not the most eloquent of words; it would have been more eloquent and beautiful
if it had been said, ‘Walk away and hurry.’
“[4] Similarly, His saying, ‘My power has perished from me’ (Q. 69:29). The
word ‘perish’ is used for persons such as ‘Zayd perished’ or for a concrete
property such as ‘'Amr’s wealth perished’ and the like. As for matters that are
abstract ideas and not concrete things or persons, the word is hardly used in
them. If someone said, ‘So-and-So’s learning perished’ or ‘His dignity perished’,
meaning his learning and dignity were lost, that would be considered ugly and
not appreciated.
“[5] Similarly His saying, may He be praised, ‘And surely, he is strong in

loving good things’ (Q. 100:8). You do not hear an eloquent man say, ‘I am
strong in loving Zayd’ but the correct way of saying this is, ‘I am strongly in
love with Zayd, or with wealth, or the like.’
“[6] Similarly, His saying, may He be praised, ‘And those who do zakat
(charity)’ (Q; 23:4). No one says, ‘Zayd did charity’ but it is rather said, ‘The
man paid the zakat [dues] on his wealth’ or something like that.
“[7] Similarly, His saying, ‘Surely, those who believe and do works of
righteousness, unto them the Compassionate shall allot love’ (Q. 19:96). Who
ever says ‘I allotted affection and love to So-and-So’ meaning ‘I loved him’?
He would rather say, ‘I had affection for him’ and ‘I loved him’, or ‘I gave him
my love’ or something like that.
“[8] Similarly, His saying, ‘Say: Perhaps some of what you seek in a hurry
may be close behind you [radifa lakum}' (Q. 27:72). Radifa is a transitive verb
needing a direct object without the preposition la [therefore, radifakum would
be the correct way of saying this],
“[9] Similarly, His saying, ‘and whoso seeks to do wrong in it [the mosque]
unjustly [bi-ilhadf (Q. 22:25).
“[10] And similarly, His saying, ‘Have they not seen that God who created
the heavens and the earth and was not wearied by creating them has the
power (bi-qadir) [to give life to the dead ...]’ (Q. 46:33). He [incorrectly] used
the preposition bi in saying bi-ilhad [in the previous example] and bi-qadir [in
this one]. If it was said, ‘and whoso seeks to do ilhadan bi-zulmin' and ‘qadirun
to give life to the dead’, that would be correct speech with no difficulty or
confusion; for if it were grammatically permissible to use the preposition ba as
He did in bi-qadir, it would also be grammatically permissible to say, ‘I thought
Zayd is bi-kharij (going out) and this is not permissible at all [with bif”
-
They also said: “And among the examples in it of bad composition and
bad arrangement of speech that are not worthy of it is:
“[11] His saying, may He be praised, ‘As your Lord brought you out of your
house rightfully and a party of the believers were averse’ (Q. 8:5) just after
saying, ‘Those are the true believers; they have degrees with their Lord and
forgiveness and generous provision’ (Q. 8:4).
“[12] Likewise is His comparison of something with another, although there

is nothing in the earlier part of the statement to be compared with anything
in the later part, as in His saying, may He be praised, ‘Say: Surely, I am the
manifest warner. So We sent down to the dividers who had made the Qur’an
into fragments’ (Q, 15:89-91).
“[13] and His saying, may He be exalted, ‘As We sent to you a Messenger from
among yourselves’ (Q. 2:1 SI).”
They said: “And in the Qur’an, there is a lot of ellipsis and concision which
render its speech and meaning problematic:
“[14] like His saying, may He be praised, ‘And if there were a Qur’an by which
mountains could be moved or the earth could be cleft or the dead could be
spoken to (Q. 13:31) to the end of the verse, and then He did not mention
the apodosis [of the condition beginning with ‘if]. In that, there is truncation of
speech and invalidation of its meaning,
“[15] and His saying, may He be praised, ‘when they reach it, and its gates will
be opened (Q. 39:73) to the end of the verse, and others like it.
“[16] Then, on the contrary, there is repetition after repetition in it as in His

saying, may He be praised, in Surat al-Rahman (Q. 55), ‘Then which of your
Lord’s bounties will you two [humankind and jinn] deny?’
“[17] and in Surat al-Mursalat (Q. 77) ‘Woe on that day to those who reject
[the truth].’ Neither of these two styles [problematic concision and recurrent
repetition] is considered praiseworthy by language scholars, nor is it regarded
as the best kind of elucidative rhetoric.
“[18] Furthermore, an idea is sometimes introduced between two statements

and is not logically related to them and has nothing in common with them, as in
His saying, may He be praised, ‘Don’t move your tongue with it to hasten it; it
is for Us to collect it and recite it, then it is for Us to expound it’ (Q. 75:16—19)
immediately after His saying, ‘Nay, man is a witness against himself, even if
he may give his excuses’ (Q. 75:14-15), which is immediately followed by ‘No
indeed, you love the present life and you put aside the Hereafter’ (Q. 75:20-21).
This is not deemed beautiful, nor is it appreciated by rhetoricians and masters
of good expression. It is rather best for speech statements to be organized and
subdivided into sections, each having its own space and subject matter not
intruding on those of the others.”
[19] They said, “If the chapters of the Qur’an were organized in this [following]
order: reports and stories about nations in one sura, sermons and proverbs in
another, and legal prescriptions in yet another, this would have been a better
organization, more helpful in memorizing [the Qur’an], and clearer in indicating
the intention.”
This is among many other matters too numerous to list.
The response
What they said about the words of the Qur’an and its eloquence according to
the description we have given above is correct, and no one but an ignoramus
or a stubborn person would deny it. However, the meanings of those verses are
not as they interpreted them and the intentions of most of them are not what
they thought or imagined.
[1J With regard to His saying, may He be exalted, “And the wolf ate him”
(Q. 12:17), the meaning of “devouring” (iftiras) in a beast’s act is only “killing”,
originally derived from fars which is the “breaking of the neck”. They [sons
of Jacob] claimed that the wolf had eaten him [i.e., Joseph] completely, and
had swallowed all his limbs and the other parts of his body, and had not left any
joint or bone of him. That is because they feared their father would demand of
them to show a remainder of him that would testify to what they said. So they
claimed he was eaten in order to avoid such a demand, for the word “devour”
does not exactly give this meaning [that they wanted], and so it was not suitable
to express this idea except by “eating”. At any rate, “eating” is used commonly
for the wolf and other beasts.
Speaking of the vocabulary of the Arabs, Ibn al-Sikkit said, “The wolf ate
the sheep and did not leave any bit (tamur) of it.” One of their poets said:1 '
He is a young man who, to his cousin, is unlike the wolf

Who eats his companion if he ever sees him bleed.
Another poet said:18
O Abu Khurasha, if you have a group who will defend you,

My people have not ever been eaten by the hyena.
In a hadith about cUtba ibn Abi Lahab, [we learn] that after [Prophet
Muhammad], peace be on him, had called down evil upon him saying, “O God,
set on him one of Your dogs”, TJtba went to Syria to trade. When he stopped
to rest at a camp, a lion came and wandered about. [Expecting the worst,] cUtba
said, “The lion has eaten me!” [Finally] at a certain part in the night, the lion
got the better of him and smashed his head.
The meaning [of “eating”] may be broadened to include hamstringing,
and likewise biting and stinging. Abu cUmar reported to us saying, “Abu
al-cAbbas reported to us on the authority of Ibn al-Acrabi, on the authority of
Abu aEMakarim who said, ‘I passed by a sand hill and, near its edge, there was
a little boy who had a shawshab in his hand, so I said to his mother, “Take care
of the qama lest he should be eaten by that vermin (hamma)”' Abu al-cAbbas
explained, ‘A shawshab is a scorpion and a qama is a little boy.’”19
It was also reported that a Bedouin Arab said, “The fleas, they have eaten
me [up]”,2l) whereby he considered the stinging of fleas to be “eating”.
And there are many similar things like this in [Arabic] speech.
[2] As for His saying, may He be praised, “and we shall have in addition the
measure of a camel’s load. That is an easy measuring” (kayl yasir) (Q. 12:65),
the meaning of “measuring” (kayl) associated with the mention of the camel is
“the quantity measured” because [in Arabic] the verbal noun (masdar)2' can be
used in place of a noun (ism), as when it is said: This dirham is the coining of
the prince and this cloth is the weaving of Yemen, meaning, it is the coin of the
prince and the woven fabric of Yemen. The [verse’s] meaning is: “[Our baggage]
will increase by a camel’s load with the [additional] provision measured, if our
brother accompanies us.” Every person of them [Joseph’s ten brothers] could
have only one camel’s load because of the dearth of food, for that was during
the seven years of drought, and they could obtain food only from him [Joseph]
and could avail themselves of it only through his mediation. In this sense, the
verse says, “That is an easy measuring”, meaning “It is possible for us if we
make it happen by having our brother [Benjamin] accompany us.” The word
yasir (easy) is commonly used for things that are easy to do, just as the word
Qasir (difficult) is used for things that are difficult to do. That is why it is said,
yussira al-rajulu (the man has been disencumbered), when his cattle have brought
forth young ones and their offspring have increased in number. A poet said:
A man considers every night’s wealth to be of his own making

When he gets it from a disencumbered friend.
Another poet said:
They both claim they arc our lords, but

They rule us because their sheep gave birth prolifically.
Another explanation of kayl yasir (easy measuring) is that it is a quick one with
no holding back or delaying, for people used to be held back at the gate but
Joseph used to let them [his brothers] go forward before the others. It was also
said that the meaning of kayl here is “price”. I was informed by Abu 'Umar
on the authority of Abu al-'Abbas who said, “Kayl means ‘price’. What is the
kayl you charge? means: ‘What is the price?’”
'Amr, the son of Abu 'Amr al-Shaybani, recited to us on the authority of
his father who said:22
If there is difficulty in [paying] the kayl of al-Yamama,

The kayl of Mayyafariqin23 is not more difficult.
THE FIRST TREA TISE 27
[3] As for His saying, may He be praised, “Go, and be steadfast to your gods”
(Q. 38:6) and the saying of the one who claimed that if it was said, “Depart
and hurry away”, it would have been more eloquent, the matter is not what
he claimed. For “go” in this place is better and more appropriate for the
meaning, because He intended it to mean continue the usual custom and adhere
to the known trait without being disturbed or without moving away from the
former condition; and this is more appropriate to express the stability and
the steadfastness commanded in His saying, “and be steadfast to your gods”.
The meaning is as if they said, “Go as is convenient for you and attend to your
desired affairs, and don’t turn to his [Muhammad’s] saying or pay attention
to him.” Furthermore, in his saying “Depart and hurry away”, there would
be an additional disturbance that does not exist in His saying “Go”, and the
people would never intend or want that. It was [also] said that “go” here rather
means “gather together in great numbers and unite in order to help”, and it
does not mean mere going, which is moving the feet; this meaning comes from
the expression of the Arabs, masha al-rajulu, used when his children increase
in number, and they recited:
The sheep do not increase in number (la tamshi) with the hamalkd -
that is, they do not bring forth many young ones; and the hamallcd is the wolf.
[4] As for His saying, may He be praised, “My power has perished (halaka)
away from me” (Q. 69:29), and their claim that perishing (halak) is only used for
the destruction of concrete things, they have simply found fault with the most
eloquent and rhetorical language. A metaphor (istâra) in some places is more
eloquent than reality, such as His saying, may He be exalted, “And a sign for
them is the night, from which We strip (naslakhu) off the day ...” (Q. 36:37);
“stripping off’ (salkh) here is metaphorical and it is more eloquent than if He
said, “We bring day out of it” although this latter is the reality. Similarly, His
saying, may He be praised, “Sunder (fa-sda^) with what you are commanded”
(Q. 15:94) is more eloquent than saying, “Do what you are commanded”, although
this latter is the reality; “sundering” (sadt) is a metaphor which, in reality,
is used for [cracking] glass and similar minerals of the earth, the meaning being
an exaggeration of what he was commanded to do, so that it may affect the hearts
and souls as sundering affects glass and the like. Similarly, His saying, may He
be praised, “My power has perished away from me” (Q. 69:29), is better than “it
has gone away from me”, because “going away” might be followed by returning,
but the use of “perishing” (halak) ensures no remaining or returning. It was
said [also] that the meaning of “sultan” (power) here is argument and proof.
[5] As for His saying, may He be praised, “And surely, he is strong in loving
good things” (Q. 100:8), the word shadid (strong) here means “miserly”. It is
said, “A man is shadid and mutashaddid” , i.e., “he is stingy”. Tarafa24 says:
I see that Death overwhelms the souls, and selects

The pick of the wealth of the abominable miser.
The lam in His saying, “li-hubbi l-khayri" (in loving good things) means “/or
the love of good things”, good things being “wealth” in the eyes of a miser.
[6] As for His saying, may He be exalted, “And those who do zakat (charity)”
(Q. 23:4), and their saying that the words known to be used with zakat are
performance [add3], rendering [zTS’], giving [iW] and the like, and that it is
not said, “So-and-So did zakat", nor is this known in the speech of anyone, j
the response is that these words are not equal in conveying what is intended in
this verse. It rather intends only the action denoted by the noun and does no
more than to inform that it is done. The meaning of the verse - its intention
- is to press for rendering the zakat and for an assiduous persistence in doing
this act until it becomes [the believers’] inherent quality, a deed they do by I
which they are known, and so they are its doers [fa’-iluri]. This meaning is
fully achieved only by this word, which is therefore the most appropriate I
and the most eloquent in the sense intended. It has been said that zakat here
means a good, purifying deed. He therefore means - and God knows best - “And
those who are doers [fidilun] of good deeds and purifying acts.”
[7] As for His saying, may He be exalted, “the All-merciful shall make [sa-ya/alu]
love for them” (Q. 19:96) and their objection to the use of ja'-altu (I made)
love for So-and-So, to mean I loved him, they were mistaken in interpreting
this expression and they strayed from its intention. The meaning is rather that
God shall make love for them in the hearts of the believers - that is, He shall ;
create affection for them in the hearts of the believers, and shall plant in them
love for them. It is similar to His saying, may He be exalted, “And God made
spouses for you from yourselves” (Q. 16:72) — that is, He created.
[8] As for His saying, may He be praised, “riding behind you” (Q. 27:72),
its usage is idiomatically correct in either of two ways: radiftu-hu and radiftu
lahu15 as one says nasahtu-hu and nasahtu lahu (I advised him).26
[9] As for His saying, may He be praised, “and whosoever unjustly [bi-zulmin]
intends to act therein sacrilegiously [bi-ilhadin]" (Q. 22:25), and the [unusual]
use of the ba3 (bi-) in it, this particle is often found in the speech of the early
Arabs, in which the Qur’an was revealed, although it is rarely found in the
speech of the later ones. Al-Hasan ibn cAbd al-Rahim informed me on the
authority of Aba Khalifa, on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sallam al-Jumahi
who said, “Abu 'Amr ibn al-cAla’ said, ‘The language in which the Qur’an was
revealed and which the Arabs spoke in the time of the Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace, was another Arabic than our own.’” It was claimed
that the language of the Arabs kept its original form and its old nature until the
time of the Umayyads, then it was corrupted and certain things became defective
in it. That is why Abu 'Amr said, when he recited the verse of Imru’ al-Qays:
We stab them with straight thrusts and others that are right and left,
As you would shoot two arrows simultaneously at an archer,
“Those who mastered this sort of language are gone.” And I was informed
by Abu 'Amr on the authority of Abu al-Hasan al-'Abbas, on the authority of
someone he mentioned, that Abu 'Amr recited the verse of al-Harith ibn Hilliza:
They claim that everyone who killed a chieftain

Is our client and that we owe him clientage protection,
and he said, “Those who mastered this sort of language are gone.”
That is why, I say, scholars began not to use the verse of the modern poets
as supportive argument nor to quote as linguistic testimony the poetry of
Bashshar ibn Burd, al-Hasan ibn Hani’, Di'bil, al-'Attabi and their likes among
eloquent poets, who were first-rate in the craft of poetry and its composition.
For supportive linguistic proofs, they rather cited the pre-Islamic poets and
those of them who lived in both the Jahiliyya and the early Islamic period
[mukhadramun\, and then the third class who had grown up in the latter’s time.
That is because they knew the defects and alterations that the language had
sustained in later times in relation to its original form. And so, whoever does
not know these issues and compares the old inherited language that he collects
with the language of later compositions will find that he is hampered by much
of it, and he will therefore contest it. However, whoever studies the language of
the Arabs thoroughly, learns its many styles and understands its old ways will
not hasten to contest and find fault with what he finds in it that differs from the
language of his contemporaries. Abu 'Umar informed us on the authority of Abu
al-'Abbas and said, “Ibn al-Khattab said, ‘The one who is most knowledgeable
about grammar is he who does not find language faults in anyone.’” I heard the
son of Abu Hurayra reporting the following on the authority of al-'Abbas ibn
Surayj, “A man asked a scholar about the saying of God, may He be exalted, ‘I
do not [/a] swear by this town’ (Q. 90:1); He said that He does not swear, then
He swore by it when He said, ‘By the fig, by the olive, by Mount Sinai and
by this [secure] town: We have indeed created ...’” (Q. 95:1—4). Ibn Surayj
answered, “Do you prefer that I answer you and then refute you, or that I refute
you and then answer you?” The man said, “Rather refute me then answer me.”
Ibn Surayj said, “Know that this Qur’an was revealed to God’s Messenger,
may God bless him and grant him peace, in the presence of men among whom
were people who were most eager to find fault in it and an occasion to criticize
him. If they had found any contradiction in it, they would have clung to it
and hastened to challenge him. But those people knew better, whereas you
proved to be ignorant. They did not contest what you have contested.” Then
he added, “The Arabs do use the negative particle la (no) in their speech [as
an expletive] and abolish its meaning, as in the verse of the poet:
“He walked at night [as if] in a well with no running water, but was unaware.”27
He means: he walked at night in a well of loss, but was unaware. Abu cUmar
informed me on the authority of Abu al-cAbbas that Ibn al-Acrabi said, “The
Arabs use la (no) in their speech and annul its negative effect, and they imply
it without using it.” To illustrate the first usage, he quoted the verse:
He walked at night [as if] in a well with no running water, but was unaware,
and to illustrate the second, he quoted the poet’s saying:
I counsel you so that relatives may praise you

And the poor man may return empty-handed.
Ue means: I counsel you so that the poor man may not return empty-handed.
This and similar additions of particles in certain constructions of speech
as well as having them implied in certain others were usages in their early
| Arabic] language before alterations came in. Later Arabs abandoned such usages
in their speech. Therefore, understand this subject, for if you do understand
it well, you will have benefited a lot from [your] learning and spared yourself
great pain and much heartache of doubt. You will also have delivered yourself
from the wrangling of adversaries. And there is no power except in God.
We now return to responding to His saying, may He be praised, “and
whosoever unjustly [bi-zulmin] intends to act therein sacrilegiously [bi-ilhadiri\"
(Q. 22:25), and we say that it has been averred that the ba1 [bi-\ is otiose and
the meaning is: whosoever unjustly intends sacrilege in it [i.e., the mosque]. The
ba? may be added in certain places in speech but the meaning does not change,
as you would say, “akhadh-tu al-shay’a” and “akhadh-tu bi-hi" (I took the thing)
and as a poet said:
We strike with the sword and we have hope in relief28
and as another poet29 said:

They are free women, not owners of donkeys.

Their eyes have black pupils and they don’t read in the Suras.
It is said, “I read al-Baqara" and “I read in al-Baqara" (i.e., Q. 2). More than
one of the Qur’anic readers have read, “It produces oil” (Q. 23:20), including
Ibn Kathir and Abu ‘Amr; some have claimed that its meaning is: it [the tree]
produces oil, and others claimed that it grows and has oil in it. Similarly, it is
said “Zayd came with the sword” that is, he came wearing the sword. Likewise
-
is His saying, may He be praised, “Have they not (a-wa-lam) seen that God,
who created the heavens and the earth and was not wearied by their creation, has
the power (bi-qadir) ..." (Q. 46:33), meaning: He has the power [qadir] to give
life to the dead. They said: the be? (bi-) is employed in this sense in denial only
as in His saying, “Is That One [God] not (a-laysa) able (bi-qadir) to quicken the
dead?” (Q. 75:40). But a-lam is comparable to a-laysa in its sense of denial, and
therefore it follows the same rule. They also said that anna (that) (in Q. 46:33) is
only used in corroborated speech and that al-Farra’ quoted the following verse
for the use of such a ba? (bi-):
Travellers did not return empty-handed [bi-khrPibatin]

Whose aim had been Hakim ibn al-Musayyab.
He said: The be? [Az-] has been used here; and likewise, it is said: I don’t think
you are upright (bi-qa'imin). But if you delete the bi? [A/-], the word governed
by it [in the genitive case] should be put in the accusative case [qaîman] as
object of the verb.
[11] As for His saying, may He be praised, “As [ka-ma) your Lord brought you
forth from your house with the truth [bi-l-haqqi] . . etc. (Q. 8:5), commentators
and interpreters [of the Qur’an] understood this in different manners, all of
which are acceptable and correct whatever one attaches the ka [of ka-ma) to.
Some of them said that God, may He be praised, commanded His Messenger to
continue [apportioning] the spoils in the same manner - despite his Companions’
disapproval - just as he had [earlier] left his house at the head of the caravan
despite their disapproval. For, after the Battle of Badr, they differed with regard
to [apportioning] the spoils and they argued with the Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace. Many of them disapproved of his decision concerning
the [apportionment of] spoils; and so God, may He be exalted, revealed the
verse and expressed His command in it, ordering them to fear God and obey
him [Muhammad], and not to oppose him in whatever he later did, if they were
believers; and He described the believers, saying, “As your Lord brought you
forth from your house with the truth, while some of the believers were averse”
(Q, 8:5). He meant that their disapproval of what you [Muhammad] had done
regarding [the apportionment of] the spoils was like their [earlier] disapproval of
going out with you, for the result of which they were [later] thankful; likewise,
they should now be patient and obedient in order to be thankful for the result
[later]. It was also said that its meaning is: These are the true believers, [they I
are] so true that God brought you forth from your house with the truth, as in
the verse, “So by the Lord of heaven and earth, it is certainly as true as the fact|
that you speak” (Q. 51:23).
Others said that ka-ma qualifies an understood verb whose interpretation is: I
Do with the spoils as (ka-ma) you have done with going out to Badr although
the people were averse; this is similar to when He said, may He be praised, “As
(ka-ma) We have sent to you a Messenger from among yourselves” (Q. 2:151),
which means: As We bestowed upon you the grace of sending a Messenger to
you from among yourselves, even so I complete My grace upon you.
Regarding His saying, may He be praised, “[And say: I am indeed a clear
Warner] as (ka-ma) We sent down to the dividers” (Q. 15:90), it contains |
an ellipsis suggested by the text. It is as if He said: I am the clear Warner of
punishment or torture, as (ka-ma) We sent down — that is, as (mithla ma) We
sent down to the dividers who have divided the Qur’an into fragments. If it
was said [in objection]: Even if the text may be understood to be correct as I
you have mentioned, regarding His saying, may He be praised, “As your Lord
brought you forth from your house with the truth” (Q. 8:5), is there not here
a certain incoherence caused by the dispersion of the parts of the sentence and
the distance between them that excludes the text from being considered of the
good nazm (stylistic arrangement) that you ascribe to it? It would be said [in I
response]: No, because He placed nothing between it and the beginning of
what is related to it; Rather, He said, “Obey God and His Messenger if you are
believers” (Q. 8:1), then He described this belief and its reality, for this notion
has several ramifications, in which what applies to the former section applies also
to the latter one. If He had not described it fully in the comprehensive manner
that it required, the sense would not have been made clear; He then joined all
this to the earlier section and said: “As your Lord brought you forth from your
house with the truth while some of the believers were averse” (Q. 8:5). He
compared their aversion to what had happened concerning the spoils and their
apportionment to their disapproval of his going out of his house; and when a I
qualification and a relationship serve exclusively to make any speech complete,
they are indeed an integral part of it.
[13] Suppose it is said [in objection]: What is the meaning of His saying, “Don’t
move your tongue with it to hasten it” (Q. 75:16) which is enclosed, on one side,
by His saying, may He be praised, “Indeed, man is a witness against himself,
even if he puts forward his excuses” (Q. 75:14-15) and, on the other side, by
His saying, “Nay, you rather love the present world and neglect the Elereafter”
(Q. 75:20-21)? There is no relationship between the two statements that
bracket it. It is said [in response] that this is an incidental situation that requires
mentioning the verse that can neither be omitted nor placed afterwards. It is as
if when you are talking to a man and he pays no attention to you but is distracted
by something he turns to, you say to him, “Pay attention to me and listen to what
I am saying and understand” and similar words, and then you continue your
earlier conversation without changing the subject and with no interruption; you
will thus be carrying on the conversation and returning to it. God’s Messenger,
may God bless him and grant him peace, was illiterate and unable to read and
write- when revelation came and he heard the Qur’an, he used to move his tongue
to memorize it, and so he was told: “Understand what is being revealed to you
and don’t repeat it with your tongue to remember it, for We will collect it for you
and We will preserve it for you.” Al-Asamm reported to us saying, Abu Umayya
al-TartOsi related to us and said, “Ubayd Allah ibn Musa said: ‘Isra’ll related
to me on the authority of Abu Ishaq, on the authority of Sa'ld ibn Jubayr, on
the authority of Ibn 'Abbas regarding I lis saying, may He be praised, “Don’t
move your tongue -with it to hasten it” (Q. 75: 16), and he said: “He [Muhammad]
used to move his tongue with it, fearing it would escape him.’””
[14] As for the ellipsis and abridgment in His saying, may He be praised, “And
if [law\ there were a Qur’an by which mountains could be moved or the earth
could be cleft or the dead could be spoken to ...” (Q. 13:31), the concision is
in its right place, for to delete what is dispensable is a sort of eloquence. It
is permissible and beautiful here to delete the main clause because what is
mentioned [in the conditional clause] indicates what is deleted and suppressed
of it; for a discourse that is intelligible by people of understanding is equivalent
to one that is explicitly expressed. The meaning is: If there were a Qur’an by
which mountains could be moved or the earth could be deft or the dead could
be spoken to, it would be this Qur’an. It has been said that ellipsis in such a
construction is more eloquent than explicit mention, because with ellipsis the
mind is free to imagine; but if the main clause were explicitly detailed, it would
be limited to the sense mentioned. Deleting the main clause |after a conditional
one] is like saying, “If you saw 'All between the two ranks [of combatants]!”
This is more eloquent than mentioning [the main clause] for the same reasons
we cited above.
[15] Similar to this is His saying, may He be praised, “And those who feared
their Lord were led to Paradise in groups until, when [idha] they reached it and
its gates were opened . . .” etc. (Q. 39:73); the meaning is as if it was said: When
they entered it, they obtained enduring bliss that would not be interrupted
or troubled.
As for repetition [in the Qur’an] which they criticized, [we say in response
that] repetition in speech is of two kinds: one is reproachable and it is the one
that can be dispensed with and that does not add anything to the meaning of
what was already said; for it is redundant and nonsensical. There is none of this
kind in the Qur’an. The other kind of repetition is one that is contrary to this
qualification. To leave it out from a place where it is required and needed is like I
the affectation of redundancy when [on the contrary] ellipsis and abridgment
are necessary. It is needed and is good to use in important matters requiring
great attention in which, if repetition is abandoned, there is a risk of falling
in error and forgetfulness, and of having disdain for their value. A man may |
say to his friend, urging him to act, “Hurry up, hurry up!” or “Shoot, shoot!”
Similarly, one writes, “Important, important, important!” on the envelopes of
letters in the case of important matters and the like, as the poet30 said:
On the day they fled, will you not ask

The troops of Kinda, “Where to, where to?”?
Another poet31 said:
O tribe of Bakr, bring Kulayb back to life for me

O tribe of Bakr, where to, where to is the escape?
God, may He be exalted, explained the reason for which He repeated the stories [
and reports in the Qur’an, and He said, may He be praised, “Indeed, We have I
made the Word reach them, haply they may be admonished” (Q. 28:51); and He
said, may He be exalted, “and in it We have explained certain warnings, haply |
they may fear [God] or it may make them remember [Him]” (Q. 20:113). As for
Surat al-Rahman (Q. 55), God, may He be praised, addressed in it theThaqalayn: I
human beings and jinn. He enumerated for them the many kinds of blessings
He created for them; and so whenever He mentioned one kind of the many
blessings, He repeated anew [the necessity] for them to recognize it and their
duty to thank Him for it, for they were different blessings and they were of many |
kinds. Similarly, in Surat al-Mursalat (Q. 77), He mentioned the circumstances I
on the Day of Resurrection and their terrors. He first threatened in it and then
repeated anew the terrors of each of the circumstances so that each may be
clarified more eloquently in the Qur’an and be more emphatic in explaining
the application of the argument and the excuse [of His punishment]. Eloquent
passages are [after all] valued in accordance with their degrees of necessity.
If it is said [in objection]: If the meaning of repeating His saying, “Which, I
then, of your Lord’s bounties will you both deny?” (Q. 55:14 et passim) is to
renew the mention of blessings in this sura and the duty of thanks for them,
what is the meaning of His saying, “There shall be loosed against both of I
you [evil humans and jinn\ flames of fire and molten brass, and you shall not
be helped” (Q. 55:35), followed by His saying, “Which, then, of your Lord’s
bounties will you both deny?” (Q. 55:36) - what kind of blessing is it here? He I
is rather threatening them with - flames of fire and widespread smoke? It will
be said [in response]: The blessing of God, may He be exalted, in threatening
them and in warning them of punishment for their sins against Him so that
they may be on their guard and be curbed from them is comparable to His
blessings when promising them and giving them the good news of His reward
for obeying Him so that they will desire it and be anxious to receive it. Knowing-
something is indeed realized by considering its opposite, so that one understands
it with precision.
A promise [of reward] and a threat [of punishment], although opposed to
each other in essence, are indeed similar with regard to their blessings when one
knows the ends they lead to and consequences they bring about. A wise poet said:
Although the distress of vicissitudes afflicts you,

ft is what informs you of their blessing.
As for their saying [in objection]: If the Qur’an had been revealed in an
orderly manner of division into chapters, each of which contained one topic of
its teachings so that it would have been better composed and more useful, the
response is that the Qur’an has been revealed in the manner it has been, com¬
bining different ideas in one sura and in a small number of verses put together,
in order that it may be more useful and of greater general benefit. If each of its
topics had a chapter, and each of its teachings had a single sura, its benefit would
have been little. An unbeliever among the infidels and the opponents, on hearing
the one sura of it, would not have been furnished with the proof of the Qur’an
[as a whole] but with the one argument of the one sura only. That is why-
combining many themes in one sura is of greater benefit than having only a
discrete and isolated single theme in it, as we mentioned. But God knows best.
God, may He be exalted, liked to examine His servants and to test their
obedience and their diligence in gathering the disperse parts [of the Qur’an]
and [in discovering] the order of its revelation, so that He may raise by degrees
those who believed among them and those who were endowed with learning.
Suppose it is said [in objection]: You do not deny that some people imitated
the Qur’an. But this [imitation] was not transmitted to us and it was not mentioned
to us, and reports about it were concealed; and when Islam expanded, they [the
imitators] were afraid for their safety, and so its text was suppressed and its trace
was effaced. It is said [in response]: This objection does not hold. The fact of it is
that it is contrary to people’s customs, be they elites or commoners, regarding the
transmission of reports and matters of importance that minds are attached to and
affected by. How could such a serious matter that would have disturbed human
hearts and would have been known in the East and the West be conceivable?
If that was conceivable regarding such an important and momentous matter,
it would be conceivable too that another prophet or numerous other prophets
could have appeared to whom scriptures were revealed from Heaven and who
could have come with laws different from this Shari‘a, and the news of all that
was suppressed. This is something that cannot be suspected [to have happened],
because it is contrary to human nature and current customs, and likewise is
what they object to.
Suppose it is said [in objection ]: You do not deny that an imitation [mularada]
of some parts of the Qur’an by some people has indeed happened, the amount
of which being a number of verses equivalent to some of the short suras, such as
what was related about Musaylima saying, “O frog, croak. Much as you croak,
Neither the water will you render turbid, Nor the drinker will you drive away.”
And as was related that another said, “Have you not seen what your Lord has
done with the pregnant woman? From between her ribs and her bowels, He
brought out a soul that walks.” And as another one of them said: “The elephant.
What is the elephant? And what shall make you know what the elephant is?
He has a long, pendulous lip. And a firm, deep-rooted tail. And that is not a
minimal thing of our Lord’s creation.”
It is said [in response]: As for Musaylima’s statement about the frog, it
is known that it is of no benefit at all. Neither is its wording correct nor its
meaning. Nor does it have any of the three conditions that constitute the basic
elements of rhetorical eloquence. He only resorted to this poor language for the
sake of the rhymed prose it has. A composer of rhymed prose makes it a custom
of his to subordinates his ideas to his rhymed prose, and he does not care what
he says so long as his prose rhymes and flows without interruption. Because this
speech is empty of all benefits, Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him said,
“I testify that such discourse has not come from a [thinking] mind.”
Ibn al-Farisi Muhammad ibn al-Qasim ibn al-Hakam said: My father
reported to me that Ibrahim ibn Hani’ said, “Yahya ibn Bukayr said: Al-Layth
ibn Sa‘d reported to me on the authority of Khalid ibn Yazid, on the authority
of Sa‘id ibn Abi Hilal, on the authority of Sa‘id ibn Nashit who said, ‘God’s
Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, sent ‘Amr ibn al-‘As to
al-Bahrayn and died when ‘Amr was there.’ ‘Amr said, ‘I went forth until I
came to Musaylima. He gave me assurance of protection and said, “Muhammad
was sent for important matters and I was sent for insignificant ones.” I said,
“Show me what you say.” He said, “O frog, croak for you croak well. Neither
the drinker will you drive away nor the water will you render turbid. O wabr,
O wabr? Two paws and a breast. Your walking is a shy scurrying.” Then a
group of people came to him to settle a dispute over palm trees owned by some
of them and cut down by the others. He covered himself with a piece of velvety
cloth, and then uncovered his head and said, “By the dark night, and by the
black wolf, the Banu Abi Muslim have done no wrong.” Then he covered himself
again and said, “By the pitch-dark night, and by the whispering wolf, what
[palm] is forbidden when tender is also forbidden when dry. Go, I don’t see
anything wrong in what you have done.” ‘Amr said [to Musaylima], “By God,
you do know and we do know that you arc a liar.” So, he threatened me.’”
I say: (Amr was right. Does anybody doubt the error of someone whose
path is this, and the failure of someone whose proof and evidence are these?
Where is the eloquence of this discourse, what meaning does it have, and what
wisdom is there in it that may make anyone imagine it contains an imitation of
the Qur’an or a rivalry with it in any way? However, the miserable man knew
himself better when he said, “I was sent for insignificant matters”, and one
can find nothing more insignificant and more useless than what he brought
forth. Perhaps some of the fatuous sayings of Abu al-Yanbu'l,33 Aba al-'Abr,
al-Tarami, and their ilk are finer and more agreeable to the ear. How similar
this is to what was related to us on the authority of Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala’.
Muhammad ibn al-Qusayn ibn 'Asim said: Muhammad ibn al-Sabah al-Mazinl
said: 'Abd Allah ibn al-Haytham said: al-Asma'i related to us saying, “A man
recited to Abu 'Amr ibn al-'Ala’ some bad verse, so he said, ‘This is like the
verse of So-and-So:
Hadarija, hadarija34
Seventy chicks rambling.’”
Another man recited [to him] paltry verse, so he said, “This resembles Bashshar’s
verse:
Hababa, the lady of the house,

Pours vinegar into the oil.
She has seven chickens
And a cock with a beautiful voice.”35
As for the saying of the other man, “The elephant. What is the elephant? And
what shall make you know what the elephant is?” and the other one who said,
“Have you not seen what your Lord has done with the pregnant woman?”...
each of these two discourses, with the inadequacy of its verses and the deficiency
of its meaning, lacks the qualifications and conditions of [authentic] imitation
(muârada). It is merely pilfering from the language of the Qur’an, gleaning
from the middle of its text, and imitating some of its constructions. No, they
will never attain its loftiness or achieve any likeness of it in whatever they do.
Anyone who wants to imitate another in an oration (khutbd) or a poem {shi^r')
has to compose a novel discourse having an original meaning, and to emulate
him in its wording and rival him in its meaning, seeking to outweigh him when
the two discourses are compared. Victory can then be judged to belong to the
one of the two who surpasses the other. It is not by infringing upon parts of his
opponent’s discourse, pilfering from it, and then exchanging the place of one
word for another and connecting the parts together in an act of patchwork and
concoction that he can claim that he stood up to him as an imitator.
Imitation [in the real sense] should rather be in one of the following ways.
One of them is when two men compete with each other in composing a poem, an
oration or a verbal exchange. Each of them brings forth an original composition,
be it a description of what they contested or a clarification of what they competed
about, trying with it to be parallel to his opponent or to surpass him. Then an
arbiter decides between them in accordance with his insight, [declaring] whether
they are equal or one of them is superior to the other.
An example is when Imru3 al-Qays and ‘Alqama ibn ‘Abda competed with
each other in describing a horse in their two famous poems. Imru3 al-Qays began
his poem by saying:
O my two friends, pass with me [to see] Umm Jundub . . .
When he came to the description of the horse and its fast running, he said:
[My] rebuke excites it, [my] legs lash it,

And [my] whip on it sounds like a swift, screaming [ostrich].36
‘Alqama started his poem by saying:37
[O my soul:] being forsaken, you went the wrong way . . .
When he reached the mention of the horse and its [fast] running, he said:
So it effaced the trace [of the wild cows]

Like a pebble-dispersing and stirring storm.
Then it caught up with them again, its reins being pulled,
And passed like an evening, water-laden cloud.38
They had appointed the wife of Imru3 al-Qays as an arbiter, so she said to her
husband, “‘Alqama is a better poet than you.” He asked, “And why is that?”
She said, “Because he described the horse catching up39 with the prey without
being forced to exert effort and be exhausted, whereas you harassed your horse
with rebuking, excessive movement and beating.” He was angry at that, and he
divorced her.
Similar to this is al-Harith ibn al-Taw’am al-Yashkurl’s imitation of Imru3
al-Qays in an ijaza (extemporaneous continuation) of his verses. Muhammad
ibn al-Husayn ibn ‘Asim informed me and said: Muhammad ibn al-Sabah
al-Mazinl said: ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Hanafi said: I was informed
by Muhammad ibn Sallam on the authority of Abu ‘Ubayda, on the authority
of Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala3 who said, “Imru3 al-Qays used to joust with everyone
who was said to compose poetry. Jousting with al-Harith ibn al-Taw’am, Imru3
al-Qays said:40
“O Hari[th], you see a little lightning shining in the middle of the night,
“al-Harith continued:
“Like a fire of Magi, burning intensely.
“Imru3 al-Qays said:
“It made me sleepless but Abu Shurayh slumbered,
“When 1 thought it calmed down, it became stronger.
“He passed by al-cAbalat nearby,41
“And kept digging the hill diligently.42
“He left no gazelle in the valley of al-Siyy,43
“And did not leave a donkey in its open space.44
“Its [the fire’s] hissing noise at Wara3 Ghayb was like,
“Ten-months-pregnant she-camels in love, meeting others.
“Imru’ al-Qays said:
“When he ascended the inner side of Udakh,4’
“The backside of his body weakened, and he collapsed.
“Imur’ al-Qays said:
“You did not see a magnanimous king like us,46
“Nor a neighbour like this neighbour.”
[Abu ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ala’] ended by saying, “Imru’ al-Qays swore he would never
[again] joust with another poet.” Muhammad ibn Sallam said according to
another chain of transmitters: When Imru’ al-Qays saw that he [al-Harith] had
made a stand against him when no contemporaneous poet could, he swore never
to joust with anyone after him in poetry.
I say that this is an astonishing competition and a full imitation integrated
section by section, and hemistich by hemistich, in which al-Harith has an
advantage that Imru’ al-Qays did not; for the one who begins [a contest] has
an option of ways to go where he wishes, but the one who extemporizes a
continuation is limited and can only go in the direction imposed on him. That
is why [I would say] al-Harith has surpassed him by the beautiful comparisons
and similes which the speech of Imru’ al-Qays lacked, and that is why Imru’
al-Qays swore not to joust with any poet after him.
It was related to us that al-Walid ibn ‘Abd al-Malik and his brother Maslama
disagreed about the theme of night and its length [in poetry], and that al-Walid
preferred the verses of al-Nabigha describing the night while Maslama preferred
the verses of Imru’ al-Qays. So they asked al-Sha‘bi to arbitrate, and he said:
You recite the verses and I will listen.
The verses of al-Nabigha were first recited:
O Umayma, leave me to endure a wearisome care

And a night whose stars arc slow.
It was so long that I thought it would never end

And that the stars’ shepherd47 would never return.
My heart whose distant care the night put to rest,
Suffers from redoubled sorrow on every side.
Then the verses of Imru’ al-Qays were recited:
Many a night, like sea waves, dropped its curtains

Upon me, with all kinds of cares, to test me.
I said to it, when it stretched its backbone,
Then its rump, and then bore down with its chest:
“Indeed, O long night, do clear up and reveal
Morning, though morning is not better than you.
Oh what a night you arc, whose stars
Are tied with doubly twisted cords to [Mount] Yadhbul!”
Al-Walld moved his leg [approvingly] and al-ShaTi said, “The question is
resolved!”
Al-Nabigha’s opening [verse] of his poem that says:48
O Umayma, leave me to endure a wearisome care,
is extremely beautiful. It is eloquent in describing what he was complaining of,

namely, his wearisome care and his long night. It is said that no other poet has
ever started a poem with a more beautiful wording. Furthermore, his saying:
My heart whose distant care the night put to rest,
is borrowed from [the image of] the camel-shepherd leading his flock to its
overnight shelter. It is expressed in an easy, unaffected language that combines
eloquence and agreeable sweetness. However, the verses of Imru5 al-Qays have
a refinement ofcraft, a beauty of figurative usage and an originality of ideas that
the verses of al-Nabigha don’t. Imru5 al-Qays ascribed a backbone, a rump and a
chest to the night; and he compared the accumulated darkness of the night to the
waves of the sea as they dash with one another, again and again. He portrayed
the stars as though they were tied with strong cords [to a mountain] for they
were fixed, immovable, at a standstill. He did not restrict himself to describing
these matters as such but explained them as an affliction and drew attention
to that meaning. He then continued to wish that the night would pass and that
morning would return, for he expected rest in it. Then, retaking what he had
given and rectifying what he had offered, he claimed that the affliction was
greater than one that could ever be dispelled, its ordeal being more severe than
ever having any remedy and healing. Such themes cannot be found combined in
so few words except in the poetry of superior poets like him who have achieved
crowning success with flying colours. That is why al-Walld moved his leg
[approvingly], for he could not but admit to Imru’ al-Qays’s superiority.
It is, therefore, by such criteria that an imitation (muldra4a) may be
considered [acceptable] and a distinction may be established between two
discourses, determining that one of them is superior or inferior to the other,
or that they are equal.49
Two poets may compete with each other in one theme, and one of them
may rise to his highest while the other is unable to reach his level or to equal
him, like al-Acsha and al-Akhtal when they competed in a theme describing-
wine. One of them achieved eminence while the other remained way below.
Abu Raja5 al-Ghanawi related to me, saying: My father informed me and said:
cAbd Allah ibn Abi Sacd said: Abu Ghassan Malik ibn Ghassan al-Masmah said:
Hisham ibn Adham al-Mazinl who was a scholar said: “Al-Shacbl entered to
see al-Akhtal and found him drunk and surrounded by basil and other fragrant
plants. He said, CA1-Akhtal has f the mothers’0 of all poets!’ Al-Shacbi
asked, ‘By doing what, O Abu Malik?’ He replied, ‘By his saying:51
‘A village woman continued to serve us [wine] in fairness

From her jug covered with kisses like patches.
When her glass passed from hand to hand,
It exuded a fragrance detectable [even] by a man with a cold.’
“Al-ShaTi said, ‘More poetic than you is the one who says:52
‘From a large, dark-coloured, old jar,

I offered wine to noble drinkers one morning;
It was of the kind carried on camelbacks
Whose musky smell chases away the common cold.’
“Al-Akhtal asked him, ‘Who said this, O Shacbi?’ Al-Shacbl replied, cAl-Acsha.’
Al-Akhtal exclaimed, ‘Holy, holy! Al-A'sha has f the mothers of all
poets.’”
Think and set one against the other: when al-Akhtal was so puffed up and
boasted about himself, he had done nothing more than describing the fragrance
of wine being so penetrating as to reach one’s head and be smelled [even] by a
man with a cold; whereas al-Acsha made it extirpate the cold and chase it away,
doctoring the man’s disease and healing him.
More wonderful than this in [poetic] imitations and more eloquent than it
in verse of corresponding opposition and contrafaction are poems that build up
something and then destroy it; they construct something and then demolish and
wreck it - as was done by Hassan ibn Thabit. Abu Raja’ informed me and said:
My father related to me, saying: cUmar ibn Shabba said: Harun ibn cAbd Allah
al-Zubayri said: Yusuf ibn cAbd Allah al-Majishun related to me on the authority
of his father, saying: Hassan said, “I came to Jabala ibn al-Ayham al-Ghassanl
whom I had eulogized, and he said to me, ‘O Abu al-Walid, wine has infatuated
me. Do derogate it, haply I might renounce it.’ So I said:
‘If it were not for three things in a glass [of wine],

It would have no value to a drinker when he drinks:
It causes a rashness like insanity, a bad falling down,
And the departure of one’s mind to distant horizons.’
“He said, ‘You have vilified it. Now embellish it.’

“So I said:
‘It is for three things in a glass [of wine] that it has become
The most precious and useful object sought after:
It creates longings, brings out the soul’s goodness,
And makes one forget cares, so they go away.’
“He said, ‘Undoubtedly. By God, I shall never abandon it.’”

There is another kind [of jousting] that is not mere imitation but a sort of
parallel between imitation (muârada) and corresponding opposition (muqabala).
Two poets would compose, each in his own style and topic, and one of them
would be more eloquent in describing what is in his mind than the other. An
example of that is the poetry of Abu Du’ad al-Iyadi and al-Nabigha al-Jacdi in
describing horses; another is the poetry of al-Acsha and al-Akhtal in describing-
wine, another is the poetry of al-Shammakh in describing onagers. Still another
is the poetry of Dhu al-Rumma in describing abandoned encampments and
ruins, wastelands and deserts. Each of them is a master in describing what he
does. Therefore, it is said that So-and-So is more poetic than So-and-So in
his style and topic, and in the way he goes about it in his poetry. You have to
contemplate the patterns of his wording in expressing the subject he is concerned
with and portrays, and you have to look at the descriptions and qualifications.
If you find one of the two more thorough, more able to depict minute details
and more correct in all that, you will judge his poetry as superior to his friend’s
and you will not care about differences in intentions and about the variety of
ways leading to them.
When you know the conditions and regulations of imitation and arc aware
of its forms and aspects, you will realize that those people could not do anything
to come by an imitation of the Qur’an and they did not obey any of its regulations
at all. The matter is clear and obvious to anyone with intelligence - praise be
to God.
Now, it will be said to the man of the elephant, “O man of erroneous I

opinion: In the discourse you came by, where are the elements of eloquence|
that we have mentioned as conditions [of imitation]? In what you deliriously
said, showing your ignorance and error, where arc the regulations that we have
described? You began by saying, ‘The elephant, what is the elephant? And what
shall make you know what the elephant is?’ You alarmed and you frightened.
You ascended the mountain [of exaggeration] and you moved down it. Then
you broke your promise, and you gave birth to a premature fetus when you
stopped. You mentioned the tail and the pendulous lip exclusively. If you knew
anything about the rules of speech and the principles of logic and its regulations,
you would not have corrupted words by changing their meaning and you would
not have used them in wrong places. Don’t you know, incapable person that
you are, that such an opening [as yours] is used to introduce a matter of great
importance and elusive description, whose meaning is exceedingly deep? An
example would be the saying of God, Most High, “The Inevitable, what is the
Inevitable? And what shall make you know what the Inevitable is?” (Q. 69:1—3)
and “The Clatterer, what is the Clatterer? And what shall make you know what
the Clatterer is?” (Q. 101:1-3). He speaks of the Day of the Resurrection, and
then He describes it and its alarming terrors in a manner that is commensurate
with the introduction that He has previously stated in the preamble, and then
He says, “The day when human beings will be like scattered moths, and the
mountains will be like carded wool” (Q. 101:3-5) to the end of the sura. You,
however, have associated this [lofty] style with an animal that can be seen in
the twinkling of an eye and that can be comprehensively known with little
thought. Furthermore, you limited your speech to its pendulous lip and tail,
of all the wonders it has. I can only compare your words with what one of our
teachers has recited to me by one peer of your ilk:
I and I, then indeed I, and certainly I,

When my sandal is undone, I’ll strap it.
How paltry is what you said in the latter part of your discourse in comparison
with the momentous preamble, and how little is what you were satisfied with
at the end in relation to the abundance you advanced at the beginning!
Since your erroneous opinion and your bad choice had guided you to imitate
the Great Qur’an by mentioning the elephant and its qualities, why have you
not chosen of those latter something that is more translucent in wording and
more comprehensive of the elephant’s qualities? You could have mentioned the
intelligence and cleverness that this beast, despite its speechlessness, has been
endowed with and by which it understands from its groom what it should do
when he signals to it to do it. You could have wondered at its complaisance, at
its obedience to him when he entices it, as well as at its immediate self-restraint
when he rebukes it and forbids it to do anything. In addition to its pendulous
lip you could have mentioned its two tusks with which it attacks, and with the
sharp ends of which it stabs and wounds. And how could you have forgotten its
large ears that envelop its face and with which it shoos chinches and flies from
its ear cavities and eyes, and with which it fans parts of its head? How could
you not have noticed the [divine] wisdom in its having a short, retracted
neck’ for if it had a long neck, it would not have been able to carry its [enormous]
head, and it would have succumbed under its weight? Since it was deprived of
a long neck, it was compensated for that by a pendulous lip (a trunk) to pick up
with it the sustenance and fodder it needed from the surface of the ground, and
to draw with it water to drink and to fill it like a water-skin and spray water on
its body parts if it liked. Furthermore, it cannot kneel because it has no [supple]
joints to assist it on rising and no neck to help it along like a camel that can arch
its neck, thrust it forward and rise. This is not to mention other similar matters
concerning qualities of its physiognomy and wonders of its constitution.
It could be said to [the man of the elephant]: What would you think if a
fool like you imitated you by speaking about the mosquito, which is an enemy
of your elephant and a deadly53 semblable with opposite characteristics? It
resembles the elephant in certain aspects of physiognomy with its prominent
temples, flat cheeks and a hanging snout with which it attacks. And so he says,
“The mosquito, what is the mosquito? And what shall make you know what
the mosquito is? It has a biting snout, which plunges into blood, and it is a
counterpart to the elephant.” Will judging him on account of the trivialities that
he came by be anything but the same as judging you on account of the ignorant
prattle you came by? If it is objected that a mosquito is not a counterpart to the
elephant because of the great differences between them in size and body frame,
and in weakness and strength, the answer will be: In matters of comparison
{al-tashbih) and similitude {al-lamthil), judgement is established in accordance
with concepts and not with substance and material mass. A mosquito is an
animal like an elephant in many ways: it seeks sustenance and avoids dangers,
and that is why it hides in the daytime and appears at night; it resembles the
elephant by its head and trunk, and by the other things we mentioned about
it; in addition to that, it has wings and has thus been compensated for small
body size and frame. The two are therefore equal in certain characteristics that
are common in which they don’t differ.
As for the other man’s saying in describing the pregnant woman, the first
error that this ignoramus has committed is that he used a word suggesting
vengeance in place of the word suggesting [divine] grace when he said, “Have
you not seen what your Lord has done with the pregnant woman?” This word
[fibula = has done] is only used for punishments and the like as in God’s saying,
“Have you not seen what your Lord has done with the men of the elephant?”
(Q. 105:1) and in His saying, may He be praised, “What God does with your
punishment” (Q. 4:147) and His saying, “And it was clear to you what We did
with them, and We gave you parables” (Q. 14:45). Similarly, one says, “May
God do with So-and-So, and do” when one invokes God against him. What
he [the man of the pregnant woman] intended to say was, “Have you not seen
how your Lord has been kind to the pregnant woman and how He was graceful
towards her” or such words expressing benevolence and granted blessing. As
for his saying, “From between her ribs and her bowels, He brought out a soul
that walks” he engaged in plagiarism from the saying of God, Most High, “He
was created of gushing fluid, which issues forth from between the loins and
the breastbones” (Q. 86:7). This is the first stage of creation mentioned by
God, may He be praised and exalted, and then He mentioned in another verse
the number of transformations in the womb from a sperm to a blood clot, to
a lump and to flesh; another stage of creation after that is the unification of
the image and blowing the soul into it. This indicates His great power, subtle
wisdom and immense mercy. May God be blessed, He is the best of creators.
These stages occur after passage into the womb; and between the womb and the
ribs there is a distance and there are partitions. Anatomists say that the womb
is situated between the bladder and the large intestine, and this miserable man
did not know what he was saying when he made the child after conception
come out from between the ribs and the bowels, taking after God’s saying, may
He be exalted, “which issues from between the loins and the breastbones”,!
He was wrong in his description and erroneous in his concept, as well as false
in his claim; and such is the way of discourse by pretenders and the outcome of
claims by fraudulent men.
Regarding the Tjaz of the Qur’an, 1 believe54 there is another aspect of it
which people have neglected, to the extent that it is almost unknown except by a
very few isolated individuals, and this is its effect on the hearts and its influence
on the souls. No discourse on being heard, be it in verse or prose, causes in
the heart the pleasure and sweetness or the awe and fear that the Qur’an does.
Souls rejoice and hearts relax on hearing it until, having had their satisfaction
from it, they are overtaken by fear and overwhelmed by palpitation and anxiety,
and they plunge into fright and trepidation. One’s skin has gooseflesh and one’s
heart is perturbed, as it imposes itself between one’s soul and its rooted feelings
and beliefs. Among the Arabs and their most lethal murderers, how many an
enemy of the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, had come to
assassinate him but, on hearing verses from the Qur’an, changed their mind as
soon as its words hit their ears, and they decided to make peace with him and
adopt his religion, their enmity having turned into loyalty and their disbelief
into belief!
cUmar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, went out one day
seeking God’s Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace, and
intending to kill him. He went to his sister’s home and found her reading Sural
Ta Ha (Q. 20). No sooner had he heard it than he believed. The Council of
Quraysh sent TJtba ibn RabFa to God’s Messenger, may God bless him and
grant him peace, in order to make an agreement with him on certain matter they
had sent him to convey to him. God’s Messenger, may God bless him and grant
him peace, recited to him some verses from Ha Mim al-Sajda (Q. 41). When
cutba returned and the members of the Council of Quraysh saw him, they said,
“Abu al-Walid returned with a face other than the one he had left with.”
Similarly, when God’s Messenger, may God bless him and grant him peace,
recited the Qur’an in the [pilgrimage] season to the group of Ansar who were
attending it, they returned to Medina and supported the [new] religion in it
until not a single Ansar home remained without a Qur’an. It was related about
one of them that he said, “Countries have been conquered by swords and
Medina by the Qur’an.”
When the jinn heard the Qur’an, they could not help saying, “[W]e have
heard a wonderful Qur’an that guides to rectitude; so we believed in it ...”
(Q. 72:1-2). Confirmation of what we have said about the Qur’an is the saying
of the Most High, “If We had sent down this Qur’an upon a mountain, you
would have seen it humbled, split asunder out of the fear of God” (Q. 59:21);
and His saying, “God has sent down the most beautiful discourse in the form
of a Book whose verses are similar to one another and are oft-repeated; and the
skins of those who fear their Lord shiver; then their skins and hearts soften to
the remembrance of God” (Q. 39:23); and He said, may He be praised, “Is it
not enough for them that We have sent down the Book upon you that is recited
to them?” (Q. 29:51); and He said, may He be praised, “and when His verses
are recited to them, it increases them in faith . . .” (Q. 8:2); and He said, may He
be praised, “And when they hear what was sent down to the Messenger, you
see their eyes overflow with tears because of the truth which they recognize”
(Q. 5:83), [these being] among numerous [other] verses of it for those who lend
their ear and testify. This is one of His great signs and one of the indications
of His miracles.
Praise be to God who sent down the Book upon His servant and did not
have any crookedness in it [but He made it] straight. If it had come from other
than God, they would have found many contradictions in it. May God bless
Muhammad, the seal of prophets and messengers, the vexation of unbelievers,
the death of atheists, and the one sent with the Religion of Truth to make it
victorious over all religion, in spite of the hatred of polytheists.
May God be our sufficiency, He is the best trustee.
48 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZOF THE QUR’AN
Notes
1 In edition B, the text says: Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Ibrahim al-Khattabi, God be pleased
with him, said.
2 This sentence is jumbled up and has copyist errors in edition B, as the editors of this book
admit in this footnote. Translator.
3 Editors’ addition.
4 Al-Suyuti summarized this opinion in his book Al-Itqan, 2:204, Hijazi edition, 1360 AH.
5 See the story in Al-Aghani, 16:1 13, de Sacy’s edition.
6 This opinion was summarized by al-Suyutl in al-Itqan, 2:204 and by the author [Muhammad
Taqi al-Naqawi al-Qayini al-Khurasani] of Miftah al-Saâda, 2:359.
7 The addition is from edition B.
8 This part is summarized in al-Itqan, 2:205 and in Miftah al-Sakada, 2:360.
9 Perhaps studying the Qur’an from this point of view was what made some scholars like Abu
Hilal aPAskari interested in linguistic differences.
10 He is cAbd Allah ibn Muslim ibn Qutayba who died in 276 AH or 270 AH [cAbd Allah]
al-Siddiq mentions that he died in 207 AH (see his note 39 in edition A), a date different from
that given in the biographical sources.
1 1 In Arabic, hornet (zunbur) is masculine and scorption (âqrab) is feminine. Translator.
12 Arbcrry’s translation of this verse is, “He smote her heart with love.” Sec Arthur J. Arberry,
The Koran Interpreted (London: Oxford University Press, 1964). In the next sentence,
the word “pericardium” (shaghaf) refers to the thin serous membrane enclosing the heart.
Translator.
13 Rajaz is the name of an Arabic poetical meter. It is half the length of other meters, and it has
been considered to be more suitable for simpler, spontaneous poetic outpourings, though
many rajaz poems are quite sophisticated. Translator.
14 He was Imam al-ShaficI, according to the editor of A who quotes what he had said at the
beginning of his Treatise, “The language of the Arabs is the most capacious of languages in
ways of expression and has the greatest number of words. We don’t know that any human
being but a prophet can have comprehensive knowledge of it, although he does not use of it
anything that the common people cannot understand.”
15 Abb has been translated as “herbage” or “pastures” (Q. 80:31), hanan as “tenderness”|
(Q. 19:13), ghislin as “foul pus” or “blood mixed with water” (Q. 69:36), and al-raqim as I
“Inscriptions” (Q. 18:9). Translator.
16 I have opted to give numbers to the objections in order to make the argument clearer, as
Claude-France Audebert has done in her French translation of al-Khattabl’s treatise. See
her Al- flattabi et ITnimitabilile du Coratr. Traduction et Introduction au Bayan Tgaz al-Qur*an I
(Damascus: Institut Franâis de Damas, 1982), p. 129 ff. Al-Khattabi’s rebuttals later in the
text are similarly numbered though, unfortunately, not in the same order. Translator.
17 This verse is ascribed to al-Farazdaq but in some sources to Zaynab bint al-Tathriyya.|
See al-Lisan, 13:204; al-Tanbih, 36; al-Aghani, 7:123; al-Hamasa by al-Buhturi, 396. A verse I
close in meaning to this one is related as al-Farazdaq’s: see al-Hayawan, 6:298; al-Ma'ani I
al-Kabir, 1:285. Al-Jahiz says, “The wolf is not desired by his companion, but when he bleeds |
his companion attacks him and eats him.” Sec al-Hayawan, ed. by Harun, 7:63.
18 The verse is by aPAbbas ibn Mirdas; and Abu Khurasha is Khufaf ibn Nadba, the narrator
in al-Hayawan of “Amma kunta” ed. by Harun, 5:24. See Sharh al-Mufassal, Leipzig edition,
2:1184, and al-ShTr wa al-ShuIaraf ed. Shakir, 1:300.
19 Abu aPAbbas did not explain the meaning of hamma. It is the singular of hawamm, which
means poisonous reptiles or vermin. Translator.
20 A popular example in Arabic grammar where the subject which is a substantive noun is
wrongly and unnecessarily repeated by a pronoun. Translator.
21 Similar to a present participle in English used as a noun, like learning, teaching or under¬
standing. Translator.
22 This verse is quoted by Yaqut in Mirjam al-Buldan, 8:214, and ascribed to “a poet”.
23 Mayyafariqin is a city in the region of Diyar Bakr in Asia Minor [modern-day Turkey].
24 From his Mucallaqa. See Diwan Tarafa, p. 31; and Al-Îqd al-Thamin, p. 58, where the words
yaAamu l-kirama are used [instead of ya^tamu n-nufusa}.
25 The verb radifa (to ride) may be used cither with a direct object or with an indirect object.
Translator.
26 In edition B, there is an addition: “No linguist contests that.”
27 Al-Azhari says la introduces a relative clause here, and al-Farra5 says la is correctly negative.
Sec AI-1Asan, 5:296 under hur.
28 This is one of the proof-texts in Al-Mughni. See Sharh al-Shawahid by al-Suyuti, 114. The
first hemistich is: We, Banu Dabba, are cleavers.
29 He is al-Raci al-Numayrl (cAbld ibn Husayn ibn Mucawiya ibn Jandal). The verse is one of
the proof-texts of Al-Mughni. See Sharh, 116.
30 The verse is attributed to cAbld ibn al-Abras. See Diwan Âbid, p. 28, printed in Europe; see
also Kitab al-Smaâlayn [by al-cAskari], p. 194, eds Al-Bajawl and Abu al-Fadl, [Cairo:] 1952.
31 He is al-Muhalhil of the tribe of RabFa. See Al-Aghani, 5:59 [Cairo:] Dar al-Kutub.
32 A wabr is a cat-like, plant-eating animal of the desert. Translator.
33 A man who was a profligate joker.
34 Nonsense words. Translator.
35 The verses are in Al-Aghani, 3:163, in Dar al-Kutub’s edition, but the first hemistich reads:
“Rababa, the lady of the house.”
36 The text is so in edition A. But there is a variant reading elsewhere, using akhraj (male
ostrich) instead of ahwaj (swift). In the Diwan of Imru5 al-Qays, the verse reads:
[My] legs excite it, [my] whip lashes it,
[My] rebuke sounds like a swift, screaming [ostrich].
37 The poem is found in the Diwan of cAlqama, p. 133, published in a collection containing
five diwans.
38 Ibid., p. 134.
39 The text is unclear and the corrected version is from edition B.
40 See Sharh Diwan ImrP al-Qays, p. 166; al-Îqd al-Thamin, p. 132; Shitara) al-Nasraniyya,
1:10-11; and al-AJmda, 1:135 (1925 edition). The poet’s name in alMJmda is al-Harith ibn
Qatada and his nickname is al-Taw’am al-Yashkuri.
41 This verse is not found in the poet’s Diwan.
42 This is the text of this hemistich as in the original manuscript. It is unclear and defective.
43 The Diwan names the location as Dhat al-Sirr instead of “the valley of al-Siyy”.
44 In the diwan, as in al-Ûmda, 1:135, the text reads: “And did not leave [a donkey] in its
desert.”
45 The text in the Diwan reads, ‘When he approached the back part of Udakh,’ and ShuSira?
al-Nasraniyya, reads, “...the two flanks of Udakh, 1:11, and so docs al-Ûmda, 1:135. Udakh
is a place, and in the original manuscript it is named Udah and likewise in edition A. But we
could not locate the place.
46 This hemistich and the following one arc not found in the Diwan.
47 That is, the sun. Translator.
48 The verses are from al-Nabigha’s famous poem, in which he apologizes to [King] al-Nucman.
See his Diwan, p. 42 (printed in Egypt); see also al-Îqd al-Thamin, p. 148.
49 Al-Khattabi’s artistic taste is clear in this analysis. Furthermore, the connection between
studies of the Qur’an’s style and studies in literary criticism is evident. It is to be noted that
al-Baqillani [d. 1013] loo dealt with the muâllaqa of Imru’ al-Qays and analyzed it in the
context of his argument for the eloquence of the Qur’an.
50 “F the mother of ...” is a vulgar idiom, meaning “surmount”. Translator.
51 See Shi^r al-Akhtal, ed. Salihani, p. 85 (Beirut: 1905).
52 See Diwan al-A^sha, ed. R. Geyer, p. 135 ([London:] 1928).
53 This word is unclear in the original Arabic. Editors.
However, janafu-hu (?) may be read hatfu-hu (its death). Translator.
54 In Al-Itqanfi Ûlum al-Quân ([Cairo,] 2:205), al-Suyuti summarizes al-Khattabl’s opinion
about this aspect of the Fjaz at this point. The author of Miftah al-Salada (Haidarabad, 2:361)
does likewise.
The second treatise
Al-Nukat ft Fjaz al-Qur’an

(Subtleties in the Fjaz of the Qur’an)
by
Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn cIsa al-Rummani
296 ah-386 ah
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful1
May God bless our master, Muhammad, and his family and give him peace
Al-Shaykh, al-Imam Abu al-Hasan ‘All ibn ‘Isa al-Rummanl said, “May God
give you success, you have asked [me] to speak about the subtleties in the fyaz
of the Qur’an without prolonging the arguments. I am [here] doing my best
to [answer you and] win your affection, may God lead me to the truth by His
benevolence and mercy, and may He bless our master, Muhammad, and his
family and companions.”
Aspects of the tjaz of the Qur’an are evident in seven things [as follows].
[1] [People] giving up its imitation despite abundant motives and great need to
do that.
[2] Its challenge to everyone.
[3] Its sarfa (turning people away).
[4] Its rhetorical eloquence.
[5] Its truthful information about future matters.
[6] Its breach of custom.
[7] Its comparability with all other miracles.
As for rhetorical eloquence,2 it is of three ranks: one is the highest, another is

the lowest and another is in the middle between the highest and the lowest. The
rhetorical eloquence of the highest rank is inimitable, and it is that of the Qur’an.
Any other below it is within the bounds of possibility, such as the eloquence of
human beings.
Rhetorical eloquence is not merely the rendering of meaning understandable,
for a meaning may be understood by two persons one of whom is eloquent
-
and the other incloquent. Nor is rhetorical eloquence attention to the accuracy
of wording over meaning, for a word may be accurate in relation to a meaning
but weak and loathsome, or inappropriate and affected. Rhetorical eloquence is
rather the conveyance of meaning to the heart in the most beautiful wording.
The highest rank of it in beauty is the rhetorical eloquence of the Qur’an, and
this highest rank of it is specific to the Qur’an. The highest ranks of rhetorical
eloquence in poetry are inimitable to Arabs and non-Arabs, particularly to
those dumbfounded by it, but the Qur’an’s rhetorical eloquence is inimitable
to everyone.
Rhetorical eloquence consists of ten elements: (1) concision (al-ijaz),
(2) simile (al-tashbih), (3) metaphor (4) harmony (al-taltfum),
(5) periodic rhyme and assonance (6) paronomasia (al-tajanus).
(7) permutation (al-tasrlf), (8) implication (al-tadmiri), (9) hyperbole

(al-mubalagha) and (10) beautiful rendition (husn al-bayan). We shall explain
them chapter by chapter, if God Most High is willing.
(1) Chapter on concision4

Concision consists of decreasing the number of words without impairment
to the meaning. If a meaning can be expressed in many words and is possible
to be expressed in a few words, the reduction in words constitutes concision.
Concision is of two kinds: deletion and brevity.5 Deletion is the excision of
a word when the context implicitly indicates it; and brevity is constructing
speech with fewer words and a richer meaning without deleting anything.
The following are examples of concision by deletion: “So, ask the city”
(Q. 12:82), “but righteousness is he who fears” (Q. 2:189), “Acquittal from
God” (Q. 9:1) and “Obedience and a kind word” (Q. 47:21). Of this kind is
the deletion of the apodoses [of conditional clauses],6 for this is more eloquent
than mentioning them, and there are many examples of this in the Qur’an, such
as when He says, may His praise be exalted, “And if there were a Qur’an by
which mountains could be moved or the earth could be cut asunder or the dead
could be spoken to” (Q. 13:31) - it is as though it was said [in the apodosis], “it
would be this Qur’an”. Another example is “And those who feared their Lord
shall be conducted to Paradise in groups until, when \idhd} they have reached it
and its gates are opened” (Q. 39:73) - it is as though it was said [in response to
idha}, “they shall obtain eternal bliss that is free from being spoiled or ruffled”.
In these examples, deletion [of the apodosis] is more eloquent than mentioning
it because the mind remains free to imagine; but if the apodosis were mentioned,
the mind would be restricted to the words stated. Deletion of the apodosis in
such an expression as “If only you had seen cAll between the two ranks [of
fighters]” is more eloquent than mentioning it, for the reasons we have explained.
As for concision through brevity without deleting anything, it is more
obscure than concision by deletion because one needs to know where it is
appropriate to use and where it is not. The following are examples of it: “And in
retaliation, there is life for you” (Q. 2:179), “they think that every cry is against
them” (Q. 63:4), “and others you were unable to achieve but God had already
encompassed” (Q. 48:21), “they follow naught but conjecture and what souls
desire” (Q. 53:23), “your wrongdoing is only against yourselves” (Q. 10:23), and
“and evil devising encompasses none but the authors thereof’ (Q. 35:43).
This kind of concision is abundantly attested in the Qur’an. People have
considered the [common] saying “Killing precludes more killing” to be nice,
but there is a difference between it and the Qur’an’s wording (Q. 2:179) in
rhetorical eloquence and concision; and this is evident in four things: (i) [the
Qur’an] is richer in meaning, (ii) more concise in expression, (iii) further from
the affectation of repetition, and (iv) more beautifully composed of harmonious
THE SECOND TREATISE 55
letters. As for being richer in meaning, it contains all that is intended by saying,
“Killing precludes more killing” and has additional beautiful ideas such as
highlighting justice by mentioning retaliation, showing the desired purpose
by mentioning life, and summoning to God’s prescription in it by awakening
desire and fear. As for being concise in expression, what is equivalent to “Killing
precludes more killing” is His saying “retaliation is life”; the former consists
of fourteen letters [in Arabic] and the latter of ten. As for being far from the
affectation of repetition, which by itself is difficult for one to utter, there is
repetition in “Killing precludes more killing” that is not as eloquent as the
other; and when repetition is such, it falls short of being in the highest rank
of rhetorical eloquence. As for being beautifully composed of harmonious
letters, this is perceived by one’s sensibility and is found in the pronunciation
[of the Arabic letters]: for going from /[/ to /1/ is easier than going from / 1/ to
/’/ (hamza) because of the [vocal] distance between the /’/ (hamza) and the ///;
similarly, going from / s/ to /hl is easier than going from /a/ to /1/ ? Because
of all these matters that we have mentioned, the [Qur’anic] citation is more
eloquent and more beautiful than [the common saying], although the latter has
eloquence and beauty.
The ijaz obtaining in the texts on which we have thrown light occurs when
certain factors in them combine and make them appear to the mind or soul to
be of the highest rank of rhetorical eloquence, although on rare occasions this
may be confused with texts that are very beautiful because of their brevity,
splendour, sweet wording and truthful ideas. An example of this is the saying of
CA11, may God be pleased with him, “Every person’s value is what he does best.”
This is a wonderful statement whose evident beauty is in no need of description.
Fragments like this one, however, cannot be a reason for a general judgement.
On the other hand, if speech of this kind is well organized in a continued manner
to be the size of the shortest sura [of the Qur’an] or the longest verse [of it], the
judgement regarding its /jaz becomes evident, as is clear from the challenge
[encompassed] in His saying, may Fie be exalted, “then produce a sura like it”
(Q. 2:23), the i/jaz being evident in the size of a sura of the Qur’an.
Concision (al-ijaz) is eloquence but making something too short (al-taqsir) is
ineloquence. Similarly, prolixity (al-itnab) is eloquence but verbosity (al-tatwll)
is ineloquence. In concision there is no impairment of the meaning intended;
but in making something too short, this is not so because impairment will be
inevitable with it. As for prolixity, it occurs when giving details of the meaning
in places where detail is appropriate. With regard to concision and prolixity, each
has an appropriate place where it is prioritized on account of the strong need for
it and the great interest in it. As for verbosity, it is a defect and an incapability
of expressing oneself, because it is an affectation containing much where little
is sufficient. It is like a person taking a long way to some place because he
does not know the short way. But prolixity is not so, for it is like a person taking
a long way to some place because the way has many excursion spots and great
benefits along it, and so he gathers benefits on his way to his destination at the
same time as he achieves the final aim wanted.
Concision is of two kinds: one of them shows a subtle idea after an
understanding of the |contextual] sentence explanation [has already been
achieved]; and the other brings out the meaning with the least number of words.
The first kind occurs mostly in the analogical sciences (al-ûliim al-qiyasiyya)
because when the sentence explanation is understood, it is sufficient thereafter
to keep [one’s attention fixed on] the subtle idea, since it is then indicative
by itself and any need to [further assert] the connection between both [parts]
can be dispensed with. This kind of concision occurs only after the sentence
understanding has been established, for the subtlety then can be of use. As
for the other kind [of concision], it is a freshly started [statement] with no
specific circumstance to be connected with it in relation to an understanding
of the context.8
Concision has three means: (i) by using the nearest way and eschewing
the farthest, (ii) by addressing the intended topic without ramification, and
(iii) by showing the benefit to be appreciated immediately and not in future,
for the [thought of the] future is oppressive to the soul. An idea (i) may have
two ways — one of which is shorter than the other as when you say, “He moved
with a quick motion” instead of “He quickened”. An intended topic (ii) may
have many branches, such as [placing] a love rhapsody (al-tashbib) before
eulogy (al-madih) or an intervening non-essential description in speech. And
(iii) showing the benefit to be [immediately] appreciated - this is concision
because it is pleasant to the soul.
Now if you understand concision and its various classes and then contemplate
the samples of it occurring in the Qur’an, you will understand its virtue in
relation to other speech, namely, its superiority over other modes of expression
and its precedence over other kinds of elucidation (al-bayan). Concision is the
refinement of speech that improves elucidation; concision is the purification of
words from turbidity and cleansing them from filth; concision is elucidating an
idea in the least words possible; and concision is showing an abundant meaning
in spare wording. Concision and abundance can indeed be one in meaning,
and this is clear in a sentence using numbers and [then] giving details as when
a person tells me that he has five and three and two [things], instead of ten.
Speaking about the elucidation of various ideas may become very long, and yet it
will still be extremely concise. If in using prolixity, there is still a place for using
more words, prolixity then is concision - such as in expressing thankfulness to
God Most High that He deserves for His blessings: prolixity in it is concision.
(2) Chapter on simile

A simile is a comparison joining together two things, one of which replaces
the other in sense perception or mental conception. A simile may come to be
through the words or in the mind. A simile in words is like saying, “Zayd is as
strong as a lion.” The particle “as” [ka in Arabic] joins the part compared to
the part compared to. As for a simile in the mind, it is belief in the meaning of
the statement. A simile of sense perception is like two bodies of water or of gold
- and the like - one of which stands for the other. A simile of mental conception
is like comparing Zayd’s strength to that of ‘Amr. Strength cannot be seen but
it can be conceived, replacing another, and so it is compared to it. A simile is
of two kinds: (i) comparing two things similar to each other, and (ii) comparing
two disparate things having a common quality that unites them. The first is like
comparing a jewel to a jewel, and comparing blackness to blackness. The second
is like comparing a hardship to death, and rhetorical elucidation to licit magic.
A rhetorically eloquent comparison brings something obscure into clarity by
using a particle of comparison in a beautiful construction.
This topic is one in which poets vie for precedence and one in which
the eloquence of the eloquent is manifested, for comparison gives speech an
amazing eloquence. As we have shown, it is of different classes of beauty. The
rhetorical eloquence of a simile consists of joining two things having a common
quality that gains clarity in them. The clearer part, in which lies elucidation by
comparison, is of several kinds: one of them (i) brings out what is not perceived
by the senses as something perceived by the senses; another (ii) brings out
what is not prevalent in custom as something prevalent in custom; another
(iii) brings out what is not known by spontaneous intuition as something
known by spontaneous intuition; and another (iv) brings out what has no
descriptive power as something that has descriptive power. The first is like
comparing something non-existent to something absent; the second is [like]
comparing resurrection after death to awakening after sleep; the third is
[like] comparing the revivification of bodies to the rewriting of a book; and the
fourth is like comparing the light of an oil lamp to the light of day.
A simile may be one of two kinds: a rhetorical simile (tashbih balagha) and a
realistic simile (tashbih haqiqa). A rhetorical simile is like comparing the deeds
of the unbelievers to a mirage; and a realistic simile is like saying, “This dinar
is like this dinar, so take the one you wish.” We shall now mention some of the
similes occurring in the Qur’an and, as much as possible, draw attention to the
eloquence they contain, God being our help to the truth.9
(i) An example of that is His saying, may He be exalted, “And those who
disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in a spacious desert. The thirsty
person thinks it is water until, when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing”
(Q. 24:39). This is eloquence that has brought out what is not perceived by the
senses as something that can be perceived by the senses. The two [parts of
the simile] are united in invalidating what is presumed despite great need and
want. If it were said, “The onlooker thinks it is water, then it turns out to be
contrary to what he surmised”, this would be eloquent; but more eloquent than
58 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZOF THE QUR'AN
it is the wording of the Qur’an, because the thirsty person is most eager for
water and his heart aspires to it but then, after his disappointment, he encounters
a Reckoning that leads him to eternal torture in Hell-Fire we take refuge in
-
God from this situation. Comparing the deeds of the unbelievers to a mirage is
a beautiful simile, yet how much more so it is when it additionally has beautiful
construction, sweet wording, abundant benefit and truthful meaning.
Another example is His saying, may He be exalted, “The likeness of
those who disbelieve in their Lord is that their deeds are as ashes on which
the wind blows violently on a stormy day; they have no power over anything
they have earned” (Q. 14:18). This is eloquence that has brought out what
is not perceived by the senses as something perceived by the senses, for the
part compared and the part compared to are united in [showing] perdition,
uselessness and inability to regain what has gone by, and there is great distress
in that and an eloquent moral lesson.
Another example is His saying, may He be exalted, “And relate to them
the story of the one to whom We gave Our signs, but he stepped away from
them” (Q. 7:175); then He added, “his likeness is that of a dog: if you drive
it away, it lolls its tongue and pants; and if you leave it, it lolls its tongue and
pants” (Q. 7:176). This is eloquence that brings out what is not perceived by
the senses as something perceived by the senses, for they are both united in
disobeying and deprecating The dog disobeys you by continuing to loll its
tongue and pant whether you drive it away or leave it alone. Likewise, the
unbeliever disobeys admitting faith [to his heart], whether approached by
kindness or by violence, and this indicates the wisdom of God, may He be
praised and exalted, in not withholding grace.
He also said, may He be exalted, “And those upon whom they call, apart
from Him, and do not answer them at all are but like a man who stretches
out his hands to water that it may reach his mouth, but it reaches it not”
(Q. 13:14). This is eloquence that brings out what is not perceived by the
senses as something perceived by the senses, both uniting in their need to
obtain benefit and in distress for what cannot be obtained. In this, there is a
proscription against calling upon anyone but God, may He be exalted, for He
has the power to benefit and to harm, and not a mote’s weight is lost with Him.
(ii) He also said, may He be exalted, “And when We shook the mountain
over them as though it were a canopy” (Q. 7:171). This is eloquence that brings
out what is not prevalent in custom as something prevalent in custom; and
they are both united in the idea of height in the image. Herein is a great sign to
anyone who contemplates the power of God, Most High, on seeing that or on
acting accordingly in order to ask for success from Him and receive benefits by
obeying Him.
And He said, may He be exalted, “The likeness of the present life is indeed
like water that We send down from heaven and the plants of the earth mingle
with it ...” to the end of the verse (Q. 10:24). This is eloquence that brings
out what is not prevalent in custom as something prevalent in custom; the
part compared and the part compared to are united in being embellished and
joyful then ending in perdition afterwards. Herein is a moral lesson to one
who would take warning, and herein is an admonishment to one who would
reflect and know that every evanescent matter is paltry even if it may last for a
long time, and that it is insignificant even if its worth is great.
He said, may He be exalted, “We sent against them a furious wind on a day
of continuous ill fortune, tearing people away as though they were the trunks
of uprooted palm trees” (Q. 54:20). This is eloquence that brings out what is
not prevalent in custom as something prevalent in custom; and they are both
united in being uprooted and destroyed by the wind. In this, there is a sign that
indicates great power and causes fear of expedited punishment.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And when the heaven is rent asunder,
and becomes crimson like red leather” (Q. 55:37). This is a simile that brings
out what is not prevalent in custom as something prevalent in custom; and they
are both united in redness and in the softness of fluid substances. Herein is
an indication of the great authority and the effectiveness of the power [of God],
so that [human] intentions may go there with hope.
He said, may He be exalted, “Know that the life of the present world is
only a sport and a pastime, an adornment and a cause for boasting among
yourselves, and a rivalry in multiplying riches and children; it is like the rain
whose vegetation rejoices the unbelievers ...” to the end of the verse (Q. 57:20).
This is a simile that brings out what is not prevalent in custom as something
prevalent in custom; and they are both united in showing intense admiration
followed by change through a reversal. In this, there is scorn for this world and
warning against being lured by it and giving in to it.
(iii) And He said, may He be exalted, “and for a Garden, the breadth of
which is like the breadth of heaven and earth” (Q. 57:21). This is a simile which
brings out what is not known by spontaneous intuition as something known by
spontaneous intuition; and in that, there is an amazing elucidation of feelings
established in one’s heart as well as an arousal of longing for Paradise by a
beautiful description of its vastness; and both are united by great size.
He also said, may He be exalted, “The likeness of those who were made
to bear the Torah, then they have not borne it, is as that of an ass carrying
books” (Q. 62:5). This is a simile that has brought out what is not known
by spontaneous intuition as something known by spontaneous intuition, and
they are both united in showing the ignorance of what is carried; and in this,
there is criticism of the method of those who forfeit learning by depending on
memorizing received narrations without understanding.
And He also said, may He be exalted, “as though they were hollow trunks
of fallen down palm trees” (Q. 69:7). This is a simile that has brought out what
60 THREE TRI' ATISES ON THE FJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
is not known by spontaneous intuition as something known by spontaneous

intuition; and they are both united in showing bodies empty of souls, and herein
is scorn for everything that has that final outcome.
He said, may He be exalted, “The likeness of those who take protectors other
than God is as the likeness of the spider ...” to the end of the verse (Q. 29:41).
This is a simile that has brought out what is not known by spontaneous intuition
as something known by spontaneous intuition, and both senses arc united in
showing the weakness of the entities depended on and in the fragility of what is
leaned on. Tn this, there is a warning against self-deception by working without
certainty, and there is a sense of debilitation in it.
(iv) He said, may I Ie be exalted, “And His are the ships that run, established on
the sea like mountains” (Q. 55:24). This is a simile that has brought out what
has no descriptive power as something that has descriptive power, and they
are both united in showing large bulk, though mountains are larger in size.
Herein is a moral lesson about [God’s] power that renders commercial ships
subservient despite their bulkiness, and herein is also shown the beneficial use
of ships and the ability to reach distant countries in them.
He said, may He be exalted, “He created man from dry clay like baked
pottery” (Q. 55:14). This is a simile that has brought out what has no descriptive
power as something that has descriptive power, and they are both united in
softness and dryness, although one of them [is dried] by fire and the other by
the wind.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Do you hold the giving of drink to
pilgrims and the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque as equal to him who
believes in God . . (Q. 9:19). In this verse, there is a negation of the idea that
the sanctity of giving drink to pilgrims and of maintaining the Sacred Mosque
is equal to belief in God or to jihad [holy war].10 This is amazing eloquence,
demonstrated by the comparison of false belief and invalid analogy; and in it,
there is an indication of extolling the believer’s condition of belief [in God] and
that, with this quality in him, he is analogically unequalled by any | unbelieving]
created being. Similar to it is, “Or do those who commit evil deeds think
that We shall consider them equal to those who believe and do good works . . .?”
(Q, 45:21).
(3) Chapter on metaphor

A metaphor jstiâra) is using a term in a manner for which it was not originally
intended in the language, the purpose being to transfer meaning for elucidation.
The difference between a metaphor and a simile is that the simile has a particle
of comparison used originally in speech that is not different from ordinary usage.
Not so the metaphor, for the end of a metaphor is the use of the term for an
end that it was not meant for in the origin of the language.
Every metaphor must have certain things: a borrowed element, an element

borrowed for and an element borrowed from. Every eloquent metaphor is a
combination of two things with a common idea in them, the eloquence of one
imparting elucidation to the other as in a simile but by transferring the word
containing the comparison without the particle denoting it in the language.
Every beautiful metaphor must exhibit an elucidation which reality cannot
replace because if reality could replace it, it would have been preferable and the
metaphor would not have been used. Every metaphor must have a reference to
reality in it, which is the original meaning in the language, like Imru’ al-Qays’s
saying describing the horse as “the fetter of wild animals”, its reality [haqiqa:
real sense] being “the restrainer of wild animals”, but the former is more
eloquent and more beautiful; or like your saying, “the balance of the analogy”,
its reality being “the equalization of the analogy”, but the metaphor in the
former is more eloquent and more beautiful. And so, every metaphor must have
a [background] reality, and eloquence is necessary to elucidate what reality does
not make understood. We shall now mention some metaphors occurring in the
Qur’an with rhetorical eloquence.
God said, may He be exalted, “And We shall come to the work they have
done, and make it scattered dust” (Q. 25:23). The reality of “come to” is “resort
to”, but “come to” is more eloquent because it shows that He will treat them
like someone coming from travel, and He will treat them so in order to give
them time like a person who was away from them, then came back and he saw
them doing something contrary to what he had commanded them. In this,
there is a warning against being lured by being given a respite. The idea that
is common to both is justice because resorting to invalidating something bad
is justice, and “come to” is more eloquent as we explained. As for “scattered
dust”, it is an elucidation that brought out what is not perceived by the senses
as something perceived by the senses.
And He said, may He be exalted, “So crack11 that which you are
commanded” (Q. 15:94). Its reality is “declare [with a sharp sudden sound]
that which you are commanded”, but the metaphor is more eloquent than
the reality, because “cracking” a command must have an effect like cracking
a bottle, otherwise “declaring” may be so difficult that it has no effect and
becomes as though it has not occurred. The idea that is common to both is
communicating; but communicating with an effect like cracking a bottle is
more eloquent.
He also said, may He be exalted: “Verily, when the water raged, We carried
you in the ship” (Q. 69:11). 'Hie reality of “raged” is “rose high” but the
metaphor is more eloquent because “raged” [tagha] means “rose victoriously”,
which is an exaggeration of the hard situation.
He said, may He be exalted, “[destroyed] by a furious wind” (Q. 69:3). The
reality of “furious” [âtiya} is “violent” but [the metaphorical] iatiya is more
eloquent, because it means “violent with a certain refractoriness in it.”
And He said, may He be exalted, “[T]hey will hear it sighing as it boils,

almost bursting with fury” (Q. 67:8). The reality [haqiqa\ real sense] of “sighing”
is “emitting a horrid noise like the sighing of a weeper” but the metaphor is
more eloquent than it and shorter, the meaning combining both being the
horrid sound. The reality of “bursting with fury” is “[portraying] the intensity
of boiling by blazing”, but the metaphor is more eloquent because the intensity
of fury is palpable, and one’s soul perceives the extent of the severe revenge it
calls for, the intense feeling of the soul calling for severe revenge in reaction.
There is here the greatest proscription and the biggest admonition, and the
most telling indication of [God’s] wide power and wisdom.
Of the same [kind] is, “When it sees them from a far place, they will
hear its raging and roaring” (Q. 25:12) - that is, “it receives them in order
to fall upon them like someone receiving them who is furiously huffing against
them”.
He said, may He be exalted, “And surely it is in the Mother of the Book
with Us” (Q. 43:4). Its reality is “Origin of the Book” but “Mother” is more
eloquent because it is more comprehensive and more manifest regarding going
back to the source from which it [the Qur’an] originated.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And when the anger of Moses became
silent” (Q. 7:152). Its reality is [when his] “anger abated”. But the metaphor is
more eloquent because it abated with a readiness to come back, and so it is like
“silence” ready to return to speech as wisdom would require in that situation;
anger abated by silence from what might be considered unlikable, the meaning
combining both being holding back from what could be hated.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Leave Me with him whom I created
alone” (Q. 74:11). “Leave Me” here is a metaphor, and its reality is “Leave
my punishment” of him whom I created alone by not asking Me about him.
To emphasize the threat, He said “Leave Me with him” because this is
more eloquent, although God Most High cannot be prevented [from doing
anything]. This is more eloquent because there is no punishment greater than
what God Most High is capable of administering. And this, indeed, is the
greatest level of reprimand possible.
He said, may He be exalted, “We shall attend to you both, O two
heavy weights” [jinn and men]. God, may He be cherished and exalted,
is not preoccupied by one matter to the neglect of another; but this usage
is more eloquent in expressing the threat, its reality being “We shall turn
to you”. However, because a person who turns to do a thing may be unable
to do it due to his simultaneous preoccupation with something else and,
as is commonly experienced, only a person able to pay exclusive attention to
one thing would be capable of doing it, He indicated this to us exaggeratedly
in a manner understandable to us regarding anyone in this situation, so
that the exaggerated reprimand may be understood as a wise maxim by high
and low.
He also said, may He be exalted, “So We blotted out the sign of night
and made the sign of day sighted” (Q. 17:12). “Sighted” here is a metaphor,
its reality being “shining”, and it is more eloquent than “shining” because it
indicates the blessing that denotes benefaction. It has been said that “sighted”
means “able to see”, and this would be the reality.
He said, may He be exalted, “and my head is aflame with hoariness”
(Q. 19:4). 'rhe original use of “aflame” is for fire; but in this position, it is more
eloquent. Its reality is the abundance of the head’s grey hair; but since this
abundance is quickly increasing, it has become like burning fire in spreading
fast. The rhetorical effect of this usage is wondrous because hoarincss has
spread over the head unstoppably like burning fire.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Nay, We hurl the truth against
falsehood and it shatters it and lo, falsehood perishes” (Q. 21:18). “Hurl” and
“shatter” here are metaphors and are more eloquent than reality, which is
“We bring the truth against falsehood, and falsehood will go away”. However,
the metaphor is more eloquent because “hurling” indicates “overpowering”,
for when you say, “He hurled it against him”, the meaning is “He threw it at
him with compulsion and forcefully”. Truth is hurled against falsehood and
eliminates it by force and coercion, not by doubt and suspicion; and “it shatters
it” is more eloquent than “it makes it go away” because, in “shattering”, there
is a greater effect in showing defiance and force.
He said, may He be exalted, “the punishment of a sterile day” (Q. 22:55).
“Sterile” here is a metaphor and its reality is “destructive”. The metaphor
is more eloquent because the indication is that that day will have no good to
follow it for those punished, so it was said, “a sterile day” - that is, “it brings
forth no good”. There is perdition in both [metaphor and reality], but one of
them is greater.
He said, may He be exalted, “And a sign for them is the night, from which
Wc strip off the day, and lo they are in darkness” (Q. 36:37). “We strip” is
a metaphor and its reality is “We move out” the day from it. The metaphor
is more eloquent, for “stripping” is “bringing out” something from what is in
close contact with it and is difficult to separate it from because of its cohesive
cleaving to it, and such is the night.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And we revived a dead land with it”
(Q. 43:11). “We revived” here is a metaphor and its reality is “We made
visible” plants, trees and fruits with it [i.e., water] and so it is as though “We
revived” them after their death, and as though it was said, “We revived a dead
land with it” as when you say, “God revived the dead and they were quickened”.
This metaphor is more eloquent than reality because it contains an exaggeration
that would not be present in “We made visible”. “Making visible” applies to
reviving and making grow, but it is more eloquent [to use] “reviving”.
lie said, may He be exalted, “And you wished that the one [group] without
a thorn should be yours” (Q. 8:7). The use of “thorn” is metaphorical and is
64 THREE TREATISES ON THE BJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
more eloquent, its reality being “weaponry”. He intimated by this the sharpness
that causes fear, and He thus resorted to a suggestion leading to something
subtle. Weaponry includes arms that have sharpness and others that do not,
but it is the “thorn” of weaponry that remains [in the mind].
And He said, may He be exalted, “And when evil touches him, he offers
long prayers” (Q. 41:51). “Long” (farid) here is metaphorical, its reality being
“profuse” but the metaphor is more eloquent because it is clearer by being
perceived by the sense [of sight], but every kind of profusion is not so. The
[Arabic] word used is '■arid (broad) because breadth is more indicative than
length.
He said, may He be exalted, “until war lays down its burdens” (Q. 47:4).
This is metaphorical and its reality is “until the people making war lay
down its burdens”. He made the war lay down burdens instead of the
people for the purpose of intensification because of war’s consequential
importance.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And by the dawn as it breathes” (Q. 81:18).
“Breathes” here is a metaphor, its reality being “when it starts spreading”, but
“breathes” is more eloquent than that. The idea of “starting” exists in both
of them, but it is more eloquent with “breathing” because of the refreshing it
brings to the heart.
He said, may He be exalted, “So God made it taste the garment of
hunger and of fear because of what they used to do” (Q. 16:112). This is
metaphorical, its reality being “God made it [the city] endure hunger and
fear”, but the metaphor is more eloquent because it indicates continuity,
just as a garment continues to closely clothe the skin and the like. The verb
“taste” was used because a person “tastes” the bitterness of something, and
likewise they [the people of the city] experienced this hardship of tasting
it continuously.
He said, may He be exalted, “Distress and adversity befell them and they
were shaken” (Q. 2:214). This is metaphorical, and “they were shaken” (zulzilu)
is more eloquent than any other locution would be in expressing the grossness
of what afflicted them. The idea of a harrying action exists in both of them, but
being “shaken” is more eloquent and more severe.
And He said, may He be exalted, “O our Lord, pour out steadfastness
upon us” (Q. 2:250). “Pour out” is metaphorical and its reality is “give” us
patience, but “pour out” is more eloquent because in “pouring out” there is
abundance and elucidation [of the concept].
He said, may He be exalted, “They shall be stricken by abasement wherever
they are found, unless they have protection from God or from men” (Q. 3:112).
Its reality is “Abasement shall happen to them” but the metaphor is more
eloquent because it indicates firming up the abasement happening to them, just
as a thing [a nail or a peg] is driven firmly by being struck [with a hammer],
and because the [image of] firming up is perceptible; furthermore, “striking”
indicates humiliation and inferiority,12 and there is severe rebuke to them in

that as well as deterring- others from their condition.
He said, may He be exalted, “But they threw it away behind their backs”
(Q. 3:187). Its reality is “They neglected it”, but the metaphor is more eloquent
because it does not restrict the imagination.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Our Lord, send down to us from heaven
a table with food that may be a festival to us” (Q. 5:114). Its reality is “that it
may be a joy to us”. The metaphor is more eloquent because it refers to what,
in a certain amount, causes joy customarily.
He said, may He be exalted, “And when you see those who plunge into
Our signs ...” (Q. 6:68). Every “plunging” into [vain discussions of] the
Qur’an has been censured by God. The word “plunge” is metaphorical and
is borrowed from plunging into water. Its reality is, “those who mention Out-
signs”, but the metaphor is more eloquent because it makes the confusion [of
vain discussions] visible, for the confusion of ideas is not visible to them as it
is in the closeness of the water to them [on plunging into it].
He said, may He be exalted, “So he lowered them down by deception”
(Q. 7:22). Its reality is, “He led them to sin by deception”. But the metaphor
is more eloquent because 1 Ie expressed lowering them from a height to a low
point in a manner that can be perceived by the senses.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Their building which they erected
will continue to be a doubt in their hearts” (Q. 9:110), and He said, may He
be exalted, “Is he, then, who founded his building on fear of God and His
pleasure ...” to the end of the verse (Q. 9:109); all this is metaphorical, for
“building” originally is erection of walls and the like; and its real meaning is
“their belief’ according to which they acted. The metaphor is more eloquent
because “building” conveys what can be felt and imagined. Furthermore, He
considered “building” to be “a doubt” when it is rather “a source of doubt”,
but the metaphor is more eloquent as when you say, “He is all mischief’, and
this is more eloquent than considering him a mixture [of vices] because the
blameworthy power is in the “doubt” used rhetorically and not by a deletion
intended only for concision in words.
He said, may He be exalted, “Those who turn [others] away from the path of
God and seek to make it crooked” (Q 7:45). “Crookedness” here is metaphorical,
its reality being “error”, but the metaphor is more eloquent because it conveys
a clarity in the comprehensiveness of what can be perceived by the senses in
turning away from straightness to crookedness.
And He said, may I Ie be exalted, “Would that I had power against you or that
I might take refuge in a strong pillar” (Q 11:80). A “pillar” originally belongs
to a building, and then the word was used increasingly and metaphorically
to mean “support” of someone in need of help and to signify “argument”
in support of Islam. Its real meaning [in the verse] is a “strong support”,
and the metaphor is more eloquent because a “pillar” is perceivable by the
senses but the helper is not, insofar as his being any kind of “strong
support”.
He said, may He be exalted, “Our command comes to it by night or by
day, and We render it a mown field as if it had not flourished the day before”
(Q. 10:24). “To mow” originally is used for plants but its real meaning here is
“to destroy”, and the metaphor is more eloquent because it invokes perception
by sight.
And He said, may He be exalted, “A. L. R. This is a book We have revealed
to you so that you may bring humankind out of darkness into light” (Q. 14:1).
Ail mention of “out of darkness into light” in the Qur’an is metaphorical, its
real meaning being “out of ignorance into knowledge”; and the metaphor is
more eloquent because it encompasses the clarification of bringing out something
that can be perceived by the eyes.
He said, may He be exalted, “[We made them] mowed, extinguished”
(Q. 21:15). “Extinguished” is originally used for fire and its real meaning here
is “quiet”, but the metaphor is more eloquent because “extinguishing” a fire is
a stronger indication of ruin, as when one says, “So-and-So was extinguished
like an oil lamp”.
He said, may He be exalted, “Do you not see that they wander distractedly
in every valley?” (Q. 26:225) The word “valley” here is a metaphor, so is
“wandering distractedly”, this being one of the most beautiful rhetorical
expressions. Its reality is “they mix up things in what they say” because they
are not intent on the path of truth. The metaphor is more eloquent because it
contains clarity in bringing out the meaning to understanding a human being’s
mixing up things by wandering distractedly in every valley that occurs to him
to go to.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And as one who summons to God by
His leave and as a bright lamp” (Q. 33:46). “Lamp” here is a metaphor and
its reality is “clarifying agent” but the metaphor is more eloquent because it
invokes what can be perceived by the senses.
He said, may He be exalted, “O, woe to us! Who has raised us up from
our place of sleep?” (Q. 36:52). [Place of] “sleep” is a metaphor and its reality
is “place of peril”, and the metaphor is more eloquent because “sleep” is more
perceptible than death, and “waking up” is more perceptible than “revivification”
after death because a human being sleeps and wakes up repeatedly but death
and life are not so repeated.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And on that day, We shall leave some
of them to surge against others” (Q. 18:99). “Surge” (yamuj) is originally used
for water, its real meaning here is “mix with one another”, and the metaphor
is more eloquent because the power of water to mix [things] is greater.
He said, may He be exalted, “And in cAd, when We sent against them the
sterile wind” (Q. 51:41). “Sterile” is metaphorically used for the wind, its real
meaning being a wind that does not bring rainy clouds; but the metaphor is
more eloquent because the condition of “sterility” is more perceptible in the

case of a wind that does not bring rain, for what does not happen in a negative
case is more certain and more perceptible than what happens otherwise.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And keep not your hand chained to your
neck, nor stretch it out entirely” (Q. 17:29). Its reality is: do not “withhold”
giving completely to one who asks [to be given], and the metaphor is more
eloquent because He made “withholding” from one who asks [to be given]
equivalent to “chaining” the hand to the neck; this makes “withholding” in both
cases a beautiful comparison, but the case of the hand “chained” [to the neck]
is more perceptible and stronger in expressing a hateful thing.
He said, may He be exalted, “And We will most surely make them
taste the nearer punishment before the greater punishment” (Q. 32:21). Its
reality is “We will most surely punish them” but the metaphor [in using “taste”]
is more eloquent, for the sensation of one who “tastes” is stronger because
he seeks to perceive what he tastes, and because He replaced the sensation of
delicious food with the sensation of pain, the priority in tasting being the tasting
of food.
And He said, may He be exalted, “Then We smote their ears in the
cave for many years” (Q. 18:11). Its reality is “We prevented them from
the sensation of hearing with their ears”, but without making them deaf.
The metaphor is more eloquent because it is like “smiting” a book so that it
may not be read. Being prevented from sensation, so that there is no sensing,
is something similar. He specified the lack of sensation by “smiting” their ears
and not their eyes because this is more indicative of the intention, for “smiting”
the eyes without blindness does not immediately suppress perception, such
as by closing the eyelids; but preventing hearing without deafness is not
like this, because if they are “smitten” without deafness, they can still have
sensation by all other parts of the body with which perception is possible, and
[also] because, if smitten, the ears being the medium of attention, there would
be no way to that.
He said, may He be cherished and exalted, “Then their heads were made
to hang low” (Q. 21:65). Its reality is “they bowed their heads” because of
humiliation when refuted by argument. But the expression was exaggerated
by making them like someone falling on his head because of his perplexity on
account of the cataclysm befalling him.
And He said, may He be exalted, “And when they were smitten in their
hands” (Q. 7: 149). This is metaphorical and its reality is: [when they] “regretted”
on seeing causes for regret. But the metaphor is more eloquent because
it evokes the feeling for what makes regret necessary for what is regretful
at hand, and so it is more disclosing of the bad choice that has caused evil
consequences.
(4) Chapter on harmony

Harmony (al-tal&um) is the opposite of dissonance (al-tanafur). It consists of
modulation (taSdil) in the sounds of the letters of a composition. A composition
can be of three kinds: (i) discordant, (ii) harmonious of the middle category,
and (iii) harmonious of the highest category.13 A discordant composition is like
the poet's saying:
The grave {qabr) of Harb is in a forlorn desert (qafr).

And there is no grave near (qurba} Harb’s grave.14
It was said that this is verse byjZMM, because no one is able to recite it three times
without stammering, the reason being the dissonance of letters that we have
mentioned.
As for a harmonious composition of the middle category, which is one of
the most beautiful, it is like the saying of the poet:
God’s curtain being between her and me, Ramim shot me

On the evening when white antelopes hid in their covert.
(Ramim is she who had told the neighbours near her home:
“I guarantee you that he is still wandering in love.”)13
There was a day when, if she shot me, I would have shot her;
But my long acquaintance with fighting is ancient and bygone.16
As for the harmonious composition of the highest category, that would be

the Qur’an in its entirety, and this is evident to anyone who contemplates it.
The difference between it and other discourses regarding the harmony of letters
is like the difference between the discordant composition and the composition
of the middle category.17 Some people are more sensitive about this matter and
more able to recognize it than others, just as some people are more sensitive
about distinguishing correctly metered from incorrectly metered verse, people
being as different in dispositions âl-liba^ as they are in appearances (al-suwar)
and characters (wa al-akhlaq). The reason for harmony is the modulation of
the sounds of the letters in the composition: the more modulated they are, the
more harmonious the composition is. As for dissonance, the reason for it is what
al-Khalil [ibn Ahmad] has mentioned about the great distance or the great
proximity [between letter sounds].18 If the distance is great, it is like leaping;
and if the proximity is great, it is like the walk of a fettered man. Both involve
raising the tongue and returning it to its normal position [fast and repetitively],
and both are difficult for the tongue. Ease in pronunciation lies in resorting
to modulation, and that is why idgham (doubling a letter or contracting one
letter into a similar one) and ibdal (replacement of one letter by another) occur
in discourse.
The usefulness of harmony lies in the beauty of the discourse in one’s

hearing, its ease in one’s pronunciation, and the acceptance of its meaning in
one’s mind because of the beauty of form and the method used in delivering
the ideas. It is like reading a manuscript in the most beautiful calligraphy and
lettering possible, and reading it in the ugliest penmanship and lettering possible.
Although the ideas in both are the same, they exhibit a disparity in form.
The phonetic articulations of letters are different: some come out from the
deepest part of one’s throat, some from the tip of one’s mouth, and some from
an area in-between.
Harmony in modulation occurs when there is neither great distance nor
great proximity [between sounds]. This is demonstrated by ease on one’s
tongue, beauty in one’s ears, and acceptance by one’s disposition. If beautiful
elucidation is added, coupled with sound proof of the highest order [as in the
Qur’an], inimitability ^jaz) becomes evident to any person of good disposition
who is perceptive of the gems of speech, just as the highest categories of verse are
evident to him as distinct from its lowest when there is disparity between them.
The challenge [of the Qur’an] was addressed to all in order to eliminate
ambiguity, and it came in the form of giving information where imitation cannot
occur because of inimitability. For He said, may He be cherished and exalted,
“And if you are in doubt as to what We have sent down on Our servant, then
produce a Sura [a Chapter] like it, and call upon your helpers beside God, if
you are truthful” (Q. 2:23). Then He said, “But if you do not, and you shall
never do ...” (Q. 2:24): He categorically said that they would never do. He
said, may He be exalted, “Say: If humankind and the jinn gathered together to
produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it” (Q. 17:88),
and He said, “Then let them bring forth a discourse like it, if they speak truly”
(Q. 52:34). And when they made an excuse by the learning and ideas in it,19
He said, “Then bring ten Suras [Chapters] like it, forged” (Q. 11:13). And so,
proof has been furnished against the Arabs and the non-Arabs that they are all
unable to imitate [the Qur’an], and in that the miracle is evident.
(5) Chapter on periodic rhyme and assonance

Periodic rhymes and assonances (al-fawasi[)w are similar letters at the end of
phrases making for a good understanding of ideas [in a composition]. They
are [a mark of] eloquence but rhymed prose (saj0) is a blemish. That is because
periodic rhymes and assonances are contributory to the ideas they follow
whereas, in rhymed prose, ideas become servile to the rhymes. This is at the
heart of what wisdom requires in expressing meaning, for the wise purpose
is to elucidate the ideas, the elucidation of which is most urgently needed. If
similarity [of end letters] is a means to this, it is [a mark of] eloquence; if it is not,
it is then a blemish and a speech impediment, because it is an affectation adverse
to what wisdom requires. It is like someone who studs a crown with jewels and
attires a vile Negro with it or someone who strings a necklace and attires a
dog with it. The ugliness and blemish in this is evident to anyone with the least
discernment. An example of that is what is related about a certain soothsayer
who said, “By the earth and heaven, and by the raven alighting in a quagmire,
glory has gone to a ten-month pregnant she-camel.” Similar to it is what is
related about Musaylima, the Liar, who said, “O frog! Croak as much as you
can croak: neither the water will you render turbid, nor the river will you leave.”
This is the most wretched and stupid discourse possible. We have clearly
shown its defectiveness, which is the [forced] affectation of ideas for the sake
of [rhymed prose] and making them servile to it without having the speaker
give any consideration to what they mean.
The periodic rhymes and assonances of the Qur’an, however, are all [marks
of] eloquence and wisdom, because they are a means to making needed ideas
understood in the most beautiful form indicated by them. The word saj1 [for
rhymed prose] has been taken from the saf (cooing) of pigeons, because there is
nothing in [this prose] but similar repetitive sounds, very much as in the cooing
of pigeons there is nothing but similar repetitive sounds. Because of the needless
and useless affectation [of rhyme], the ideas are not given any regard and have
become equivalent to words having nothing but similar repetitive sounds.
Fawdsil are of two kinds: one of them is based on similarly sounding letters
(periodic rhymes); and the other on approximately sounding letters (assonances).
An example of similarly sounding letters is His saying, may He be exalted,
“Ta Ha. Ma anzalnd âlayka 1-QiMana li-tashqa, ilia tadhkiratan li-man yakhsha”
(Q. 20:1—3). 21 Another example is His saying, “Wai-Tur. Wa-kitabin mastur. Ft
riqqin manshur" (Q. 52:2-4).22 As for approximately sounding letters, an example
is the -im and the -in in His saying, may He be exalted, “Ar-Rahmani r-Rahim.
Md Uki yawmi d-dln" (Q. 1:3—4),23 and another example is the -id and -ib in
His saying, “Oaf. Wa-l-QuRani l-majid?', then He said, “hadha shayûn '■ajib”
(Q. 50:2-3).24 The beauty in the assonances consists of having the discourse
contain clarity in indicating the intention while distinguishing the phrases
because of its eloquence and beautiful expression.
As for rhymes [in poetic verse], they do not have this characteristic because
they are not of the highest category of rhetorical eloquence. Discourse [in verse]
is embellished through them by the correct meter and the similarly sounding
rhymes. If either of these two is annulled, the discourse is ruined, the beauty it
had in the ears is gone, and its standing in one’s comprehension is diminished.
The benefit of (he fawdsil is their function in indicating the periodic phrases.
They also embellish the discourse by [sound] similarities in the verses.25
(6) Chapter on paronomasia (al-ta/anus)

In rhetoric, paronomasia is an elucidation that uses certain words having
linguistically one origin, and it is of two kinds: (i) pairing and (ii) correlation.
Pairing occurs in the apodosis26 constructions, as in His saying, “So, whoso

transgresses against you, transgress against him” (Q. 2:194) - that is, “punish”
him in fairness for what he deserves - but He used the word “transgress” for
the second meaning in order to emphasize the indication of an equal amount;
and so the pairing of words is to embellish the elucidation. Another example
is, “[W]e were [only] mocking. God will mock them ...” (Q. 2:14-15) - that
is, He will “punish” them for their mocking. Another example is, “And they
planned and God planned, and God is the best of planners” (Q. 3:54) - that is,
He “punished” them for their planning but, in the apodosis, He used the noun
“planners” to indicate that the evil consequence of planning was coming to them
and was specified to them. Another example is, “[T]hey were seeking to deceive
God, while He is their deceiver” (Q. 3:54) - that is, He will “punish” them for
their deception, and the evil consequence of their deception is coming to them.
Arabs say, “Punishment for punishment” but the first is not a punishment [for
having done something] but rather a pairing of speech.
‘Amr ibn Kulthum said:
Indeed, let no one behave foolishly towards us

For we will act more foolishly than the foolish.27
This is rhetorically beautiful, but it is less beautiful than the Qur’an’s rhetoric
because it does not inform of an equal action as the Qur’an’s rhetoric does. It
rather informs of the evil consequences only. The figurative use of the second
[instance] is more appropriate than the first, because the second imitates the first
in merit, so that the first is the root and the second is the branch modelled on the
root. That is why, when Arabs say “Punishment for punishment”, the saying’s
rhetorical value is less than the pairing of speech in the Qur’an.
The second kind of paronomasia is correlation. It involves the arts of
expressing various ideas going back to one origin. An example of that is the
saying of God, may He be exalted, “Then they turned away [insarafu]. God has
turned away [sarafa] their hearts” (Q. 9:127). There is paronomasia in insarfu
(turned away) from God’s remembrance, and sarafa as applied to hearts turned
away from good. The origin in both is turning away from something: they
turned away from [God’s] remembrance, and their hearts were turned away
from good. Another example is, “They fear a day in which hearts [qulub] and
eyes will be transformed [tataqallab]" (Q. 24:37). The paronomasia is in qulub
and tataqallab, their root being one [qlb]: the hearts are transformed by thoughts
and the eyes by scenes, the original idea being transformation. Another example
is, “God will erase usury [riba] and increase [yurbi] deeds of charity” (Q. 2:276).
The paronomasia is in yurbi applied to charity and riba of the Jahiliyya (the
pre-Islamic period). The original meaning is one, namely, the increase; but He
exchanged blameworthy increase for a praiseworthy one.
72 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OE THE QUR’AN
(7) Chapter on permutation (al-tasrif)

Permutation is the variation of meaning by [creating] different ideas, such
as in designating diverse indications by using derivation. Permutation may
be in the variation of the morphological root to produce different meanings
by derivation, such as the permutation of mulk (rule, dominion, sovereignty) in
creating attributes, thus creating the idea of malik (owner, possessor, proprietor),
and malik (king, sovereign, monarch), dhu al-malakut (possessor of the realm
or of the kingdom or of kingship), malik (king), and also the idea of tamlik
(transferring possession or kingship), tamaluk (self-possession, self-control),
imlak (giving possession or kingship), tamalluk (taking possession, domination)
and mamluk (slave, owned).
Likewise is the permutation of the idea of 'ard (display, exposition,
exhibition), creating a'rad (plural of 'arad meaning symptom), i'tirad (objection,
opposition, rebuttal), istdrad (survey, parade), ta'arrud (objection, opposition;
running a risk), ta'rid (hint, intimation; widening, broadening), mu'arada
(objection, opposition; poetic imitation), 'arad (contingent characteristic,
accidental or non-essential property), and 'arud (prosody, metrics). All these
words are related to the idea of “appearance”. On this basis, it is said: the dove
a'radat (that is, it appeared which is the original meaning), also i'rad (turning
-
away) from a man, for it is to shrink from appearing to him. Of the same meaning
is i'tirad, which is the appearance of what deters something from going on; of
the same meaning also is the istdrad of a slave-girl because it is to make her
visible to the sense [of sight]. Similar to this is a ta'rid (hinting) at a matter
because it is seeking its actual appearance; likewise is a ta'rid to a benefit because
that would be calling for the appearance of the cause of the benefit. The same is
said about mu'arada because it is a remonstrance by which equality or difference
appears; ma'rid. (exhibition) is similar because the appearance of a thing in it is
clearer. '■Arad is another example because it is the appearance of a thing that
does not last. 'Arud is still another example because it is the measurement of
verse by which the brokenness and the correctness of meter appear. This kind
of permutation possesses a wondrous elucidation showing the meanings of the
ideas it contains that it brings forth in full appearance.
As for permutation of ideas with various meanings, it occurs in the Qur’an
in more than one story. One of them is the story of Moses, peace be upon him,
which is related in Surat al-A'raf(Q 7), Surat Ta Ha (Q. 20), Surat al-Shu'ara>
(Q. 26) and others for wise purposes, among which are [the following]: variation
in rhetorical eloquence without ever being lower than the highest grade,
strengthening the moral lesson and exhortation, and removal of doubt about a
miracle having occurred; for things are of two kinds: ones that cannot possibly
be objected to, and ones that can be. The first kind is like challenging someone
to come by a number that is multiplied by another and resulting in 25 without
being 5 times 5; and like challenging him to come by [a different division than]
the division of two amounts, one of which must be more than the other or less
than it or equal to it. If he says, “Give me an example of such a division”, we
say, “This is not necessary because it is not in the realm of the possible.” Similar
to this is the case of [square] roots. If someone says, “The [square] root of 100
is 10. Give me a [square] root thereof other than 10.”
The case of the highest grades of rhetorical eloquence is not like that,
because the One who was able to bring Surat Al '■Imran (Q. 3) and Surat
al-Malida (Q. 5) is the One who was able to bring Surat al-An'am (Q. 6) and -
He is God, may He be exalted and glorified, who is able to bring what He

likes that resembles the Qur’an. The triumph of the argument against the
unbelievers is that He did bring one meaning in various permutations that are
of the highest grade of rhetorical eloquence.
(8) Chapter on implication (al-tadmm)

Implication in speech is the occurrence in it of an idea without mentioning the
latter by a name or an attribute to denote it. Implication is of two kinds: one is
implied in the speech as information (ikhbar) and the other as analogy (qiyas).
An example of the first is saying that a thing is “created”. This implies
a “creator” as information, and the implication [of creating] is in both in the
manner we have explained. Similar examples are: “broken” and “broke”, and
“fallen” and “faller”.
Implication is of two types: one is necessitated by the structure and the
other by the meaning of the expression without which it does not stand because
it is customarily to be used with it. Regarding the one necessitated by the
structure, the attribute “known” necessitates a “knower”, and similarly
“hospitable” [necessitates a “host”]; and regarding the one necessitated by
the meaning of the expression without which it does not stand, the attribute
“killer” implies someone “killed” without which there is no meaning for
“killer” and [vice versa] for “killed”, for this is the indication of implication.
As for the implication necessitated by the meaning of the expression in
customary usage, it is like saying “an ass-load28 for sixty”, the meaning being
for sixty dinars. This is a usage with deletion in which the speech includes
the meaning [intended] because it is customary. All implication is concision in
which detail is dispensed with, when the information is customarily indicated
in people’s speech.
Regarding implication indicating analogy, it is concision in the speech of
God in particular, may He be exalted and glorified, because He does not have
to indicate it, for His use of it necessitates that He must have indicated it
[clearly] in all possible ways of indication. This is not the case of other speakers.
[God’s] indication is by analogy and this does not make His speech disavow
the intention of clarity according to language conventions and be impaired
by corruption of expression.
Every verse [of the Qur’an] has an implication [of an idea] without
mentioning it by a name or an attribute. An example of that is: “In the name
of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” This implies a teaching that
[all] matters should be begun by seeking His blessing and by glorifying God
by mentioning Him. This is proper decorum and one of the moral rules of
religion; it is a motto of the Muslims and an admission of worshipful servitude
[to Him ] as well as an acknowledgment of [His] grace which is a most sublime
grace, and of the fact that He is the refuge of the fearful and the resort of the
seeker of beneficence. We have explained this after every Qur’anic verse in our
book, Al-Jami^ al-Qur,anf>
(9) Chapter on hyperbole (al-mubalagha)

Hyperbole is an indication of magnifying an idea in a manner that changes its
original linguistic connotation. It is of several kinds, one of which is the attribute
that denotes a hyperbole by being deflected from certain known morphological
patterns.30 There are many morphological patterns [for this kind of hyperbole]
such as faAcin, faKal, faAil, mifal and mifal. An example of fa^lan is rahman
(exceedingly compassionate), which is deflected from rahim (compassionate,
merciful) and which is not possible to apply to anyone but God, may He be
exalted and glorified, because it denotes an idea [of exceeding compassion] that
cannot be applied to anyone but Him, and this is the meaning of [the Qur’anic
verses saying] His compassion encompasses all things. Another example is faAdl
as in His saying, may He be exalted and glorified, “And surely I am exceedingly
forgiving [ghaffar] to those who repent” (Q. 20:82), ghaffar being deflected from
ghdfir for the purpose of hyperbole. Similar to it are tawwab and âllam. Other
examples are: ghafur, shakur and wadud on the pattern of fa’-ul] and qadir, rahim
and '■alim on the pattern of faAl} and midâs and mifan on the pattern of mifal}
and minhar and mifam on the pattern of mifal.
The second kind is the hyperbole using a general expression in place
of a particular one, as in His saying, may He be exalted, “Creator of all things”
(Q. 6:102) and as someone would say, “The people came to me” when perhaps
only five persons might have come to him and he considered them too many,
so he hyperbolized in expressing their number.
The third kind of hyperbole is reporting speech as information about the
greatest subject matter in it, such as someone saying, “The king came”, when
a great army of his has come. A [Qur’anic] example is His saying, “And
your Lord came and [also] the angels ranged rank upon rank” (Q. 89:22).
He considered the coming of the verses as His coming for the purpose of
hyperbolizing the speech. Another example is, “So God came down upon their
building from the foundation” (Q, 16:26) — that is, He applied His great power
to it but, in hyperbolic terms, He made that like coming Himself. Another
example is His saying, may He be exalted, “So when his Lord manifested
Himself to the mountain, He made it crumble” (Q. 7:143).
The fourth kind is turning the possible into an impossible for the sake of
hyperbole, such as His saying, may He be exalted, “And they will not enter
Paradise until a camel passes through the eye of a needle” (Q. 7:40).
The fifth kind is making a speech sound suspicious for the sake of
hyperbolizing the justice enacted and contending in argument. An example of
that is, “Surely, either we or you are upon right guidance or in manifest error”
( Q. 34:24); another example is, “Say: If the Compassionate [God] had a son,
I would be the first of worshipers” (Q. 43:81). In a similar manner is His
saying, may He be exalted, “The inhabitants of Paradise on that day will be
in better lodging” (Q. 25:24), said in admission that they will have better
lodging since they will be safe from pain, because [the unbelievers] denied the
restoration of the souls to the bodies [on Resurrection Day] and, therefore, the
inhabitants of Paradise on that day will be in better lodging. Another example
is, “And it is He who originates creation then repeats it, and it is very easy for
Him” (Q. 30:27), conceding that one is easier than the other as rational beings
would presume.
'Phe sixth kind is deleting the response [of an apodosis or an oath] as in
His saying, may He be exalted, “If you could only see when they were made to
stand before the fire” (Q. 6:27), “And if those who transgress could only see,
when they would see the punishment ...” (Q. 2:165) and “Sad. By the Qur’an,
containing the remembrance” (Q. 38:1) as if it was said [in response], “Truth
would have come” or “The matter would have become serious” or “It would
have brought veracity”.
One’s imagination goes to all this [deletion] because of the magnification
it contains. Deleting is more eloquent than citing, because citing is limited to
one possible meaning but deleting allows the imagination to go [freely] to all
aspects of glorification on account of the magnification it contains.
(10) Chapter on elucidation (al-bayan)

Elucidation is bringing clarity to a thing so that it may be distinguished from
other things in one’s perception. It is of four kinds: speech, state, gesture
and sign.-31
Speech is of two kinds: (i) speech in which the distinction of one
thing from any other is clear, and this is elucidation; and (ii) speech in which
such distinction is not clear, like garbled and impossible speech that has no
meaning.
Not every elucidation whose intention is understood is beautiful, for it
may include incapability of expressing oneself as well as depravity. An example
is the saying of al-Sawadi about a female donkey he had; when he was asked,
“What do you do to her?” he said, “I make her pregnant and she begets offspring
for me.” This is ugly and depraved speech, even if its intention is understood
and it gives a clear answer. A similar example is one told about Baqil, who
has become proverbial among the Arabs on the incapability of expressing
oneself, so they say, “More incapable of expression than Baqil”, as they say
[conversely], “More lucid than Sahban Wa’iL” Baqil’s incapability of expressing
himself reached such an extent that when he was asked about the price he
had paid for a deer he was holding, he wanted to say “eleven” (but could not);
so he put out his tongue and showed his ten fingers spread out, and the deer
fled. This speech, although certainly understood, is the farthest from beautiful
elucidation.
It is not appropriate to use the term “elucidation” for ugly speech, for God
has praised elucidation and counted it among his great favors. He said, “The
Compassionate has taught the Qur’an. He created man and has taught him
elucidation” (Q. 2-5). But if it is limited to indicating that the intended meaning
is [merely] to make something understood, it is permissible to use it as such.
Elucidation in speech that is beautiful is of several ranks. The highest is
the one that combines the principles of beauty in wording by modifying the
[verbal] arrangement so that it sounds beautiful, is easily pronounced, and is
readily accepted by the soul as if it were hail [in a hot desert], and thus it satisfies
the need that is rightful in this rank.
Elucidation in speech may be achieved by the use of a noun or an attribute
or by a composite phrase without a noun or an attribute specifying the meaning.
An example [of the latter] is: “The slave of Zayd.” This composite phrase
indicates possession without mentioning it by a [single] noun or an attribute.
The indication of derivation is like that of composition in that it can be done
without mentioning a noun or an attribute. An example is the word “killer”
(qatil). It indicates [that] there is a killed person and an act of killing without
mentioning a noun or an attribute for either of them, for the meaning is included
in the derivative word although it is neither of them. The [power of] indication
belonging to a noun or an attribute is finite, but the indication belonging to a
composite phrase is infinite - and that is why the Qur’anic tahaddi (challenge)
has been expressed through it by demanding imitation (nudarada) so that the
miracle may be appear clearly. If someone said, “Composing verse has come
to an end, and no one can create a poem that has not been created earlier”,
this would be an invalid statement because the indication possible through
combination has no end, it is infinite. Similarly, numbers have no end at which
they should stop and cannot be increased. In the same manner, all the Qur’an
is of the ne plus ultra of beautiful elucidation.
An example of that is His saying, may He be exalted, “How many were
the gardens and the springs that they left behind, and the sown fields and the
noble station” (Q. 44:26). This is a wondrous elucidation that cautions against
being deluded when given respite. He said, may He be praised, “Verily, the
Day of Decision is the appointed time for all of them” (Q. 44:40). And He said,
—
“Verily, the righteous shall be in a secure place” (Q. 44:51) this is better than
the promise and the threat. He also said, “And he coined for Us a similitude
and forgot his being created; he says, ‘Who can quicken the bones when they
are decayed?’ Say: ‘He Who created them the first time will quicken them, and
He is All-Knowing of every kind of creation’” (Q. 36:79-80). This is the most
eloquent argumentation that can ever be. He said, “Shall We then take away
the Remembrance from you, neglecting you because you are an extravagant
people?” (Q. 43:5). This is the most severe rebuke that could ever be. And
lie said, may He be exalted, “And it shall not profit you today, having acted
wrongfully, that you are partners in punishment” (Q. 43:39). This is the
greatest [saying] that could ever be [used] about causing regret. He said, “And
if they were sent back, they would surely return to that which they had been
forbidden” (Q. 6:28). This is the most telling indication of justice, since they
did not desist from their crime in order to be free from it, nor were their evil
deeds a predestined compulsion. And He said, may He be exalted, “Friends on
that day will be foes to each other, except the righteous” (Q_43:67). This is the
strongest deterrence from friendship unless based on righteousness. He said,
may He be exalted, “Lest a soul should say, ‘Alas for me, for T neglected my
duty to God’” (Q. 39:56). This is the strongest caution against neglect of
duty. And He said, may He be exalted, “Is it he, then, who is cast into the Fire
better or is it he who comes out safe on the Day of Resurrection?” (Q. 41:40).
This is the strongest saying possible on the distancing [between the damned
and the saved]. He said, may He be mighty and glorified, “Do what you will.
Surely, He sees all that you do” (Q. 41:40). This is the greatest threat that
can be said. He also said, may He be mighty and glorified, “And you will find
the wrongdoers, when they see the punishment, saying, ‘Is there any way of
return?”’ (Q. 42:44). This is the strongest saying possible to cause regret. He
said, may He be mighty and glorified, “Similarly, no Messenger came to those
before them but they said, ‘A sorcerer or a madman!’ Is this a legacy they
transmitted to one another? Nay, they are all people exceeding proper bounds”
(Q. 51:53). This is the strongest way possible to rebuke [them] because of
[their] persistence in falsities. And He said, may he be mighty and glorified, “The
guilty will be known by their marks, and they will be seized by the forelocks
and the feet” (Q. 55:41). This is the greatest humiliation possible. He said, may
He be mighty and glorified, “This is Hell which the guilty deny” (Q. 55:43).
This is the greatest rebuke possible. And He said, may He be exalted, “And the
life of this world is nothing but an illusory enjoyment” (Q. 3:185). This is the
strongest possible cautioning. He said, may He be mighty and glorified, “And
therein will be all that the souls desire and the eyes delight in, and therein you
will abide eternally” (Q. 43:71). This is the best possible way of awakening a
desire. And He said, may He be mighty and glorified, “God has not taken unto
Himself any son, nor is there any other god along with Him; for then each
god would have taken off what he had created, and some of them would have
risen up over the others” (Q. 23:91). And He said, may He be exalted, “If there
had been in them [heaven and earth] other gods beside God, then surely both
would have gone to ruin” (Q. 21:22). This is the most eloquent argumentation
that can be, and it is the foundation upon which depends the truth of the unity
[of God]; for if there were another god, creation would become null by mutual
prevention on account of their existence without their deeds.
78 THREE TREATISES ON THE BJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
[Postscript] Chapter
Explaining the aspects [of Ijaz\ we mentioned at the beginning of this book
They are [as follows].
[1] [People] giving up its imitation despite abundant motives and great need to
do that.
[2] Its challenge to everyone.
[3] Its sarfa (turning people away).
[4] Its rhetorical eloquence.
[5] Its truthful information about future matters.
[6] Its breach of custom.
[7] Its comparability with all other miracles.
As for the abundance of motives, it inevitably necessitates action in the presence

of ability, be it in one person or in a group. The proof of this is that if a human
being had abundant motives to drink water at hand because of his thirst and
his deeming it good, he would drink it. Every [such] motive calls for such
action. When action is possible, it is not likely that he will not drink and
die of thirst - because of the abundant motives, as we explained. If he does
not drink despite the abundance of motives, this indicates his inability to do
that. Similarly, when the imitation of the Qur’an did not happen despite the
abundance of motives, this indicated inability to do it.
As for the challenge to everyone, it is clear in that they would not have
abandoned imitation despite abundant motives except because of their inability
to do it.
As for the sarfa, it is the turning of [people’s] determination away from
imitation. Some scholars considered the Qur’an inimitable on the basis of
turning [people’s] determination away from imitation, and this is a breach of
custom like that of all other miracles proving prophecy. This, in our belief,32
is one of the aspects of the Pjaz by which [the Qur’an’s] inimitability is clear to
all minds.
As for the truthful information about future events, it is surely from the One
Who knows all the unknown because such events cannot happen accidentally.
An example of that is His saying, may He be exalted and glorified, “And
when God promised you that one of the two parties would be yours [to defeat],
and you wished that the one without arms should be yours; but God wanted
to establish the truth by His words and to cut off the root of the disbelievers”
(Q. 8:7). What happened was as He had promised regarding victory over one of
the two parties: the caravan in which Abu Sufyan was and the [well-equipped]
army from Quraysh that went out [from Mecca] to protect it. God, may He be
exalted and glorified, made them victorious over Quraysh in the Battle of Badr,
in accordance with the said promise. Another example is His saying, may He
be exalted, “A.L.M. The Romans have been defeated in the land nearby; and
after their defeat, they will be victorious” (Q. 30:2-4). Another example is, “He
it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth,
that He may make it prevail over all religions, even though the polytheists hate
it” (Q. 61:9). Another example is, “‘[T]hen wish for death if you are truthful.’
But they shall never wish for it, because of what [sins] their hands have
forwarded” (Q. 2:94—95). Another example is, “[T]hen produce a chapter like
it and call upon your witnesses, apart from God, if you are truthful. But if you
do not - and you shall never do ...” (Q. 2:23-24). Another example is, “The
host shall soon be routed, and turn their backs [in flight]” (Q. 54:45). Another
example is, “God has surely in truth fulfilled the vision for His Messenger.
Certainly, you will [all] enter the Sacred Mosque in security, if God wills, having
your heads shaven and your hair cut short, not fearing” (Q. 48:27). Still another
example is, “God has promised you many spoils that you will take, and He has
hastened these to you and has restrained people’s hands from [harming] you”
(Q. 48:20). Then He said, “And others that you have not yet been able to take,
but God has surely encompassed them” (Q. 48:21).
With regard to the breach of custom, it was customary to have several kinds
of known speech such as poetry, rhymed prose, oratory and epistles in addition
to prose that is current among people in conversation. The Qur’an then came
with a unique way which was out of the customary and which had a degree of
beauty exceeding all others. If it were not for meter that renders verse beautiful,
poetry would have lost a great deal of its beauty. And it would be as if a worker
were able to make linen by hand, without an apparatus or a loom, and surpass
Dabiqi linen33 in softness and beauty to an extent that anyone who saw it would
not doubt that it was the highest kind of Dabiqi cloth that had achieved the
finest beauty ever; his deed would be inimitable. Likewise, what has come
without the naturally known meter that characteristically beautifies speech but
surpasses metered speech is inimitable.
As for the comparability with all other miracles, the Qur’an’s inimitability
is clear in this consideration. Splitting the sea, turning a walking stick into
a serpent, and similar deeds offered one kind of inimitability when they
breached custom and people were unable to imitate them. If someone were to
say, “Perhaps the short suras [chapters of the Qur’an] arc possible for people
[to imitate]”, he would be answered, “This is not possible, for the tahaddi
(the challenge) has been made with respect to them, and [as well] the inability
[to imitate them] is clear in His saying, may He be exalted, ‘Produce a chapter
like it’ (Q. 2:23), and He did not specify the long chapters to the exclusion
of the short ones.” If someone were to say, “It is possible in the short ones to
change the rhyming words, and use instead of each what can replace it. Would
that be imitation?” He would be answered, “No, because the inarticulate
person can do that in poetry, although he cannot compose a single verse and
cannot distinguish by nature between a correct meter and a broken one. If
80 THREE TREATISES ON THE I'JAZOF THE QUR’AN
an inarticulate person wanted to change the rhyme words of Ru’ba’s poem

[describing a desert]:34
[With] dark, far edges and empty wind passages [mukhtaraq],

[With] similar mountains and glimmering mirage [khafaq]:
The oncoming wind gets tired wherever it blows [inkharaq],
and he exchanged mukhtaraq for mumtazaq (torn apart), khafaq for shafaq
(twilight), and inkharaq for intalaq (rush freely), he could do that; but this
would not make him a poet nor cause him to be considered as imitating Ru’ba
in this poem in the opinion of anyone who had the least knowledge. Similar
to this is the one who would exchange [Qur’anic] rhyme words and claim he
imitated [the Qur’an], This is clear and evident to anyone who ponders. And
praise be to God!”
If he asked, “What is wrong with the possibility that they refrained from
imitating the long suras because of inability and refrained from imitating the
short ones because of being unequal [to the task] in judgement?” He would
be answered, “That is not possible, because the proof [of the inimitability of
the Qur’an] is still a challenge to them, if the matter were as you described;
for, according to custom, imitation happens when some people have an ardent
zeal for one of two parties and others have it for the other party, in the manner
of the flyting poems {naqaîf exchanged between Jarir and al-Farazdaq, and
- before them - between 'Amr ibn Kulthum and al-Harith ibn Hilliza. If it were
permissible that difference might occur between those of good characteristics

because of not being equal to it, they would not have abandoned imitation and
argumentation on that account.
If someone asked, “Why then have you depended on the argument that
the Arabs have been unable [to imitate the Qur’an] to the exclusion of the
non-Arabs when, in your opinion, the Qur’an is inimitable in relation to
everyone [irrespective of nationality] — although the non-Arabs possess a lot
of eloquent speech?” He would be answered, “Because the Arabs knew metrics
and desinential inflection35 naturally, but the non-Arabs did not. Furthermore,
the Arabs are more capable in rhetoric, as we have clearly shown, because of
their intelligence that helps them keep meters and inflection naturally and in a
way the non-Arabs cannot. Therefore, if the Arabs have been unable [to imitate
the Qur’an], the non-Arabs are more so.”
Notes
1 In manuscript T, there is an addition here: “and in Him is my success. The Book of Subtleties
in the ijdz of the Qu^dn^ authored by al-Shaykh Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn ^sa al-Nahwi
al-Rummani, may God have mercy on him, narrated by al-Qadi Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn
al-Hasan al-KhilcI, may God be pleased with him. He said, may God have mercy on him: . . .”
2 Al-Rummani left out the first three and the last three things to speak about them briefly at
the end of his book.
3 Fawdsil, a term that Gustave E. von Grunebaum renders as “rhythmization” in his A Tenth-
century Document of Arabic Literary Theory and Criticism (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1950), p. 118. Translator.
4 The titles of chapters are from the Taymuriyya Library manuscript.
5 Ibn Sinan [al-Khafaji] ascribes this nomenclature to al-Rummani. Sec his Sirr al-Fasdha,
p. 199.
6 A conditional sentence consists of a protasis and an apodosis, e.g., If you help me, 1 will
reward you. Translator.
7 Al-Rummani is arguing against the virtually tongue-twisting qualities of the mentioned
common saying when compared with the easy-going pronunciation of his citation from the
Qur’an. Translator.
8 This sentence is obscure and out of kilter. Editors.
This whole paragraph is unclear. Translator.
9 The last phrase is from manuscript T.
10 The text in the original Arabic manuscript is unclear. Ibn Abi al-Isbac records it as follows:
“And this negates making the sanctity of jihad equal to that of belief in God and the Last
Day.” See [the] BadaW al-QuFan manuscript at Dar al-Kutub [Library: Cairo], folio 19b.
11 In his translation of the Qur’an, A. J. Arberry translates fa-sda^ as “so shout” which, I think,
docs not have the connotation of a sharp and sudden sound that the Arabic word means;
“crack” - though too literal - may be an approximation to show what al-Rummani indicates.
Translator.
12 This explanation is questionable, for such a style was sometimes used by the Arabs where
no humiliation or inferiority was noticed, as in the poet’s saying:
Generosity, manliness, and magnanimity
Arc in a tent stricken over Ibn al-Hashraj.
13 See Section 5, “Comments on Later Scholars”.
14 Al-Jahiz related this verse in his Al-Baydn wa al-Tabyin, edited by al-Sandubi, 1:47.
Al-Baqillani, like al-Rummani, mentions it as an example of discordance. Editors.
In the translation, the repetitive sounds of /r/ and /s/ in close proximity strike the ear
harshly. Translator.
15 This verse is added from Al-Baydn wa al-Tabyin (al-Sandubi, 1:82) and is mentioned in
Al-Mu^talif
16 These three verses are by Abu Hayya al-Numayri, the glorious Umayyad poet and one
of the poets of Al-Hamdsa in which, according to Sharh al-Hamdsa by al-Tabrizi (ed.
Muhyi al-Din, 3:269), the two verses read:
God’s curtain being between her and me, Ramim shot me
As we were in the heart of al-Hijaz.
I wish that I shot her when she shot me,
But my long acquaintance with fighting is ancient.
Al-Mubarrad relates the verses in Al-Kamil (1:19), Cairo: 1355 AH, as related by al-Rummani.
17 In the original manuscript “... between the harmonious and the discordant of the middle
category”. And the correction is from Sirr al-Fasdha, p. 91.
82 THREE TREATISES ON THE MAZOV THE QUR’AN
18 Ibn Sinan discusses this opinion in Sirr al-Fasaha, p. 94. The text of his discussion is printed
in the last chapter of this book [pages 121—123, 126-127, 131-133, 136-137].
19 cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani explained this idea in his Al-Risala al-Shafiya at t he end of this book.
20 In Arabic, they are called fdwasil (separators) as distinct from saj^ (rhymed prose). Translator.
21 We have given the Arabic text to show the periodic rhy mes at the end of the three verses in
the words: Ha, tashqa and yakhshd. No tajwid art has been used in the English transliteration.
Translator.
22 The periodic rhymes are in the words: Tur, mastur, and manshift. Translator.
23 The assonances are in the words Rahim and din.
24 The assonances are in the words majid and âjib.
25 It must be remembered that the Qur’an was recited as an oral communication. It had none of
the modern signs of punctuation; and so the fawasi! helped in showing the end of phrases and
the beginning of following ones, meanwhile adding to the beauty of the discourse by rhymes
and assonances. Translator.
26 Al-Mubarrad mentioned this kind in his Ma Ikhtalafa Lafyuhu (pp. 13-14) and called it
al-mazj (mixing).
27 Al-Mubarrad said, “He did not praise by saying he was ‘foolish’, but he rather intended
parity and honour when saying ‘act more foolishly than the foolish’.”
28 In Arabic, it is al-kurr, a measurement of weight in Iraq equivalent to six loads of a donkey.
29 Perhaps he is referring to his book Al-JamF al-Kabir on Qur’anic exegesis.
30 Al-BaqillanI defines hyperbole as an indication of the abundance of meaning. See his Fjaz
al-QuRan, p. 266, edited by Khafaji.
31 Al-Rummani discusses “speech” only. Translator.
32 Al-Rummani was a Muctazilite, and the MuTazilites were the theologians who initiated and
defended the concept of the sarfa. Translator.
33 Thin cloth ascribed to a little Egyptian town called Dabiq, between Farama and Tinnls.
34 These verses arc from a famous rajaz poem by Ru’ba ibn al-cAj jaj commonly used in Arabic
grammar books to demonstrate that the nunation of tarannum can be used in rhyme words,
a restricted rhyme usage that some called al-ghdli (the precious one). See Khizdnat al-Adab
(Cairo: 1347 H), pp. 81-94.
35 Desinence in the grammar of inflected languages (like Arabic, Latin or German) is the
syntactical change that word endings undergo in order to denote their function in a sentence
Translator.
The third treatise
Al-Risala al-Shafiya
(The Peremptory Treatise)
by
Abu Bakr cAbd al-Qahir ibn <Abd al-Rahman al-Jurjani
...-471 AH
Al-Shaykh cAbd al-Qahir ibn cAbd al-Rahman [al-Jurjanl], may God be pleased
with him, said:
Thankful praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, and blessings be upon
Prophet Muhammad and all his family.
Be it known to you that every idea has a specific word for [designating] it
and ways in which it is best and most clearly expressed. As such, it is more
easily understood and accepted, and one’s hearing and mind are more inclined
to apprehend it. If one thing is associated with another and is commensurate
with it, the best way to make it better understood and more firmly rooted in the
mind is to have it put in a similitude (mithal) with it that reveals it and makes it
familiar, holding it secure in the comprehension of the seeker wanting to know it.
[1 am offering] here a number of statements to show the inability of the Arabs
to imitate the Qur’an when they were challenged to do that, and their knowing
submission that what they had heard [of it] surpassed human abilities and was
beyond what created beings were capable of. There are [statements] related to
that concerning knowledge of poets and eloquent people and their ranks, and of
belles-lettres in general. In them, I have sought to clarify and demonstrate, and
I followed a method similar to that of Arabic language scholars and, generally,
one that is easily understood. I seek God’s help for success in telling what is
right, and His guidance to all that brings one close to Him. He is indeed able to
do what He wills.
It is known that speech has degrees of quality and that precedence in these
depends on [discernible] elements that make it have ranks, one above another.
Knowledge of this [regarding the Arabic speech of the Qur’an] is one that is
specific to people who have needed to be familiar with it, the basis and model of
it belonging to the [early] Arabs. Others [who have followed] are dependent on
them, being incapable of possessing their knowledge. It would not be permissible
to claim for Arab orators and eloquent people who lived in an era later than that
of the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - in which the Qur’an
was revealed and the challenge was declared, that they could surpass those early
Arabs or that they achieved perfection in the art of rhetoric or in dealing with
it in a manner that those early Arabs had not. How could this be so when we
see them proclaiming their own ignorance in relation to [those early Arabs]
and absolving [themselves] of any claim of closeness to them, let alone having
more [knowledge]? Khalid ibn Safwan said, “How could we keep up with
them? We can only cite them. How could we compete with them? Wc can only
acquiesce in the face of what reached us from such patricians.” Wc see al-Jahiz
claim superiority for the Arabs over all nations in oratory and rhetoric, debate
with the Shucubiyya about this subject and ascribe ignorance and stupidity to
their minds for denying that, and condemn them to misery and ardent bigotry
(al~asabiyya)\ prolonging his speech, he then says, “May God keep you, if we
claim superiority for the Arabs over all nations in all kinds of rhetorical arts,
from odes to rajaz poems, from free prose to rhymed prose, from couplets to
other kinds of verse, we have strong proof to support that, such as [their] elegant
style and the wondrous beauty of their compositions that the most poetic people
today and the highest in elucidation cannot say the like of, except rarely and
in small quantities.”1 This matter is so clear it cannot be hidden or denied by
anyone but an ignoramus or an obstinate person.
Now if it is established that they are the basis and model, their knowledge
is the knowledge. We have therefore to look into their conditions and their
reactions when the Qur’an was [first] recited to them and they were challenged
by it, their ears being filled with the demand to come up with something like
it and with rebuke for being unable to do that, and it was [finally] determined
that they could not do that. When we look, we find that they did not doubt their
inability to imitate the Qur’an and to come up with something like it. Their
minds did not suggest to them that they had any means to do that in any manner
whatsoever. According to the known and unchangeable customs of people,
their conditions [have generally | indicated [to them] that they should not admit
superiority to their enemies, if they could find a way to guard against that; they
should not acknowledge being incapable when they could defeat them and be
victorious. A poet, an orator or a writer who hears that, in the farthest region
[of the country] where he lives, there is someone who boasts of a poem or a
speech or a treatise he wrote, will feel sufficient pride and zeal to imitate him
(ila mu'-aradatihi) and show his own superiority and stamina; he will therefore
send him a letter and display his own writing to him with an explanation and a
pretext [for doing so] - he will do this, when he has never seen that person and
has never noticed anything from him to stir him to embark on that imitation
(al-mucarada) or motivate him to execute that intervention. However, if this
claimant is able to see and hear the other person, that will be a greater reason
for him to compete with him and show what he has, and make people know
that he does not fall short of being equal to him if not better. If, added to that,
the man invites him to write a text like his and to say something parallel, that
will be the thing that will make him stay up at night, unable to do anything else
until he does his best to respond to him and achieve the utmost in opposing
him. You know the story of Jarir and al-Farazdaq, and all other two poets living-
in one era, when something happened to them that stirred them to compete
in words, calling them to vie with each other in boasting (al-mufakhara) and
mutual aversion (al-mundfara). [You know] how each of them exerted himself
to defeat the other (ft mughdlabati al-akhar), making this his concern and giving-
all his life and effort to it. He feared nothing but that his opponent would be
judged a better poet than he, that his mind [would be declared] sharper and his
THE THIRD TREATISE 87
rhymes more imaginative, and that he would be considered uncontested in his

kingdom and, because of his victory, no right of his would be violated and, as
a consequence of this, he would not have to pay any tribute or be taxed.
If this was a duty of two persons, each of whom wanted to do nothing-
more than boast so that others would merely mention his superiority, how is
it possible that someone claiming to be a prophet could have appeared in the
midst of the Arabs and of such proud and high-minded people as Quraysh, and
informed them that he was a messenger from God Most High to all creatures,
a harbinger of Paradise and a warning herald of Hell-Fire, that he abrogated
by the Qur’an all former law and religion people followed east and west, and
that he was the Seal of all prophets and no prophet would come after him, and
so forth to the last of what he proclaimed, may God bless him and grant him
peace, and then said, “My evidence is that God Most High has revealed to me a
clear Arabic book whose words you know and whose ideas you understand, but
you are unable to come up with one like it or with ten chapters of it or with one
chapter of it, even if you exert all efforts and even if jinn and men helped you”
- [if all this happened] how is it possible then that they would not be stirred to
imitate him and show the extravagance of his claim despite this being possible
since they had heard only what they possessed the like of or something close to
it? [After all,] their anger about what he said and what he claimed reached an
extent that made them abandon their sound minds and disobey their excellent
intellects, and confront him with every kind of ugly conduct and harm, obstruct
him in every path, and plot against him and his followers and intend evil to them.
Has it ever been heard that a rational person who could silence his excessively
pretentious opponent with a brief answer would rather commit acts that would
make a fool of him to whom inability could then be ascribed, declaring him to
be defeated and lacking any scheme for self-deliverance? Or has it ever been
known in current customs and human souls’ motives and natures that a man of
reason would abandon evidence [he could produce] against his opponent, not
mention it or give clear expression of it or show him the error of what he had
said and the falsehood [of what] he had claimed, and not claim that he possessed
an appropriate response and was able to give it but would before that hasten to
insult him, break blood relationship with him and do him excessive harm? Or
is it possible that someone would come out against a people with leadership,
who have a religion and a faith, and would incite the commons against them
and plan to kick them out of their homes and deprive them of their possessions,
killing their heroes and leaders, enslaving their descendants and children, his
instrument in attracting others to him and calling them being a claim of his
which, if invalidated, his whole affair would be nullified and his plans would
fail - and yet, there would be no one to object to his claim and invalidate it,
although this is not impossible? This example is only like that of a man, whom
an opponent confronted unexpectedly [in a court dispute]; so he made a claim
against him which, if accepted, would endanger him and his wealth; he produced
evidence for his claim but the defendant had proof to invalidate it or oppose it,
and generally to prevent the execution of the claim but he utterly ignored it and
let the man have his way, the result being a fight between them that endangered
lives, killing his children and dear ones, weakening his tribe and losing his
wealth. It did not occur to the man that he could call upon the judge who had
decided in favour of his opponent, or the people who had heard him and thought
he was right, and say, “When he claimed what he did, 1 had evidence against his
claim and proof of his witnesses’ lies; but I abandoned them and made little of
his story”, or “I was made to forget them” or “something prevented me from
offering them; and here they are: I have now brought them to you, so look into
them to know that you have been lured”. It is surely known that, if this man
were a crazy person, he would not do such a thing. How then is it possible
that people who had the soundest minds of their time, who possessed the most
perfect knowledge and the wisest opinions would do [what the man did]?
This is the indication of the circumstances. As for the indication of the
[received] reports, it is manifold. One report is that of [al-Walid] Ibn al-Mughlra:
it is related that he went to Quraysh and said, “People will be meeting in the
[Pilgrimage] Festival tomorrow, and the affair of this man [Muhammad] has
gained ground among the people and they will be asking you about him. What
will you answer them?” They said, “He is a madman who raves.” He said,
“They will go to him, speak with him, and find that he is sound, eloquent, and
fair; and they will consider you liars!” They said, “We will say, ‘He is a poet.’”
He said, “They are Arabs, they have transmitted poetry, and they have poets
among them. His speech does not resemble poetry, and they will give you the
lie!” They said, “He is a soothsayer.” He said, “They have met soothsayers.
When they hear his speech, they will find it does not resemble that of soothsayers
and they will accuse you of lying!” He then went home and they said, “Al-Walid
has changed his religion” - they meant he had become a Muslim - “and if indeed
he has, everyone will.” His nephew, Abu Jahl ibn Hisham ibn al-Mughlra said,
“I will deal with him and spare you the trouble.” He went to him and was sad,
so [al-Walid] asked, “What is the matter with you, my nephew?” He answered,
“[The tribe of] Quraysh collects a charity for you with which you manage your
affairs in your old age and meet your needs.” He asked, “Are you not the richest
man of Quraysh?” He said, “Yes, indeed. But they claim you have changed your
religion in order to receive leftover food from Muhammad and his followers?”
He said, “By God, they can never satisfy their appetite with that food. How can
they have leftovers?” Then he came to Quraysh and said, “You claim that I have
changed my religion. I swear by my life that I have not. You say, ‘Muhammad
is a madman (majnun).' Yet he was born among you and was never absent from
you for one night or one day. Have you ever seen him rave? How can he be a
madman when he has never raved? You said, ‘He is a poet (sha'-ir).' And yet you
are poets. Does anyone of you say what he says? You said, ‘He is a soothsayer
(kahin).' Has Muhammad ever spoken with you about anything to happen in the
following day without saying, ‘If God wills’?” They said, “So, what do you say
[about him], O Abu al-Mughira?” He said, “I say, ‘He is a magician (sa/fo).’”
They said, “And what is magic?” He said, “It is something in Babel which, if
a person is well-versed in, he can separate a husband from his wife, and a man
from his brother. Do you not know that Muhammad separated So-and-So from
his wife, and So-and-So from his son, and So-and-So from his brother, and
So-and-So from his clients who therefore does not benefit them or pay attention
to them or go to them?” They said, “Yes, indeed.” And so, they agreed to say
that Muhammad was a magician and to dissuade people from him by using this
word [to describe him]. He then left and passed by the followers of the Prophet,
may God bless him and grant him peace, as they sat in the mosque and he
was going to his men. They said, “O Abu al-Mughira, will you do something
good?” He turned to them and said, “What is that good?” They said, “Belief
in one God.” He said, “Your friend says nothing but magic. What he says is
only the speech of human beings that he reports from others.” He frowned at
their faces and scowled, and turned away to his family, unbelieving. He was
disdainful of what they had said to him about belief. God Most High then
revealed the verse, “He reflected and determined. [May] death seize him! How
he determined!” (Q. 74:18).
Another report is one that Muhammad ibn Kacb al-Qurazi related. He
said. “I was told that cUtba ibn Rabica - who was a gentle, insightful chieftain
(sayyid halim) - said one day, ‘Shall I go to Muhammad, talk to him, and offer
him a few things? Perhaps he will accept one of them and then we will give him
whichever he likes.’” That was when Hamza, may God be pleased with him,
had adopted Islam and when they began to see the Companions of the Prophet,
may God bless him and grant him peace, increasing in number. They said, “Yes
indeed, O Abu al-Walid.”
So he went to him when he [Muhammad], may God bless him and grant
him peace, was sitting alone in the mosque. He said to him, “Son of my brother,
in relation to us you are, as you know, in the heart of the clan in genealogy.
You have brought about a grave matter to your people: you have broken their
communal collectivity, you have called their men of discernment foolish,
you have denounced their gods, and you have considered their forefathers
unbelievers. Listen to me, I will offer you a number of things and you will
look into them, perhaps you will accept one of them.” God’s Messenger, may
God bless him and grant him peace, said, “Speak.” He said, “If you only want
wealth through this speech you have come by, we will collect for you from our
own wealth enough to make you the richest among us. If you want honour,
we will make you an overlord without whom we will not decide anything. If
you want to be a king, we will make you a king over us. And if this thing in
you is an ailment that you cannot rid yourself of, we will seek medicine for you
—
and spend freely from our wealth until you arc healed from it for a demon
may overcome a person until he is treated and cured from it. Or perhaps this is
90 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZ OE THE QUR’AN
poetry that agitated your heart - for, by my life, you the Banti cAbd al-Muttalib,
are capable of that in a manner we are not.” When he finished, God’s Messenger,
may God bless him and grant him peace, said, “Have you finished?” He said,
“Yes.” He said, “Listen then to me.” He said, “Speak.” |The Prophet] said,
“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Ha Mim. A revelation
from God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. A Book whose verses have been
detailed in an Arabic Qur’an for a people who have knowledge, [it is] good
tidings and a warning; but most of them have turned away and so they do not
hear” (Q, 41:1-2), and he continued reciting it. cUtba listened, with his hands
behind his back to support him, until God’s Messenger, may God bless him
and grant him peace, reached the Sajda (Prostration) clause (Q. 41:37), so he
prostrated himself. Then he said, “You have heard what you have heard. It is
now up to you.” cUtba returned to his people and they said to one another, “Abu
al-Walid has returned to you with a face different from the one with which he
had gone.” When he sat down, they asked, “What happened?” He said, “What
happened is that I heard speech, the like of which I have never heard, by God.
It is neither poetry, nor magic, nor soothsaying. O people of Quraysh, obey
me. Let this man do what he is doing, and leave him alone. By God, his speech
that I heard shall indeed be of consequence. If the [other] Arabs get the better
of him, you will have been spared his trouble by others. And if he is victorious
by it over the Arabs, his kingship shall be yours and you will be the happiest
people because of him.” They said, “He has charmed you with his tongue!” He
said, “This is my opinion. So, do what you wish.”
Another report is that of Abu Dharr in the context of his adoption of
Islam. It was related that he said, “My brother Anis said to me, ‘1 need to go
to Mecca.’ So he went but stayed long. I said to him, ‘What detained you?’ He
said, ‘I met a man saying that God Most High had sent him.’ I said, ‘And what
do the people say?’ He said, ‘They say he is a poet, a magician, a soothsayer.’”
Abu Dharr, reporting from Anis who was a poet, said, “By God, I compared
his speech with poetry rhymes and [found] it was not conformable to any. I had
heard the speech of soothsayers, but it was not like theirs. By God, he is indeed
truthful and they are certainly liars.”
Another report relates that al-Walid ibn 'Uqba came to the Prophet,
may God bless him and grant him peace, and said, “Recite.” So he recited
to him, “Verily, God enjoins justice, doing good to others, and generosity to
relatives; and He forbids indecency, manifest evil and wrongful transgression.
He admonishes you so that haply you may take heed” (Q. 16:90). He said,
“Repeat.” So he repeated. He then said, “By God, there is sweetness to it and
there is beauty to it. Its lower part has branches and its higher part has fruit.
This is not something human beings are able to say.”
And know that it is not permissible to say about this and the like that it
cannot be evidence unless the polytheists say it to one another when they are
alone by themselves. They would then debate and dialogue with each other,
and they would communicate with each other what each one thought. If the
speech of any one of them is that of believers or if it is one that he had said
earlier and then believed, it cannot be used as evidence in the argument because
it will be as if you are arguing against an opponent with an opinion you yourself
hold and with a belief you yourself have. That is because a statement cannot
be considered evidence if it is initiated by the originator of the claim, for an
opponent can oppose it and deny it. But if it comes as a notification about
something known by experts, and if it is said by someone with confidence that it
is well known to all so that any person knowledgeable of merits and shortcomings
will admit it and recognize it willy nilly, then it is evidence by all means and it
should be the viewpoint of every speaker and the proof that needs no second
and requires no look to see whether its speaker is agreeing or disagreeing. That
is because the evidence subsists, not in the same speech and qualification, but in
their common source informing about something clear to all eyes that everyone
sees unfailingly.
Having seen the circumstances and the reports and witnessed those who
clearly surrendered because of their inability [to imitate the Qur’an] and their
knowledge of its great and evident virtues which, when compared with all kinds
of composition they could achieve, made them realize it was a distance they
could not bridge and a height they could not hope to climb, you will have to
determine that it [the Qur’an] is inimitable. The reason is one of two things:
either they correctly knew its qualities that we mentioned, or they erroneously
imagined them to be in the composition of the Qur’an when such qualities were
not in it. The latter of the two things is mere stupidity and it is too remote to
be thought of as something belonging to any one of them, because it cannot be
—
imagined that a rational person whose greatest hope and that of his friends
is to be able to imitate [the Qur’an] and to silence the opponent boasting of
it - would reach this position by error and inadvertence. How [much more
remote] it is that such an error could include them all! What mind would agree
that its owner could imagine such an error? For they were such that, if one of
them just heard an utterance, he would know who had said it before his name
was mentioned; and if one of them heard a verse that a poet had interpolated
into a poem of his, he would locate it and draw attention to it, as al-Farazdaq
said to Dhu al-Rumma, “Is this your poetry? This is [rather] poetry that has
been composed by someone of stronger jawbones than you!” There are many
[other] examples of discriminative fine knowledge beside which this one pales.
However, if erroneous judgement was not theirs and if it is impossible to claim
that there existed in their time anyone who was more knowledgeable of the
matter and more correct about the grounds of the [Qur’an’s] challenge, the
specious argument about its being inimitable for him is dropped.
Suppose they said, “There is another matter here, and it is that we know
they have considered the poets of the Jahiliyya to be better than themselves; and
they recognized their superiority and unanimously agreed that Imru’ al-Qays,
Zuhayr, al-Nabigha, and al-Acsha were the best Arab poets. If this is so, how
then can wc know that, if they had been challenged to imitate the Qur’an, they
would have been able to do it?”
They would be answered as follows: This reasoning, with all its contents,
does not impair the evidence. That is because, as is well known, they used to
recite the poems and oratorical speeches of the Jahilites, and they used to know
the high value of their eloquence in a manner that was not problematic to anyone
recognizing superiority. If they had seen in what they recited any merit over
the Qur’an, or if they had thought it to be close to it or in any way possible to
be used to imitate it, or if it had occurred to them that— when comparing what
they were challenged to imitate - it could have been done by those who came
before them, they would have let that be [known] and would have mentioned
it. If they had mentioned it, this would have been reported about them.
But when we think about it and about the nature of human beings, it is
impossible that they could have known what they had been challenged to do
and had been chided for being unable to do it, when a verse was recited to them,
saying, ‘Say: If mankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like of
this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even though they should back
one another’ (Q. 17:88) they do nothing in response except to be silent, and
-
they do not say, ‘We have recited [poems and oratorical speeches] of those before
us, as you know, and we know that they have never fallen behind what you have
come by. How dare you claim this claim?’ When it is necessarily known that they
did not say that, nor did they think of saying it, even in a way to ward off, to
deceive, and to falsely wrangle but they found themselves caught between two
choices: either to admit of their inability and incapacity to one another when
they were alone by themselves and were in a condition of telling the truth to
one another, or to cling to what only a person with no manoeuvre clings to, who
was silenced by evidence, such as ascribing magic [to Prophet Muhammad] at
one time or that he had taken [ideas] from this or that person, and they name
unknown people with no learning; and they think they have knowledge that
others do not. This proves that they knew they were like those earlier people,
and that this was their condition: they lived in the time of the Prophet, may God
bless him and grant him peace, and were challenged to imitate him and their
condition was like that of all those who lived in his time.
If this is so, then doubt is non-existent and soul-comforting certainty
is established that [the Qur’an] is inimitable, and that it constitutes a breach
of custom. It is equal to [the miracle of] turning a stick into a serpent and
resuscitating the dead in being evidence to all creatures. It is clear that believers
are happy and disbelievers have lost. Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds,
because He guided us to His religion and enlightened our hearts by His proof
and evidence. We ask Him, may He be exalted, to confirm us in what He has
guided us to, and to complete His grace to us by perpetuating what he has
endowed us with, through His favour and His benevolence.
A chapter
Know that there is here a kind of deception that you will find going on in
the minds of certain miserable people. You will see that they refer to it, whisper
it, and try to lure the stupid and the gullible by mentioning it. It is their saying
that it is customary that there should be a person who surpasses his people in
any one time, to whom they concede superiority to the extent that no one
can hope to equal him, and they even form a consensus that he is the unique
individual who cannot be disputed. Then they mention Imru’ al-Qays and the
poets in their age whom they consider superior. They may mention al-Jahiz
and others considered the best in their time. On this topic, they stray and rave
deliriously to no end, this being a breath of the devil in them. They only do
that because of their defective understanding of what they hear, and their haste
to object to something before fully knowing the evidence. The meritorious
characteristic of something that breaches custom is conditioned upon the fact
that it dazzles and defeats, so that all ambitions to imitate it are extinguished,
and all tongues claiming closeness to it are silenced. No soul can think of being
able to challenge it, no mind can consider the possibility of producing anything
like it and, consequently, there is despair and a feeling of inability to imitate it
in part and likewise in whole.
I wonder: who told them that there was a time when someone had reached
this level of merit over the people of his time? If they were told that Imru’
al-Qays [had reached that level], there were those who vied with him, and did
not even shy away from claiming superiority over him. We know his story
with cAlqama al-Fahl when both recited poetry to each other, and Imru’ al-Qays
asked him, “Who is the better poet?” cAlqama said dauntlessly, “I am.” Imru’
al-Qays said, “Recite, then, and describe your horse and shc-camel; and I will
recite, and describe my horse and she-camel.” ‘Alqama said, “I will, and the
judge between you and me shall be the woman behind you”, meaning Umm
Jundub, Imru’ al-Qays’s wife. So Imru’ al-Qays said:
My two friends: Pass by me with Umm Jundub.

Let us fulfill the desires of a tormented heart.
'Alqama said:
You have forsaken me and went too far in that,

It was not right of you to exhibit all this avoidance.
They asked the woman to make a judgement, and she preferred cAlqama.
Another contest took place between Imru’ al-Qays and al-Harith al-Yashkurl
in which the latter provided the [second] hemistich of the verses [of the poem],
beginning with the following:2
94 THREE TREATISES ON THE I‘JAZ OF THE QUR’AN
0 Hari[th], I show you lightning that flashed at midnight

Like a fire of Magi, burning intensely.
It is well known. In the end, Imru’ al-Qays said, “I will not contend with you
any more.”
We have also found reports showing that people continued to disagree
about him and others regarding who should be considered a better poet. At
any rate, the matter was not settled in considering him superior in a manner to
remove all doubt. It was related that the Commander of the Faithful, ‘■All, may
God be pleased with him, used to break the fast in Ramadan with the people,
and when he finished the evening meal, he used to speak briefly but eloquently.
One night, the people argued about who was the best poet of all people and their
voices were loud. cAli, may God be pleased with him, said to Abu al-Aswad
al-Du’ali, who used to favour Abu Du’ad, “O Abu al-Aswad, what do you
think?” Abu al-Aswad said, “The best poet of all is the one who says:
I go out early in the morning, my hips supported

By a fine, young riding-horse clad in red silk:
Docile, frothy, charging, and retreating,
Alert, fleet, swimming, and outgoing,
I ligh and long as though carried by spears,
And he has a firm back.
The Commander of the Faithful, may God be pleased with him, came to the
people and said, “All your poets are good. If they had all been contemporaries
and of one aim and one style of speech, then we would have known who is
superior. They have all hit the mark in what they intended, and they said it
well. But if there is one among them who should be considered the best, it is the
one who did not say poetry out of desire [for benefit] or fear [of the powerful];
and he is Imru’ al-Qays ibn Hujr, for he was the truest in initiative and the best
in unusual notions.”3
Ibn cAbbas reported that he asked al-Hutay’a, “Who among the ancients
and the living is the most poetic?” He replied, “Among the ancients, it is the
one who says:
“He who does good to save his honour will spare it,
And he who does not avoid vilification will be vilified.
“And the one who says:
“You will not be able to keep a friend whose muddled affairs

You do not straighten out. What man is perfect?
“without that. But [having to make] entreaty marred him as it did Jarwal”
(meaning himself). “By God, O Ibn cAbbas, had it not been for greed and
ambition, I would have been the most poetic of the ancients. As for the
living, there is no doubt that 1 am the most poetic of them.”4
And he said, “The early people used to prefer no one to Zuhayr in
poetry, and they used to say, ‘He was wronged by those who equated him with
al-Nabigha.’ It was said that most of the people of Hijaz were agreed on that.”
It was reported by Ibn cAbbas that he said, “I was conversing one evening
with AJmar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, and he said, ‘Recite
to me something by the poet of all poets.’ I asked, ‘And who is the poet of
all poets?’ He said, ‘Zuhayr.’ I said, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, why was
he considered the poet of all poets?’ He said, ‘Because he did not use unfamiliar
words in his poetry, nor was he repetitious and complicated.’”
It was related that Abu AJbayda said, “The most poetic of people are
three poets: Imru’ al-Qays ibn Hujr, Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulma, and al-Nabigha
al-Dhubyanl. Then people differed concerning them. The Yemenites forged
reports that they ascribed to God’s Messenger, may God bless him and grant
him peace, preferring their friend.”
And it was related on the authority of Yahya ibn Sulayman al-Katib that
he said, “Al-Mansur sent me to Hammad al-Rawiya to ask him who was the
most poetic of people. So I went to him and said to him, ‘The Commander of
the Faithful asks you about who is the most poetic of people.’ He said, ‘He is
al-Acsha, their musician.’”
We therefore know that Imru’ al-Qays was the most poetic in their opinion,
and that when they preferred someone else to him, they only did that by way of
exaggeration and of finding something appropriate to talk about that presented
itself to them at the time, or for similar reasons by which the [other] poet was
given more than he deserved. Is there not here something not far from analogy
and yet open to possibility? It is not a disgraceful statement or a derogatory
judgement about the poet concerned, showing that his merit over the others
should not be one that would prevent them from being equal to him, and would
permit any of them to claim parity and rise to vie with him. Furthermore,
al-Mansur’s need to ask about the most poetic of poets, after a very long time
had passed, is proof that what was related about preferring [Imru’ al-Qays]
did not constitute a consensus at all when it was first done, and that it was just
like any opinion which some people believed and others denied, and that the
situation was like that of Jarir and al-Farazdaq, and that of Abu Tammam and
al-Buhturl. That is because, if the statement saying he was the best poet was
reached by consensus to begin with, and if it was a judgement that everyone
had accepted when it was made, so that no one would disagree with it, and that
this state of affairs continued until the time of al-Mansur, it would have been
impossible that he [the Commander of the Faithful] would be ignorant of it to
the extent that he would need to ask Hammad [al-Rawiya], and it would have
been likewise unlikely that Hammad would have been sent a question by someone
like al-Mansur with all his awe, power, precise vision, and severe criticism, and
that [Hammad] would risk an answer saying something that no one else had
said, pronouncing it as though it were something reliable and famously known
earlier. So ponder on that.
The matter becomes clearer when we see how they classified poets. They
placed Imru’ al-Qays, Zuhayr, al-Nabigha, and al-Acsha in one class, thus
declaring that they were equal and similar and that, if any one of them had
a merit over the others, it was not so great as to make the remaining ones
desperately unable to endure him, to run in his field, to claim (or have someone
claim for them) that they equalled him in most of what he said or were close
to him, and that they had reached or almost reached his best. If this is the
situation, it would be blindness to become too caught up in it, and foolishness
to fall into specious argument because of it.
There is another way [to follow] in this [discussion] leading to a decision
based on another method, namely, that superiority should be accorded to the
poet with unprecedented, new ideas he has invented or novel metaphors he has
created or a style of organization (nazm) he has devised. It is known that iâz
(inimitability) depends on nazm as evidence. It is also known that this evidence
does not to come forth only with a nazm that did not exist earlier but also that it
should be nazm that clearly stands out among all other known kinds of nazm in
the past and the present that people of the age know they are able to achieve, the
difference [with inimitable nazm} being that no one of them doubts his inability
to achieve it and know its essence, and everyone despairs of being able to produce
the like of it or what could be thought like it, in a manner that people are all alike
as though their hearts are all one heart regarding that matter. If the situation
is so, it is not right for them to cling to Imru’ al-Qays unless and until they
can claim that he produced a nazm that stood out among all other nazm known
by those before him and those who lived with him in his time, a nazm having
the difference that we mentioned. If they did that, they would have embroiled
themselves in the greatest act of ignorance, because this would lead them to
claim that all the poets and eloquent people living in the time of the Prophet,
may God bless him and grant him peace, were ignorant regarding eloquence and
were deficient in knowing it; and that they had more knowledge of these matters
than them and found in the nazm of Imru’ al-Qays a quality that Quraysh and
all the Arabs had not known. For, as mentioned earlier, it is impossible that they
could have had at their disposal a nazm they knew was equal in quality to the
nazm of the Qur’an and would have not mentioned it as evidence against the
Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, when he was telling them
that something that he had come by was beyond the ability of human beings
and transcended their powers. Furthermore, who was it that conceded that
Imru’ al-Qays possessed more eloquence and better nazm than his predecessors,
which, when considering the quality of the Qur’an’s nazm, was superior to any
nazm by those living in the age of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant
him peace, and from where had they come by this claim? Was it from something
they themselves found in his poetry that stood out clearly when compared with
the poetry of his predecessors like Abu Du’ad, al-Afwah al-Awdl, and others
or from a report they had received which, [if so,] let them show it to us? But
there is no way they can do that. The report received is one that rather shows
their ignorance and their lying in this claim, and it is the one mentioned earlier,
a statement said by Abu al-Aswad in which he preferred Abu Du’ad in the
presence of the Commander of the Faithful 'All, may God bless him, after the
latter had said to him, “O Abu al-Aswad, what do you think?” Could it be that
they knew the quality of Imru’ al-Qays they mentioned and his superiority over
his predecessors they thought of, and then the Commander of the Faithful
said to Abu al-Aswad, “What is your opinion?” in the presence of the Arabs
and after they had quarrelled regarding who was the best poet, and [Abu
al-Aswad] favoured Abu Du’ad over him. Was it the case that he did not hear
any objection as one would from those hearing something clearly invalid, and
so his statement was accepted, though inadmissible? Similar examples do not
need to be mentioned, and answers to them should not burden anyone to
reassure the intelligent. But this is only a precaution by mentioning what is
imagined that could lure the misguided or ignorant person.
If the specious argument is about the very essence of religion, it is like a
disease that is feared to be perilous to the soul and hazardous to the spirit. The
least of it should not be belittled, nor should the most insignificant of it be
disdained. Wherever it is thought to be, it should be examined thoroughly and
scrutinized in all respects and [it should be treated] like a poisonous animal,
repeatedly hit on the head with a stone, as long as sensation, though trifling, is
perceived to be in it.
God is the Lord of infallibility and the One solicited to accept, by His
graciousness and His benevolence, all that we repeat and express about Him.
They cling to consequences and attempt to deny reasoning although they
admit the inability of the Arabs to imitate the Qur’an. Therefore, know that
when they mention those who came after the time of the Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace, such as al-Jahiz and the like, they are more ignorant
in doing that, and refuting them is easier. This is so because the condition of
breach of custom is that it should apply comprehensively to all ages, and that
the one who claims prophecy should perform what no other human being could
ever do.
As for the superiority of one individual in a certain age over all its other
people, it is like the superiority of one individual in a certain country over all
other people in that country: there is no difference in this matter between
countries and ages, if you look closely, for it is no more than one individual
having gone beyond a limited number of others in a certain genre, and being a
better scholar or a better writer or a better poet or a better craftsman than they
are, and being more dazzling in a certain deed. There is no icjaz in that at all.
Only something that is known to be beyond the power and ability of human
beings possesses i^jaz^ or else, only something higher than their sciences, if it
is of the kind that people compare one another to, regarding knowledge and
understanding. We know that al Jahiz and his likes borrowed from the language
of the Arabs and the eloquent people of earlier ages, and that they made the
fountains of speech gush for later generations to drink from and were examples
of eloquence for them to imitate. These later people did not attain what they
had, and they did not suck from the breasts of the predecessors’ good speech
or drink from their clear water or benefit from the fruits of their minds or
smell their fragrance - they were not like bees nourished by aromatic light
and sweet flowers, filling themselves with these niceties then emitting them as
honey. If they did, al-Jahiz and his likes would have been counted as some of the
common people of their time who did not transmit words of the ancients from
the time poetry and oratory began to their own time. They only knew the way
their fathers, brothers and contemporaries had spoken, or they were only a little
better. It is therefore great ignorance and stupidity to consider the superiority
of an individual over the people of his time as a breach of custom, and that it
should be counted as something inimitable.
Therefore, such a class of people when compared with the first generation
[of Muslims] and these successors and measured against those predecessors
are like what happened between Ibn Mayyada and cIqal. Ibn Mayyada said:
We have made the fountains and seas of words gush

So that a narrator could swim in them.
Poetry is no poetry unless it is that of Qays and Khindif,
The speech of others being mere affectation and joking.
cIqal said answering him:
Oh do tell al-Rammah refuting a statement

In which he erred or was almost joking:
The Yemenite tribe before them has penetrated
The overflowing seas of words, to be sought.
They taught those after them so they learned,
And they made these words Arabic and clear.
Predecessors have merit which you should not deny,
And no creature should brag to them.
At the beginning of the section at the inception of this treatise, I quoted

Khalid ibn Safwan saying, “How can we keep up with them? We can only cite
them.” And 1 followed this with a statement of al-Jahiz about the importance
of the [early] Arabs and the necessity of taking them as models, learning from
them, and deferring to them, and that the most poetic and the most eloquent
of people [now] cannot equal them and say anything like them with as much
good structure and beauty - except rarely. [In what I have offered] there is
sufficiency for any rational person, unless a pretender of ignorance claims
superiority for al-Jahiz and his like, something that they did not claim for
themselves, or they allege that they wronged themselves in support of the [early]
Arabs and ascribed more qualities to them than they knew, thus inaugurating
a topic of feebleness and imbecility that one should not respond to in any way,
or even listen to, let alone speak about.
Know that, if certain ignorant atheists imagined that there could be anyone,
among later eloquent men like al-Jahiz and his likes, who could imitate the
Qur’an and then abandoned that out of fear, or that some did imitate it and then
concealed it, the limits of their imagination does not go beyond this ignorance
that I have mentioned. I mean, they claim that they thought themselves to
be more eloquent than the eloquent men and orators of Quraysh, and that an
orator of theirs was a greater orator than Quss and Sahban, and that a poet
of theirs was a greater poet than Imru’ al-Qays and all other poets the early
Arabs had; but they went along with people and withheld attributing merit to
themselves and ascribed it to the early Arabs. For it is impossible for them to
have believed about the early Arabs what the people believed, and that they
themselves were expressly deficient in equalling them and greatly inferior to
them - and then say that they could do what the early Arabs could not, and
achieve what they did not.
Who would ever doubt the invalidity of someone claiming that the second
horse in a race reached a position at the race’s end which the first horse was
unable to reach; and of someone claiming that a person of deficient skill was
the only one who could do something that the one whose skill and priority were
well-attested could not? This is something that would never occur to anyone
and cannot be imagined. Therefore, know that.
A chapter
Concerning another aspect of the question, they say the following:
We know from people’s customs and natural dispositions that an individual,
to whom ability of expression is amenable and diction in one field of ideas is
compliant, can be unable to express himself and use diction equally well in
another field of ideas.
As is clear, the man may be a better poet in panegyrics than he is in elegies,
and he may be more effective in love poetry, amusement lyrics, and hunting
verse than in poems of wise sayings and good manners. You will see that, in
descriptions and similes, he can do what he cannot in other conceits. You will
find a writer who is more eloquent in letters to friends than he is in letters to
rulers, and vice versa. This is undoubtedly a well-known and clear matter.
10(1 THREE TREATISES ON THE TJAZOF THE QUR’AN
If so, the inability to imitate the Qur’an that was manifested in them was
manifested not because they could not achieve similar nazm but rather because
they could not achieve it in ideas similar to the Qur’an’s.
Know that this question affects them in another way which I will now
examine so that when the answer to it is given, it is given in a totally final way,
and will be decisive about [curing] the whole disease. They say: It is not right
to ask concerning anything but what can be imagined to exist and what is
possible. We know from the make-up of ideas that a poet may be first in creating
many of them in such ways of expression that it is known necessarily that no
one can come up with anything but ones inferior to them. We will judge him to
have been unique and unprecedented, as al-Jahiz judged Bashshar in his saying:
It is as though the rising dust above our heads

And our swords were a night with falling stars.
He recited this verse with similar ones, then he said, “Bashshar is unique in this
idea, as is 'Antara in his saying:
“Flies were alone in it and did not leave,

They chanted like a singing drunken man.
Merrily humming, they rubbed one arm with another
Like a one-armed man striking fire with a flint stone.”
He said, “If Imru’ al-Qays copied 'Antara in this, he would be publicly exposed.
This is not because Bashshar and 'Antara were given in the art of nazm what
others were not, but because if there was something hidden in a place and a
person found it and took it, there would not be anything left for anyone else
in that place. If there is only one pearl in a shell and someone takes it out by
splitting the shell open, it is impossible for another person to take out another
pearl from that shell. In poetry, there are many similar cases, not unknown to
those who practise this art.”
A similar clear example of this is the saying of al-Qutaml [about women]:
They utter words that reach like water

In the ears of a man with burning thirst,5
and the saying of Abu Hazim:
In the eyes of a belle, grey hair is a sufficient offence

And youth is a sufficient intercessor, O man/’
and the saying of cAbd al-Rahman ibn Hassan:
The day’s sun did not surpass her in anything,

But youth does not last,
and the saying of al-Buhturl:
They are highborn in merits, and generosity is primordial

To their youngster from the moment his life begins.7
No knowledgeable person looks at such sayings but knows that their ideas
are unprecedented and have reached the utmost perfection, leaving no further
quest for a seeker.
It is likewise in prose, for you will find chapters of it at any time you wish,
and you will know that the likes of them in meaning cannot be produced. The
saying of the Commander of the Faithful 'All ibn Abi Talib, may God be pleased
with him, is undoubtedly one such saying, “The value of an individual amounts
to what he can do well.” So is the saying of al-Hasan, may God have mercy on
him, “I have found no undoubted certainty more similar to an uncertain doubt
than death.” You will not miss that when you contemplate the speech of the
eloquent and read their letters. Of special interest is seeking such sayings in the
original books written on newly derived sciences, for we find their authors having
preceded everyone in the coining of [new] phrases and in nazm that rendered
others after them incapable of producing anything similar, and so the successors
did nothing more than preserve those sections and repeat their words as already
organized. An example of that is the saying of Slbawayhi at the beginning of
his book, al-Kitab, “As for the verb, it has patterns taken from action nouns
{ahdath al-asma^ and structured to designate what is past, what will happen and
has not yet, and what is present and has not ceased.”8 We do not know anyone
who has brought forth anything that parallels such words or has come close to
them who has not fallen into the illusion that this is possible. Do you not see
that what was produced as having the same meaning, such as, “And the verb is
divided into categories of time: past, present, and future”, is visibly weak and
deficient by comparison? What they say is similar to this. It is as if they prefer
what they consider to be important to them and what they are more interested
in, even though they should be both important and interesting to them.
If the matter is so, the case of the diction of the Qur’an and its nazm
should be similar. Their inability to produce something like it is like the inability
we have mentioned and given examples of. In general, this is what occurs to
them [first] in this kind of thinking, and I have therefore treated it exhaustively.
Since you now are familiar with it, listen then to the response to it, for it will
give you relief instantly and decisively.
Know that, in this matter, they are like an archer who has missed the target
and or like a builder who has gone beyond the foundation. The issue cannot be
dealt with as they understood it to be, namely, that the challenge was to express
the Qur’an’s ideas themselves in similar words, and in a parallel nazm. This is a
false understanding. The challenge [of the Qur’an] was to produce any idea they
wished in a nazm that reached the nazm of the Qur’an in high excellence or came
close to it. This is indicated by God’s saying, “Say: Then bring ten chapters
like it, forged” (Q. 11:13) - that is, like it in nazm, irrespective of whether
the idea of what you said is forged; you were not called to produce the ideas
but rather the nazm [of the Qur’an]. If it is so, then it is clear that [theirs] is a
building without a foundation and a shot taken without a target; for the analogy
comprises the impossibility of imitation on the one hand, and [imitation] in a
particular thing [on the other], compared to the impossibility of imitation in all
matters and in all things. If al-Khalil and Slbawayhi have been unprecedented
in the diction and nazm they used when writing about grammar, al-Jahiz has
not equalled or paralleled them in the ideas he composed his books for; and
if Bashshar, having been unprecedented in his ideas, has no succeeding poet
with similar nazm in any of his ideas, they would have reason in their thinking.
However, as there is no nazm, said to be unprecedented, which does not have
many examples that are like it or better than it in other ideas, it is therefore
clearly impossible to use it as an objection. Know then that, if we concede what
they wrongly thought about the [Qur’anic] challenge as a call to express the same
ideas of the Qur’an with similar diction and nazm., we will surely not lack an
argument with them and words against what they thought and a rejection of it.
But scholars have preferred the response to be in the manner I have mentioned,
for it is in agreement with the text of the Revelation, and it closes the door [of
discussion] and decides the specious argument altogether. It is a bad idea to
take an obscure path when you have an open passable road, to delay treating
a sick person when you have the medicine that will heal him in a short while,
and to release an enemy’s throat when you are in a position to disable him from
breathing and talking. Therefore, if you want to persuade them to give that
up, the way to do it is to refer them to their first words when they said, “We
observe that a man is more poetic in one genre and more capable of weaving-
diction and nazm in it than others.” [You should say to them:] “The first thing
you must know is that you have corrupted people’s words in this regard; for
when we think how they considered a poet to have surpassed others in one of
the genres, we find that they did that by showing howr he expounded ideas in
that genre in a way not done by others.” If they say, “He is the best poet in
love poetry”, they mean that he thought of ideas in love poetry and of words
indicating strong passion, exceeding fondness, and deep infatuation that others
have not thought of. Likewise, if they say, “He is the best in panegyric” or “He
is the best in lampoon”, they mean that he hit upon ideas concerning beauty
or shame, and in beautification or scathing censure that his equals have not hit
upon. If they had meant both diction and nazm, it would have been impossible
for them to say, “He is the best in love poetry” because, in matters of diction
and nazm, this is impossible. Who can ever doubt that Jarir’s saying,
Are you not the best people to mount riding animals

And the most generous men in the world with open hands?
is the best verse of panegyric in the opinion of those who believe this because
of both its diction and nazm but that it is so [really] because of its idea? It is
meaningless to say anything more on this subject.
If they said that, although they had meant [the poet’s] idea when they said:
This poet is best in panegyric, that one in lampoon, this one in love poetry, and
that one in description, [they insist that] ideas are not meaningful until expressed
in diction whose words are placed in their effective positions in composition so
that the nazm is beautiful; and [they conclude], “If this is the case, our position
is unchanged. Furthermore, it is not reprehensible or unknown that the diction
and the nazm of a poet could be better and more beautiful in panegyric, if he is
a panegyrist, than when he lampoons or composes love poetry.”
The response would be, “We will leave the dispute on this and concede
to you. But tell us now about the ideas of the Qur’an: Are they one kind or
many? If you say they are one kind, you will show ignorance; for in it we have
arguments and proofs, wise sayings and good manners, awakening good desires
and threatening of bad results, promise and threat, description and simile and
proverbs, mention of ancient nations and telling about their conditions, and
information about what happened between them and the prophets, may peace
be upon them, and other things that cannot be counted.
“And if you say, they are many kinds as is inevitable, you will be told that
each one of the poets and eloquent men of the Arabs ought to have resorted
to the genre in which his talent was best and employ it, and to have a division
among them in this matter.” This should be enough for anyone who thinks.
As for their saying that a poet may be unprecedented in an idea by using
a kind of diction and nazm that he knows he will never bring about anything
inferior, it should be said to them, “We concede that the matter is as you have
said and known. But do you know a poet or anyone else who has resorted to
uncounted ideas and has been successful in [expressing] all of them and has
brought forth diction or nazm that has rendered people incapable of imitating it
or of finding something by his predecessors similar to it - or is that something
that happens by chance to a poet in only one out of one hundred verses he
composes? Perhaps a person other than a poet is the same. If it is inevitable to
admit the second of the two [possibilities], meaning that this happens seldom
and very rarely, the inimitability of the Qur’an is affirmed by the very method
which they intended to refute it by, because the nazm in it that no one is capable
of imitating has been shown in uncounted other ideas.
104 THREE TREATISES ON THE F/AZOF THE QUR’AN
The same may be said about matters they mentioned whose illustrations in
ideas are few and not always available, but you come across them as you would
precious gems, priceless [pendants] in the middle [of a necklace], and single
jewels [searching] for which you must count many before you find one. This
and similar words are possible and not difficult to come by, in their objection
and their admission of what they thought regarding the challenge being in
expressing the ideas of the Qur’an. But it is more appropriate that one should
follow the clear way and that they should not be responded to regarding what
they believed about the challenge as being the production of the same ideas in a
nazm and diction that resembles [the Qur’an] and equals it; they should rather be
told decisively that they were challenged to produce any idea they absolutely and
unlimitedly wished, with freedom and no constrictions, resembling the nazm of
the Qur’an or something close to it.
What makes it impossible for the challenge to be what they mentioned
and with the condition they imagined is that the Arabs knew what a mu'-arada
(imitation) was and what its condition was. If the Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace, had deviated in his challenge to what ought not be
demanded, they would have had to say to him, “You have been unfair to us and
you have made a condition that is not acceptable as a condition or that is not
a necessary condition in imitating what you have come by, namely, that the
nazm [alone] is what we should imitate in expressing the ideas you challenged
us to imitate. Drop this condition, then ask; and we will then show you what the
early [Arabs] said and what we said afterwards that is parallel in excellence and
merit to the nazm of what you have come by, and is equal to it and not falling
short of it.”
This should be enough for anyone who has ears to hear and a mind to think!
Their question that I intended to respond to is hereby completely answered
and its invalidity has been shown clearly and, God willing, no doubt remains
in the mind of anyone looking into it, when advising himself and kindling
his feeling, when thinking like one who intends the good of religion and hopes
for what [reward] God has for what he says and does to please Him, may His
name be blessed. We pray to Him, Most High, to make us among those whose
quality this is in all that we turn to and look into, by His grace, His benevolence,
and His mercy. He is capable of doing whatever He wishes.
Praise be to God, Whose praise is a duty; and blessings be on His Messenger
Muhammad and his family after him.
***
In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
A chapter on what believers in the sarfa9 arc obligated to

Know that, concerning the belief in the sarfa, the assumption is that the one
who began believing in it did so by imagining that the challenge (tahaddi)
consisted in expressing the same ideas of the Qur’an in similar diction and
nazm without being given free choice of ideas in general. Belief in it, in any
other understanding, would entail ugly things that are unlikely to be committed
and considered by a rational being, for it necessitates that the Arabs’ condition
of eloquence and elucidation, of excellence in diction and nazm, should have
ebbed, that their talents and mental capacities should have decreased, that they
should have lost much of what they had been able to do, and that the poems
they had said and the orations they had given were all deficient. Indeed, after the
Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, received the Revelation, and
the Arabs were challenged to imitate the Qur’an, all manner of speech of theirs
in which they had varieties would then have become severely inadequate, the
domain which had been open to them would have become generally restricted,
sources that had been copious to them would have dried up and certain aptitudes
that had given them power would have disappointed them. Furthermore, the
poems of the poets of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace,
which they had composed to praise him, peace be upon him, and to respond
to the polytheists, should all be inferior to their poetry in the Jahiliyya; and
there should be doubt in what was related about Hasan [ibn Thabit], such as
the Prophet’s saying to him, “Recite, and the Spirit of Holiness is with you”,
because then he would not have been helped and supported by God [if this were
the case], as he would have lacked all that he had earlier found to be abundant
and would have unwillingly and severely fallen short of past [poetry].
If they say that it was a deficiency that happened in their eloquence without
their being aware of it, the answer is, “If this is so, no argument stands against
them, for there would be no difference between the fact that they lost the
eloquence they knew they had before the challenge of the Qur’an and its call to
imitate it, and the fact that they lost it and did not know that they lost it.” That
—
is because the [Qur’an’s challenging] verse as they claim - was a ban on [using]
both the diction and nazm that had been possible for them [to imitate] before
they were challenged. However, a ban on using something cannot exist until
what is being banned is desired; and it is not imaginable that a person desires
something he does not know, and that he intends to say and do something of
a certain qualification when he does not know that qualification and does not
imagine it in any way. If we accept [the idea] that they do not know that the
speech they speak today is inferior to that which they had spoken yesterday,
and that they were prevented from producing nazm which had been possible
for them and they were robbed of the meaning that used to be attainable, it
would have been impossible for them to have been in a position to know that
the Qur’an’s nazm is superior to the speech that we have heard from them and
the presumed nazm that remains to them. That is because the excuse of those
who believe in the sarfa is that their speech before being challenged [by the
Qur’an] was similar to that of the nazm of the Qur’an, parallel to it and equal
to it in eloquence.
If this is so, it cannot be imagined that they would have known that the
Qur’an had merit over their speech when, in their opinion, their speech
remained as it was in olden times, undiminished and unsullied by any defect. If
it cannot be imagined that they would know that the Qur’an had merit over what
they said and were able to produce in various degrees, it cannot be imagined
that they would attempt to [emulate] that merit; and if they did not attempt it,
they would not feel being prevented from it and being unable to achieve it. If
they were not aware of being prevented and unable, no argument concerning
the Qur’an stands against them. Therefore, what is reasonable to say in this case
is that they believed that they had imitated the Qur’an and said what was parallel
to it and was considered like it, as far as they believed that their speech remained
as it had originally been, before the revelation of the Qur’an, and that their
speech was at that time like the Qur’an and equivalent to it. This being their
belief, they should therefore believe that, within what they said and were able to
produce at the time, there should be something that resembled the Qur’an and
paralleled it.
And know that they would be obligated to judge the Prophet, may God
bless him and grant him peace, in the same manner as they had judged the
Arabs with regard to the deficiency that sullied their eloquence and vitiated their
elucidation, and that prophecy would have necessitated that the Prophet should
be deprived of part of his elucidation and much of the excellence of the diction
and beautiful nazm for which he had been known before that. For if they did
not say that, the result would be that he, peace be upon him, recited to them,
“Say: If mankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like of this
Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it, even though they should back one
another” (Q. 17:88), while he was able to produce the like of the Qur’an and say
something that paralleled it in excellence of diction and in eminence of nazm,
unless they plunged into another spell of ignorance and claimed that he, peace be
upon him, was originally inferior to them in eloquence and that the superiority
and merit that their speech had had before the revelation of the Qur’an belonged
to the eloquent Arabs to the exclusion of the Prophet, may God bless him and
grant him peace. If they said that, they would have left a certain kind of ugly
speech only to enter another like it, for no one ever expressed any doubt that
he, may God bless him and grant him peace, was not lacking in eloquence and
rather, as reports said, he - may God bless him and grant him peace - was
the most eloquent of the Arabs.
Furthermore, on the basis of their belief, they are also obligated to say that
if the Arabs were prevented from [using] a certain measure of eloquence they
used to have, they would have known that, as I have shown; and, if so, it would
have been known about them that they had mentioned it. They would have told
the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, “We used to be capable
[of eloquence] before this [Qur’an] that you have brought to us. But you have
enchanted us and employed beguiling means that made it inaccessible to us.”
They ascribed magic to him in many matters, as is known. The least that they
would have done in this regard was to confer together and complain about it to
one another and say, “What is the matter with us? Our talents have diminished
and feebleness has overcome our minds!” The fact is that it was not related and
not mentioned that they had said anything of the sort, be it little or much. This
is evidence that it should be considered invalid speech, an opinion of those
without learning.
Moreover, in the text of the challenge verse (Q. 17:88), there is an indication
that this saying of theirs is invalid; for when a man is prevented from doing a
thing after having been able to do it and perform it profusely, what is said to
him is not “I have brought you what you are unable to do the like of, even
if you gathered with others and called mankind and jinn to help you.” What
would rather have been said to him is “I have been given [the power] to make
inaccessible to you the speech that you were able to speak, and to withhold it
from you, to render you unable to be eloquent, and to rob you of excellent
diction” or something like this. Similarly, to men of strength and vigour, it
is said, “The point is that you will be unable to lift what you could easily lift
earlier that did not distress you or was heavy for you.” Furthermore, it is neither
customary nor reasonable to say, “Even if you assist one another and combine
your strength, you will not be able to do it”, regarding something that one
person alone can do easily by himself, for then everyone is prevented from doing
it. This is rather said when it is intended to say, “You have never been able to
do the like thereof, and you will absolutely not be able to do it in any manner
whatsoever, even if you add strength to yours; and even if you seek help from
others, you will not be able to do it either.” For there is no meaning to assistance,
mutual backing, and reciprocal help except if you join your strength to that of
your friend so that what had not yet happened will happen by the combination of
the strength of both. It is therefore clear that if it would not have been possible
to interpret the verse as they did, nor is there a probability of that in any manner
at all. From this and from all that preceded, it is clear that belief in the sarfa
-
especially in this way — is extremely far-fetched and erroneous, and that it
is of the kind that a rational human being would not be excused were he to
believe in it. It is not that I am accepting [only the first alternative] - especially
in this way — I mean believing in it in this first way being possibly correct; but
I meant that its invalidity was clearer and its ugliness greater. Otherwise, they
are both equally invalid as far as invalidity is concerned.
1 08 THREE TREATISES ON THE PJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
Suppose you ask, “How then should they be answered when they go to the
other aspect of the sarfa and claim that the challenge was that they should bring
forth the same ideas of the Qur’an in similar nazm and diction? What indicates
the invalidity of this belief?” [The answer is:] There are several indications of
the invalidity of that, one of which is the saying of God, may He be exalted,
“Or do they say he has forged it? Say, ‘Bring, then, ten chapters like it, forged’ ”
(Q. 11:13). We know that the meaning is not “Bring, then, ten chapters that
you yourselves forge”. If the meaning were so, we would look into the forging
of the speech [and ask] whether it is related to the idea or to the diction and
nazm. Wc know that it is only related to the idea. If it is only related to the idea,
the purport is, “If you would claim that I composed the Qur’an and forged it,
and that I myself originated it and claimed that it was a revelation from God,
then compose ten chapters and forge their ideas as you claim I have forged the
ideas of the Qur’an.” If the purport were this, their supposition would be that
the challenge was that they should resort to the same ideas of the Qur’an and
replace them by diction and nazm similar to its diction and nazm departing
from the text of the revelation and corrupting it.
If the meaning of what they said is that, the correct way of saying it is to
say, “If you claim that I forged it, bring then ideas of this forged text similar in
diction and nazm to what you have seen.” To clarify this, if a man composed
some poetry in which he excelled in diction and nazm and was eloquent,
and he had an opponent who did not find fault in the diction and nazm but
ignored that and started saying, “I see that you have stolen the ideas of your
poetry and ascribed them to yourself, having taken them from this person
and that”, and if the man answered him saying, “If I stole the ideas of my
poetry, then compose poetry like it with [the same] stolen ideas”, this would
not be reasonable of him to say, but he would rather say, “Then, compose
poetry with other ideas that you steal, as you claim I have stolen ideas”, and it is
not possible that he means, “Go to my ideas, and compose poetry like mine
with them.” It would rather be reasonable if he said, “If I had stolen the ideas
of my poetry, then compose with these stolen ideas verse like mine, with
arranged wording like my nazm and with refinement like my refined style.”
This is a sentence whose meaning is well known to those who are cognizant
of ways of speech and conversant with the true relationship of ideas and diction,
and with what is possible and what is impossible. Similar to it is what was
mentioned above, regarding something which used to be abundantly imitated
by human beings before they were prevented from doing it, [in such a case] it
is not said, “Bring something like it. Apply yourself and seek help. You will
be unable to do it, even if jinn and mankind help you.” Such would rather be
said about something novel and unprecedented, about something that is a new
beginning and the like of which never existed before.
Although this meaning obligates them in both aspects, it obligates them
more in the aspect we are presenting. This is because when a man who is today
able to imitate a thing in many circumstances and cases but who is prevented by
an impediment in one circumstance and in one case, and you say to him, “If
mankind and jinn combine and help you, you will not be able to do anything
like it”, saying this would be more unlikely and more repugnant than your
earlier saying when he used to be able to do the thing and was later completely
prevented from doing it and made absolutely unable to do it.
Furthermore, there are the reports received from the Arabs [of early Islam]
who glorified the Qur’an and described it with statements like “It has elegance.
It has sweetness: its bottom has clusters of dates and its top, bunches of fruits.”
It would have been impossible for them to glorify it so, to be flabbergasted on
hearing it, and to humbly submit to it if they were able to see what was parallel
to it in what they and their forebears had said, and when they knew it was
inconceivable for them to imitate it because they could not. They rather found
they experienced some infirmity, some impediment that [usually] befalls a man
and prevents him from doing what used to be easy for him to do. In such a case,
they should have said, “If it is not possible for us to express ideas like those
you have brought, we will bring you other ideas as you wish and how you wish,
which will not fall short of them and will not be inferior to them.”
In sum, prophetic knowledge and proof for them consisted rather in turning
them away and preventing them from producing something like the nazm of
the Qur’an and did not lie in the nazm itself. If so, those who were amazed and
lauded it must proceed to the prevention itself that contained the proof and not
to what was prevented. And this is clear and there is no ambiguity about it.
If they said, “It happens that when a poet appreciates poetry composed by
another and deems it to be laudable, seeing in it quality and merit over what he
himself had said earlier; at the same time, he does not despair of being able to
compose poetry like it if he exerts himself. We consider the Qur’an’s diction
and nazm in this way.” We say, “They heard from it what flabbergasted them
and was imposing, but thought they felt they could produce something like
it if they exerted themselves. Yet they were prevented from such exertion of
themselves, they were taken away from it, and they were shut out from the
grace that they hoped would help them reach the aim they wanted.” We know
that a superb poet may sometimes have difficulty in words and cannot come up
with a rhyme, and that all ways seem to be blocked for him. [We also know]
that an eloquent orator may sometimes be tongue-tied, to such an extent that
he cannot find words, not even one. Therefore, what we have said above and
what we have estimated is not unlikely; it is rather probable and even possible.
It should be said to them, “It is as if you now want to present yourselves
in a more favourable light, to cover up some flaws, and to slip away from what
obligates you; but, when things are examined, this is of no avail to you, for it
is only a kind of deception and embellishment. The first thing that indicates
the invalidity of what have you said is that what we know of human beings in
the matter you mentioned is that they are annoyed and they complain, and that
HO THREE TREATISES ON THE PJAZ OF THE QUR’AN
they say, “What is the matter with us? Whence has this calamity come to us?
What is the [real] situation? Although we hear speech that has quality and merit
over what we said, it is not something that should cause us such incapability
as to render us unable to imitate it as we like. We do not know; have we been
bewitched or what?” Since nothing of the sort has been related about them in
any manner, this is evidence that there is no foundation to what they imagined
and that it was only invalid fabrication. Furthermore, it is not customary that
a man will surrender to his opponent, submit to him, give up and keep silent
in the face of being repeatedly upbraided by him for incapability. The degree
of good quality that was shown [by the opponent] is one that a man would
like to imitate, and one that he thinks he could achieve if he exerted himself
and was purposeful. What is customary in a situation like this is that the man
would defend himself against the incapability ascribed to him, and would
strongly deny the quality known to be his opponent’s, as Hassan [ibn Thabit]
had done; and he would claim that, in seeking equality with him and going to a
goal in which he considered having precedence for himself, he would be trying
to achieve a similar position. He would say, “Do not exaggerate, do not exceed
the proper bounds, do not go to extremes in what you claim; for if you have
achieved some precedence, you have not gone far enough to be one who will
not be equalled and is unsurpassable. Take it easy! And stop your extravagance!”
Know that, by their cunning strife, they have fallen into a situation which
weakens their foundation and impairs the basis of their belief. They have looked
at themselves from one point of view and neglected looking at themselves from
another. For the prevented [imitation of the Qur’an], which was made a proof
- especially of prophecy - should be achieved in the most perceptible and the
most abundant of things, the most effortless for people and the most likely to
become clear to every onlooker and listener who was prevented. The prevented
[imitation] should not be of something invisible, something that cannot be
known but by deep study and profound thought, something that has never
existed and has never been experienced, something that is rather presumed to
exist in probability and may enter possibility if one exerts oneself. It has never
been heard that a prophet came to his people and said, “My evidence to you, the
proof that I am a prophet sent to you is that you are prevented from something
that has never been yours or constituted part of you. As is apparent, it does not
seem that you will be able to do it, but if you exert yourselves, combine your
wealth, spare no effort, and diligently return to it time and again, its imagined
probability will become real to you.” [Has this been ever heard] or is this
something that no reasonable person would say, and no one but a foolhardy
person who docs not know what he says would make bold to do?
If this is so, and what they said about the prevented [imitation] was about a
nazm that they never had but felt they could imitate if they exerted themselves
and gave it their all, and they sensed that they were equal to this task and entered
the fray, it is clear that they would have thus weakened their foundation by
that and impaired the basis of their belief in as far as they considered the point
of argument, the proof, the message’s learning and the matter of rendering
creatures incapable - to be constituted in the prevention of something that
never existed and was never known in any case, and that it was no more than
a supposition with some probability that could enter possibility if seeking was
continuous, effort was abundant, exertion was exhausted, thought was expended
in every way and minds were concentrated in every aspect. This is sufficient
to show weakness of belief and lack of learning.
A concluding chapter
It should be said to them, “What is this [belief] that you have taken upon
yourselves to hold? And what is this interpretation of yours concerning the
Arabs’ inability to imitate the Qur’an? What prompted you to adopt it? What
did you intend by it? Is it so that you might have something to be said about
you and so that you might be a community apart from others? Or has a science
on this subject come to you that has not come to other people?”
If they say, “A science has come to us”, they should be asked, “Has
this science come to you from speculative thinking or from reported tradition?”
If they have said, “From speculative thinking”, they should be told, “That
would mean that you studied the nazm of the Qur’an and the nazm of the
Arabs’ speech. Then you compared them and found that the former is not
more [eloquent] except insofar as if it were the case that [the Arabs] were left
free to exert themselves, think hard, and not let their minds be dissipated when
intending to imitate it with determination, they would have come by something
like it.” If they say, “That is what we believe”, they should be told, “You are now
claiming that your study of eloquence is one from which none of the constituents
escapes you, and that you have comprehensively learned its mysteries and
become knowledgeable of it and fully conversant with it in an unprecedented
manner not available to people before you.” If they say, “We learned that from
a reported tradition”, they should be told, “Bring that [tradition] to us, then,
and apprise us of it.” But from where could they bring information about
something that does not exist and confirmation of something that never was?
If people examined the meaning of a statement when the idea of it occurred
to them, and if they sought to ascertain its consequences and remembered the
advice of wise men who warned against coming to a watering place to drink
before the way back from it was known, and warned against [assuming] results
that brought anything other than what the hearts had previously suggested,
they would be have been spared the tribulation, and this bad idea and similar
ones would have been non-existent. But it is man’s nature to be hasty, to think
well of himself, and to love having his opinion followed by others; this certainly
deludes him and makes him forget that he has been advised and warned against
bad consequences if he ignores that. This is an evil from which no man is safe
except the one whom God has protected. From Him, may His name be exalted,
we plead for the best guidance and for protection from all that perverts religion
and blunts certainty - He is the Master of that and the One able to do it.
Someone said, “After the elapse of the period of the Prophet, may God bless
him and grant him peace, and after the passing of the time for the challenge,
it is possible that some persons will be able to bring forth what resembles the
Qur’an and is like it. However, this does not mean that it was not inimitable in
the time of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, and when
he challenged the Arabs to match it.”
This is an invalid statement, tenable only by one who considers the Qur’an
to be inimitable by itself and believes in the sarfa concerning it.
In relation to its being inimitable by itself and that, in its nazm and
composition, it has a quality such that people can find no way to bring forth
—
speech of that quality in nazm and composition what scholars agree on is that
this is absolutely invalid. That is because there is no difference between an act
being inimitable in its kind, like resuscitating the dead, and being inimitable
on account of having a certain quality. If this is so, therefore inasmuch as it
is impossible that there be a resuscitation of a dead man that is not an act of
God, it is likewise impossible that there be a nazm like the Qur’an’s that is not
an act of His, may He be exalted.
Furthermore, it is a statement which, when scrutinized, discloses an
abominable thing - namely, the preclusion of the fact that it is a revelation
from God and that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace,
received it from Jibril, peace be upon him, and the belief that it must have
happened as a sort of inspiration, like something that is cast into a man’s soul
and is brought to him by way of the mind and the musing of the heart. And
that is something against which God’s protection must be sought, for it leads
to atheism - and God is the Master of infallibility and success.
A chapter
Be it known to you that the science of eloquence and of distinguishing one
speech from another [as to quality] is not one that you can make whomever you
like, whenever you like, understand, for it is an unfortunately difficult process
and you cannot be in control of it until you have someone who has a disposition
which, when you strike it like a flint, it sparks and takes fire. If your friend does
not see what you show him and is not led to what you guide him to, you are in
relation to him like someone who blows on charcoal but kindles no fire, or like
someone trying to make a man smell who is deprived of the sense of smelling.
In the same manner as poetry does not abide in a person who has no taste, this
topic is likewise not understood by someone who has not been endowed with
the means to understand. But the great misfortune occurs when the one lacking
this means thinks he has been endowed with it and that he can judge perfectly
and make valid decisions; so he acts haphazardly and says things he should
be ashamed of if he knew his incapability of expressing himself.
As for the person who feels within himself [the complexity of] composition
and knows he lacks a science that others have, you should be in a comfortable
relationship with him, for he is a rational man protected by his own mind from
exceeding his capability and from taking over what he is not qualified for.
Sciences with known foundations and exact laws have been shared by people
who have agreed to build on them and refer to them when a person is wrong and
has a high opinion of himself, and it is impossible to make him change his mind
except with effort. If that person is judicious, reasonable and brave, he will take
note when his attention is called; he will stop and listen when told he has more
study to do; and he will be afraid to have been deluded, so he will take care and
listen to what is said to him; and he will refrain from entering [a discussion]
without evidence and from arrogantly presuming anything without proof.
A person of this description is rare, so how can people defend their opinion
concerning eloquence when the foundation you refer to and depend on when
arguing with them is citing the Qur’an and examining the souls and their prayers
when hearing? Meanwhile, they consider themselves as ones who have ideas,
give legal opinions and make judgements believing that they have clear minds
and good taste, and that their means are [therefore] complete. If you tell them,
“You come with only your own knowledge and you are not aware of that”, they
respond to you in the same manner. They find fault with you and criticize you,
and they say, “No, our minds are clearer [than yours] and our thinking is truer
and our sensibility more intelligent. The problem is in you, for you come having
made yourself imagine things without a basis, having been deluded by passion
and emotion that one of the two equal kinds of nazm must be better than the
other without really being so.” They continue believing what they have in hand,
and one cannot help but wonder at them.
Words are therefore not useful to you, speaking is not beneficial, nor is an
argument heard until you find someone who will be of help to you, someone
who - if he denies you [help] - is prompted by his natural disposition to return
to you. He would then be all ears to you and would remove any barrier between
him and you. He would pay attention to you and turn his mind to the viewpoint
you suggested, replacing aversion with geniality, and he would show acceptance
—
after rejection and success is through God.
1 14 THREE TREATISES ON THE FJAZOF THE QUR’AN
Notes
1 This paragraph is found with some insignificant variation in Al- Bayan wa al-Tabyin by
al-Jahiz, edited by cAbd al-Salam Muhammad Harun (Cairo: Maktabat al-Khanji, 1980),
3:29.
2 These two stories were mentioned in al-Khattabfs Treatise [with variation].
3 In this statement ascribed to cAli, there is originality; for he is referring to aspects that
must be agreed upon in order to establish comparison. He draws attention to the idea of
composing poetry for poetry’s sake, not out of any desire or fear. This is an idea rarely present
in old Arabic criticism. For more on cAli’s preference for Imru’ al-Qays, see Al-Winda (1922
edition), 1:59.
4 See this report in Al-HJmda, 1:61, where there is an addition and Ibn cAbbas said to him,
“So you are, O Abu Mulayka.”
5 From a poem in which he praised Zufar ibn al-Harith. See Ibn Sallam’s Tabaqat, p. 534
and al-Isbahani’s ad-Aghani, 20:120. Al-Jurjani mentioned this verse in his Dal&il al-Tjaz
in the context of speaking about words governed by a verb and how the meaning is affected.
6 This is the third of three verses by Abu Hazim al-Bahill which Abu I lilal al-cAskari cites in
Diwan al-Maâm^ 2:152 (edition of 1352 1 1.). It was related that Ibn al-Acrabi said that he did
not know anything more beautiful in lamenting youth and derogating grey hair than these
three verses.
7 From a poem praising Abu cAmir al-Khadr ibn Ahmad. See al-Buhtui’s Diwan^ 2:10,
Hindiyya edition, 1911.
8 Sec the beginning of Sibawayi’s al-Kitab, 1:2.
9 The sarfa is the belief maintained by some Muslim theologians and not accepted by others
that God turned away (sarafa) the Arabs from imitating the Qur’an by taking away their
competence and knowledge, thus preventing them from imitating it. See Q. 17:88 where
mankind and the /mw arc said to be unable to produce the like of the Qur’an, even if they back
one another. Translator.
Comments and additions
(1) Development of the technical terms of rhetoric

up to the fourth century AH
(2) Comments on al-Rummani’s ideas in Subtleties

by those who came after him
(3) A summary of cAbd al-Qahir’s idea of fjaz in his

book Indications of Inimitability
COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 117
(1) Development of the technical terms of rhetoric up to

the fourth century AH
Since the time when scholars began to study the style of the Qur’an and deal
with aspects of its rhetorical ijaz, studies have developed and produced a
great deal of material for literary criticism. One who follows Qur’anic studies
and rhetoric1 from the beginning of the third century to the fifth century AH
notices that they developed greatly, and that rhetorical arts and technical
terms began to appear and to record various aspects of beauty in style. Studies
interpenetrated and blended: the study of the Qur’an’s style depended on
rhetoric, and rhetoric resorted to quoting evidential examples from the Qur’an
to help it clarify technical terms and confirm them conceptually, in addition to
quoting evidential examples from poetry and other literary sources.
It is worth noting that, in their beginning, rhetorical technical terms were
mixed together and were not firmly established or defined. Al-majaz, for example,
meant a loose enlargement of the semantic usage of a word in the beginnings
of the third century, or having license in expression in general. It thus combined
all that came under this meaning in language, grammar and rhetoric.2
The other rhetorical technical terms began to appear and be recorded in the
studies of scholars of the Qur’an and elucidation. The first to be widely used
by them were isti'-ara (metaphor), tashbih (comparison), ijaz (concision), takrar
(repetition), saj^ (rhyming prose), tajnis (paronomasia), kinaya (allusion), ta'-rid
(intimation) and mubalagha (hyperbole). Abu cUbayda and al-Farra’ dealt with
some of these [rhetorical] arts in the style of the Qur’an in their books Majaz
Ui-Qur'an and Malani al-Quân [respectively], and al-Jahiz dealt with many of
them in his al-Bayan wa al-Tabyln and al-Hayawan when he dealt with texts
from the Qur’an, poetry, and the speech and orations of the Arabs.
In examining what al-Jahiz wrote, we notice that, of the above-mentioned
technical terms, he has recorded the following: majaz generally, istfiara, tashbih,
ijaz, saf, talcum (harmony) which he calls qiran and its contrary which is
tanafur (discord).
According to him, majaz is “using a word not in its real meaning, by way
of linguists’ loose enlargement”, istâra is calling something by the name of
another when it takes its place, ijaz to him is shortening of two kinds — hadhf
(ellipsis) and qisar (brevity) - so he calls it ijaz hadhf mA ijaz qisar, and according
to him saf is one of the kinds of beautiful expression and he explained people’s
hatred of it by the fact that it was the style of the soothsayers of the ancient Arabs
and the language of their paganism by which they tried to lead people astray
and influence them. He says, “What made rhyming prose specifically hated,
although it is less affected and artificial than verse, is that the Arab soothsayers,
to whom most of the people in the Jahiliyya appealed for judgement, used to
claim divination and composed mannered rhyming-prose decisions. It was said
that this was prohibited [in Islam] because of the people’s closeness to the time
of the Jahiliyya and the remaining effect of it in the hearts of many of them. So
118 THREE TREATISES ON THE I'JAZ OF THE QUR’AN
when the cause ceased to exist, the interdiction ceased too.” Al-Jahiz discussed
harmony and discord in words in a way close to that of al-Rummani in his
Subtleties.
Later on, rhetoricians and men of letters took part in creating these
rhetorical technical terms and studying them. Among them were al-Mubarrad,
ThaQab and Ibn al-Muctazz. These terms reached five in Ibn al-Muctazz’s
book Kitab al-Bad'^ - namely, al-istdara, al-tajnis, al-mutabaqa (antithesis), radd
a^jaz al-kalam '■ala ma taqaddamaha (correspondence of endings to beginnings
of locutions) and al-madhhab al-kalaml (syllogism). He added others to them
by which discourse is embellished and they are: al-dlirad (parenthesis), al-dnat
(constraint), al-ifratft al-sifa (exaggeration), al-iltifat (digression), tadkid al-madh
bimayushbih al-dhamm (praise emphasis resembling censure), al-ta'rid (hinting),
hum al-ibtided (beautiful beginning), al-tadmin (assimilated quotation), husn
al-khuruj (beautiful ending), tajahul (knower’s pretence of ignorance),
al-mursal (unrestrained), al-hazl alladhi yurad bihi al-jadd (jesting intended to
be serious), al-kinaya (allusion) and al-ta'qld (complication).
And so it can be said that the ten tropes of bad? and balagha that
al-Rummani had in his book were a summary of the kinds of rhetorical figures
that had appeared in the works of his predecessors and contemporaries; but he
neglected some of those used by Ibn al-Mu'tazz and Qudama, such as al-iltifat
and mujawarat al-addad (juxtaposition of opposites) and differed in the naming
of some, as he did with what Qudama called mu'azala (repetitious overlay) and
called it al-mutanafir (the discordant) . . . etc.
After al-Rummani and his contemporaries, rhetorical figures of speech
branched out. With Abu Hilal al-cAskari, they reached 37 kinds, and one
notices in his chapter divisions that he subdivided tropes, such as mubalagha
(hyperbole), which he subdivided into al-ighal (exorbitant exaggeration) and
ghuluwrp (excessive exaggeration) and he makes of kinaya (allusion) and ta’-rid
(hinting) two separate tropes ... etc.
Later rhetoricians carried these names and branches to excess. In the sixth
century AH, we find that Usama ibn Munqidh made the rhetorical figures
of speech 90 in number and, in the seventh century ah, the Egyptian Ibn Abi
al-Isbac made them 130.
And so, studies in the aesthetic arts of style culminated in attempts to
classify tropes and their technical terms, and in invention of names for things
of which there may not be evidential examples to support them. We may
even find [a rhetorician] who is content with one or two evidential examples
to support what he says, and if we exert strenuous efforts searching for other
examples, we will not obtain the object we seek.
COMMENTS AND ADDITIONS 1 19
(2) Comments on al-Rummani’s rhetorical ideas by those who came

after him and quotations from them
The importance of al-Rummani’s writings becomes apparent in the place his
ideas occupy in the works of those who came after him. Many of them quote
him at length or in summary, sometimes without mentioning his name, and
they may discuss his approach generally with regard to i(jaz or follow up on his
rhetorical topics approvingly or disapprovingly. The most outstanding among
them are possibly al-Qadi Abu Bakr al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH) and Ibn Sinan
al-Khafaji (d. 466 ah).
As for al-Baqillani, he is one of the chief writers on the i’-jaz of the Qur’an.
His book3 about it is considered the most dependable work by researchers
on the subject. In it, he mentions the kinds of stylistic embellishments that
literary criticism had known up to his time and, at the end of it, he writes a
chapter describing aspects of rhetoric, noting: “A certain man of letters said that
rhetoric consists often elements: (1) concision (al-ijaz), (2) simile {al-tashbih\
(3) metaphor (al-isti'-ara), (4) harmony {al-tala'um), (5) periodic rhyme and
assonance (al-fawasil), (6) paronomasia (al-tajanus), (7) permutation {al-lasrlj\
(8) implication {al-tadmin), (9) hyperbole (al-mubalagha) and (10) beautiful
rendition (husn al-bayan) . ..”4 After discussing these elements in words that are
virtually a summarization of al-Rummani’s, he continues by saying,5 “We said
that there are people who would prefer to understand the i^jaz of the Qur’an
entirely on the basis of its rhetorical aspects which, at the beginning of the book,
we said are called al-badit (style embellishments), examples of which in poetry
have [also] been known; other people claim they can derive that understanding
from these aspects which we enumerated in this chapter. Know that what we
have shown earlier and what we have argued to be our belief is correct, namely,
that these matters are of several kinds: some that can be identified, examined
and learned (and these can in no way lead to the knowledge of the i^jaz of the
Qur’an); and some that are rhetorical matters which cannot be examined and
learned (and these are the ones that indicate the i^jaz of the Qur’an) ...” He
then gives explanatory examples and ends by saying: “If the one who says this
means that when every idea is conveyed in the highest class of wording and is
connected with others similarly, ending in the most perfect rhetoric and the most
admirable expression of skill, this is something we would not refuse, and this
is rather what we believe in. But we object to the one who says that any one of
these rhetorical aspects by itself contains the [essence of] i^jaz without relating
it to the text, as when he says, 'Only what He swore by is inimitable’, or ‘The
simile is inimitable’, or ‘The paronomasia is inimitable’ or ‘The antithesis
(mutabaqa) by itself is inimitable.’
“As for the verse in which there is a comparison, if he claims it is inimitable
because of its words, its nazm, and its composition, I would not oppose that
and will not correct it. But I would not claim it is inimitable because of the
comparison in it. The author of this saying which we have just related placed it
in the section on comparison and other aspects associated with that.
120 THREE TREATISES ON THE F/AZOF THE QUR’AN
“One of those aspects is what we have shown ijdz to be connected with,

such as elucidation (bayan) which is not specific to one kind of thing elucidated
to the exclusion of another. That is why He said, ‘This [Qur’an] is a clear
declaration to humankind’ (Q. 3:138) and He said, ‘In clear Arabic tongue’
(Q. 26:195) - He repeated in other places of His Remembrance6 that it is
clear. The Qur’an is the highest kind of elucidation and the highest class of
it, having beauty in all aspects, causes, methods and ways combined, being
well-ordered nazm with soundness, loveliness, elegance, good effect on the
ears, ease on the tongue, acceptability in the soul, the visibility of imagery as
actually seen, and formed in such a way as to constitute evidence and indication
of purposeful composition, all of which is limitless in beauty, elegance,
resplendence and elevation. When verbal expression rises so high in quality, its
effect on the hearts and its power over the souls reach a state that baffles and
delights, disturbs and comforts, entices and despairs; it makes one laugh and
weep, it saddens and gladdens, it relieves and troubles, it dejects and exhilarates;
it makes one ecstatic and inclines one’s ears to it; it causes a feeling of liberality
and might. It may incite one to sacrifice oneself courageously, and spend of one’s
wealth generously. It may make listeners go forth very far from the opinions
they hold most dear and [in brief] it has subtle ways into the souls and delicate
paths to the hearts in accordance with its nazm and its effect, and the manner of
its opening and conclusion with magical influences and admirable exigencies.”'
As for the attitudes of the other authors towards al-Rummani, we shall
offer in what follows their most important comments and discussions, arranged
according to the rhetorical elements that al-Rummani mentioned.
(1) Rhetoric
Ibn Rashiq said (Al-Ûmda, 1:162):
Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn cTsa al-Rummani said, “The basis of rhetoric is
natural disposition.8 And yet, it has tools that help it and strengthen it, which
are a mark distinguishing it from other arts. These tools are of eight kinds:9
concision, metaphor, simile, elucidation, nazm, variation, similarity (mnshakala)
and parable.”
(2) Concision
(a) Ibn Rashiq said (Al-lUmda, 1:167):
In the opinion of al-Rummani, concision is of two kinds: one whose wording
and meaning are congruous, neither more nor less, as when you say, “Ask the
people of the village”, and another in which there is a deletion dispensing with
something, as when God says, “And ask the village” (Q. 12:82). Al-Rummani
defines concision by saying it is expressing the meaning in as few letters [i.e.,
words] as possible - and what an excellent saying this is! Yet this topic is very
large, each kind of its constituent parts having a name given to it by scholars of
this art. The first kind among those mentioned by Abu al-Hasan is what they
called al-musawat (equivalence). Some poetry using it is the following:
O you, adorning yourself with a quality not yours:

Adopting a character is less effectual than one’s innate disposition.
No one will help you in incidents happening to you
Except a dependable person; so look for one you trust.
The second kind among those mentioned by al-Rummanl is the saying of God,
may He be glorified, “And ask the village” (Q. 12:82), and it is called al-iktifa?
(satisfaction) which is within the topic of figurative speech. There are many
examples of it in old and new verse, in which some words are deleted because
the remaining ones indicate those deleted. An example of that is the saying of
God, may He be glorified, “And if there were a Qur’an by which mountains
could be moved or the earth could be cut asunder or the dead could be made
to speak” (Q. 13:31) - it is as if He said, “It would have been this Qur’an.”
Similar to it is when one says, “If you were to see cAli between the two battling
lines” - that is, “you would have seen a great thing”. This is one of the kinds of
rhetoric because the listener’s mind remains open to supposition and conjecture,
for everything that is known is facile because it is limited.
(b) Ibn Sinan said (Sirr al-Fasaha, 199):

Among constructions intending concision is the deletion of the first part
(al-mudaf) of a construct-phrase and letting the second part of it {al-mudaf
ilayhi) take its place, providing knowledge and removal of confusion, like
the saying of God, may He be blessed, “And ask the village where we were”
(Q. 12:82), the meaning being “[ask] the people of the village and the caravaners
[in it].” Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn cTsa al Rumman! used to call this kind al-hadhf
(deletion) - that is, deleting a word because the context indicates the meaning.
When a statement is constructed with fewer words and more meaning without
deletion, he used to call it al-qisar (brevity); and thus he considered concision
to be of two kinds: qisar (brevity) and hadhf (deletion). He also used the word
tatwll (prolongation) for the expressing of an idea in many words when a few
would have been sufficient; and he used the word itnab (prolixity) for the
expressing of an idea with many words which clarify the meaning and give it
more detail. He considered prolongation a defect and incapacity of expressing
oneself, but he considered prolixity beautiful and praiseworthy.
This view of Abu al-Hasan [al-Rummanl] agrees with what we have
chosen to believe, because he considers prolixity - which to him is using many
words with benefit and elucidation, expressing the meaning in various ways
—
and with detail so that the listener may understand it clearly this is what we
have chosen to believe and said it is in reality many words and many meanings;
likewise, we have agreed with him in considering prolongation ugly and in
praising concision as he explained it with its two meanings.
Praiseworthy concision should be defined, so we say: It is clarifying the
meaning with as few words as possible. This definition is more correct than
that of Abu al-Hasan al-Rummani which says it is expressing the meaning with
as few words as possible. Our definition is more adequate because, by saying
“clarifying”, we are on our guard against the possibility that the “expressing”
of the idea, though concise, may not be clear and may lead to difference among
people in understanding it, some preceding others depending on their share of
intelligence and correct imagination; for even if an idea deserves concise and
brief wording, this is not praiseworthy by itself unless the indication of the
meaning by the words is a clear indication.
We have earlier cited some examples of that occurring in the Qur’an,
although they are many and examining them all would be too long.
(3) Attestations of concision

(a) Abu Hilal [al-cAskari] said:
Brevity (al-qisar) is reducing the number of words and enlarging the meanings,
as in the saying of God, may He be glorified, “And in retaliation, there is life
for you” (Q. 2:179). The merit of this wording becomes clear when one
compares it with what the [pre-Islamic] Arabs used in this regard when they
said, “Killing is more likely to preclude killing.” The Qur’an’s wording is
superior to this saying because it is more expressive of the meaning, for it shows
justice by mentioning retaliation, and it posits the undesired purpose in it by
mentioning life and inviting desire for, or fear of, God’s prescription; it is also
superior because of its concision in wording. What is equivalent to “Killing is
more likely to preclude killing” is “Life is retaliation” which has fewer words and
is farther from affectation on account of repetition. The wording of the Qur’an is
free from that with its beautiful construction, good harmony perceptible by the
senses, and the absence of tongue-twisting adjacent [Arabic] letters.10
(b) Ibn Sinan said (Sirr al-Fasaha. 197-198):

Among the examples of concision and shortening is the saying of God, may He
be blessed and exalted, “And in retaliation, there is life for you”, because these
words, despite their concise quality, express a rich meaning, for their intention
is that when a human being knows that if he kills, he will be killed, he will be
strongly deterred. By killing, which is retaliation, much killing is thus averted
among people, this becoming life for them. This idea is expressed in these
few words in His saying, may He be exalted, “And in retaliation, there is life
for you” and it is the highest class of concision.
I may consider the saying, “Killing is more likely to preclude killing”

beautiful too; but there is rhetorical disparity between it and the Qur’an’s
wording for several reasons:
The first is that not every killing precludes killing; only killing for the
purpose of retaliation and justice does. Mentioning retaliation is a clarification
of the meaning and an exposure of the purpose.
The second is that His saying, may He be exalted, “And in retaliation,
there is life for you”, mentions life in addition to clarifying the desired purpose,
and this does not exist in “Killing is more likely to preclude killing” and it is
an increase of clarification.
The third is that the equivalent of the saying, “Killing is more likely to
preclude killing” is “Retaliation is life”, and “Retaliation is life” is shorter when
counting the number of letters in both.
The fourth is that in “Killing is more likely to preclude killing”, there is
repetition but not in “Retaliation is life.” We have said earlier that repetition
of letters in wording is a defect.
(4) Simile
(a) Abu Hilal [al-cAskari] said:
And a simile is of three kinds: the first is comparing two things similar in
colour, like comparing one night with another night, water with water, a crow
with another crow, and one piece of volcanic ground with another piece of
volcanic ground. The second is comparing two similar things, of which one
knows the similarity by a certain indication, like comparing a gem with another
gem, and blackness with blackness. The third is comparing two differing
things having a common quality, like comparing elucidation with magic, their
common quality being the subtlety of organization and the delicacy of manner;
or like comparing hardship with death, their common quality being hatred of
the circumstance and difficulty of the situation.
The best simile and the most eloquent is one of four kinds:
(i) The first is the use of what the senses do not [normally] perceive as
though they perceive it, such as the saying of God, may He be glorified, “And
those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in a spacious plain. The
thirsty man thinks it to be water” (Q. 24:39). He used what was not perceived
as though it has been perceived, their common quality being the invalidity of
the imagination despite the strength of the need and the extent of the want.
If He had said, “the onlooker thinks it to be water”, it would not have had the
effect of saying “the thirsty man” because the thirsty man would be in greater
need of water and more desirous of obtaining it. Similar to this is His saying,
may He be exalted, “Those who disbelieve in their Lord, their deeds are like
ashes on which the wind blows violently on a stormy day” (Q. 14:18), their
common quality being unlikeliness of meeting together and lack of usefulness.
124 THREE TREATISES ON THE PJAZOF THE QUR’AN
Similar to this is His saying, may He be glorified, “And so, his case is like that
of a dog: if you drive him away, he pants; and if you leave him alone, he pants”
(Q. 7:176). He used what is not perceived by the senses as though it is perceived,
which is the panting of the dog, the meaning being that the dog does not obey
you and stop panting in any way, and similarly the unbeliever will not respond
to your call to faith, whether it is done kindly or with violence. This is like His
saying, may He be exalted, “And those on whom they call apart from Him do
not answer them at all, but it is like a man who stretches out his hands towards
water so that he may reach his mouth, but he does not reach it” (Q. 13:14),
the common quality of both being the need for a beneficial result and the grief
on missing it.
(ii) The second [kind of simile] is the use of what is not customary as though
it is customary, like His saying, may He be exalted, “And when We shook the
mountain over them as though it were a canopy” (Q. 7:171), the common quality
between the two parts of the comparison being the height in the image of the
mountain and the canopy. Of the same kind is His saying, may He be exalted,
“The likeness of the present life is as water which We sent down from the sky”
till He says, “as if it had not flourished yesterday” (Q. 10:24). It is a statement
using what is customary as though it is not customary, the common quality of
both being an ornament and splendour, and then the sort of ruin in which there
is a lesson to those who may take warning and a moral admonition to those who
think. Another example is His saying, may He be exalted, “We sent against
them a furious wind on a day of endless bad luck, tearing people away as though
they were the trunks of uprooted palm trees” (Q. 54:20), in which two things
are common: the uprooting and ruin of palm trees and the [people’s] fear of
quick punishment. Another example is His saying, may He be exalted, “[And
when heaven is split asunder] and turns crimson like red leather” (Q. 55:37), the
common quality of the two ideas is the redness and softness of the essence in
which there is an indication of the importance and power of authority. Another
example is His saying, may He be exalted, “Know that the life of this world
is only a sport and a diversion” until He says, may He be glorified, “then it
becomes broken pieces” (Q. 57:20). The common quality between the two things
is [first] an incapacitation and then a quick change. In that, there is scorn for
this world and a warning against being deluded by it.
(iii) The third kind [of simile] is the use of what is not known by spontaneous
intuition as though it is known by it. An example of this is His saying, may He
be glorified, “and for a Paradise whose width is that of the heavens and earth”
(Q. 3:133) where He used what is known by spontaneous intuition as though
it is not known by it, the common quality of both being the great size, and the
purport is arousing desire for Paradise by a fine description. Another example
of this is His saying, may He be praised, “like an ass carrying hooks” (Q. 62:5),
the common quality between the two things being ignorance of what is carried,
and the aim of it would be awakening desire for learning the sciences and not
depending on accepted oral reports without factual knowledge. Another example

is His saying, may He be exalted, “as though they were hollow trunks of palm
trees” ((^. 69:7), the common quality between the two things being the bodies
emptied of souls, and the purport would be to urge scorning of what ends up in
such a state. Another example is His saying, may He be praised, “like a spider
that makes a house for itself’ (Q. 29:41), the common quality between the two
things being the weakness of what is depended on, and the purpose would be
to caution against deciding to make oneself act without any basis [for doing so],
(iv) The fourth kind [of simile] is using what has no quality of strength as
though it has strength, such as His saying, may He be glorified, “And His are
the lofty ships raised up in the sea like mountains” (Q. 55:24), the common
quality between the two things being great size and the purpose being to show
power to utilize great bodies in the largest possible amount of water. And in
this manner, the majority of similes in the Qur’an proceed, and they are of the
utmost excellence and beauty.
(b) Ibn Abi al-Isbac [al-cAdwani] said (Bada'd al-Qur'an, 19 b):

Chapter on simile: The definition of an eloquent artistic simile is the explanation
of what is obscure by what is clear through comparison while using a beautiful
construction. The beauty of elucidation in it is of several kinds, one of which is
making what the senses cannot perceive into what the senses can perceive, such
as His saying, may He be exalted, “And those who disbelieve, their deeds are like
a mirage in a spacious plain. The thirsty man thinks it to be water until, when he
comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing” (Q. 24:39). This elucidation makes what
the senses cannot perceive into what the senses can perceive, and they combine
to invalidate the need for imagination in any way; if it were said, “The onlooker
thinks it to be water”, it would be eloquent but the wording of the Qur’an is
more eloquent because the thirsty man is more desirously eager for water and
his heart has greater longing for it; furthermore, comparing the deeds of the
unbelievers with a mirage is one of the most beautiful and eloquent similes,
and the more so because it is additionally expressed in a beautiful construction
with sweet wording, sound indication and true representation. Another kind
[of simile] is one that makes what is not customary into what is customary, like
His saying, may lie be exalted, “And when We shook the mountain over them
as though it were a canopy” (Q. 7:171). This elucidation makes what is not
customary into what is customary, and they both have the common idea of
height in the image. Another kind [of simile] is the making of what is not known
by instantaneous intuition [into what is known by it], like His saying, may He
be praised, “and for a Paradise whose width is that of the heavens and earth”
(Q. 3:133); this elucidation makes what is not known by instantaneous intuition
into what is known by it, both having great size in common, and as a result of
that description, Paradise is made desirable by being beautifully described and
by having an exorbitant width. Another example [of simile] is one which makes
what does not have power in its quality to what has power, like His saying,
may He be exalted, “And His are the lofty ships raised up in the sea like
mountains” (Q. 55:24), and this elucidation makes what has no power in its
quality into what has, great size being common to both, except that mountains
are larger [than ships] and that is why they are the entities compared with; and
the moral lesson is knowing the power of Him who utilized the ships sailing on
the water despite their great bulk. The moral admonition is the benefit to human
beings by carrying heavy loads and traveling to far and near countries, and
the usefulness of winds to man associated with that. The statement contains
a great artfulness in how it expresses pride and enumerates the blessings
[given] to human beings. Another example [of simile] would be to use words
in a comparison to express reproach, as in His saying, may He be exalted, “Do
you consider the giving of drink to the pilgrims and the maintenance of the
Sacred Mosque as equal to [the works of] him who believes in God and the
Last Day?” (Q. 9:19). This is a reproach to those who consider the sacredness
of inanimate things as equal to the sacredness of him who believes in God and
the Last Day. There is in these passages the fullest indication of how one
should glorify the condition of the believer for his belief and that no creature is
equal to him by any qualitative analogy.
(5) Metaphor (al-istiârd)

(a) The author of al-Ûmda [Tbn Rashiq al-Qayrawanl] said (1:182):
Abu al-Hasan al-Rummani said: A metaphor is using a term in a manner for
which it was not originally intended in the language; and he cited the saying of
al-Hajjaj, “Indeed, I see heads that are ripe, and their harvest is due ...”
(b) And Ibn Sinan [aLKhafaji] said (Sirr al-Fasaha, 110):

He who uses words in a manner for which they were not [originally] intended
comes up with a beautiful metaphor. Abu al-Hasan cAh ibn 'Isa al-Rummani
defines it by saying, “It is associating a term with other than what it was
intended for in the origin of the language by way of transference for the sake
of clarification.” Explaining this sentence with regard to His saying, may Fie
be glorified, “And my head is all aflame with hoariness” (Q. 19:4), we say it is
a metaphor because flame belongs to fire, and has never been intended in the
origin of the language for hoariness. When He transferred it [to grey or white
hair], the meaning was clarified because of the comparison it had acquired,
for when grey or white hair takes hold of one’s head [with old age] and spreads
in it gradually until it changes it to other than its first colour, this is equivalent
to fire that burns in wood and spreads until it changes it to something different
from its earlier condition. This is the transference of a word from its original
real sense for the purpose of elucidation, which must be clearer than the real
sense because of the comparison included in it, for if the word in its original
real sense could stand in its place, it would have been more appropriate, as it
is the original root and the metaphor is the branch. It cannot be unnoticed by
anyone who meditates on His saying, may He be glorified, “And my head is all
aflame with hoariness” that it is more eloquent than saying, “The white hair
of the head increased”, which is the real sense of this idea.
The saying of Imru3 al-Qays [about his horse], “Fetter of wild animals” is
more eloquent than saying, “Restrainer of wild animals from running”. The
point in this is what the comparison in the metaphor added to the elucidation of
the meaning. If someone asked, “What is the difference between a metaphor and
a simile, if the matter is what you say?” the answer would be, “The difference
between them is what Abu al-Hasan [al-Rummani] mentioned - namely, that a
simile keeps the original meaning [of a word] and does not alter its usage — but
this is not the case of the metaphor, because the metaphor transfers a word
to what it was not intended for in the origin of the language.” However,
al-Rummani said that a simile is to be considered a simile only when a tool is
used [such as ka-: like], although it may be used without such words intended
for it and can still be beautiful and outstanding, but no one would consider
it to be included in the group of metaphors because of its lack of a particle
of comparison.
An example of this is the following saying of a poet [about women]:
Full moons, they unveiled; and crescents, they veiled.

Tree branches, they swayed; and antelopes, they turned around.
Another poet11 said:
She let pearls fall from narcissus, she watered

Roses, and she bit jujubes with hailstones.12
Both poetic sayings arc simply similes and not metaphors, although they do not
use tools of comparison, the difference between a metaphor and a simile being
what we have said earlier (pp. 123—127).
A metaphor (isti^dra^' must have a basis in reality, which is its origin, and
it is made up of a mustaâr (borrowed term), a mustaâr minhu (borrowed-from)
and a mustaSar lahu (borrowed-to).
(c) Abu Hilal [al-cAskari] said (Kitab al-Sinaâtayn, 1st ed., p. 207):
Every metaphor and figurative usage must have a basis in reality, which is the
origin for indicating the meaning in the language, such as the saying of Imru3
al-Qays:
I go out in the early morning when birds are in their nests,

Mounted on a bulky, smooth [horse], a fetter of wild animals.
The real sense is that [the horse is] restraining wild animals from moving
and escaping, but the metaphor is more eloquent because a fetter is one of the
highest kinds of restraint from action, for you can see its restraining and you do
not doubt it. Similar to that is the saying, “This is the balance of measurement”,
for its real meaning is “[this is] just measurement”, but the metaphor is more
eloquent because a balance [as an instrument of weighing] gives you an image
of justice so that you can see it with your own two eyes, and seeing has a merit
over other ways [of knowing]. Likewise, prosody is “the balance of verse” and
its real meaning is [that] it makes [its meter] correct.
Furthermore, there must be a common meaning between the borrowed and
the borrowed-from. The common meaning between “fetter of wild animals”
and “restrainer of wild animals” is confinement and preventing escape, and
that between “balance of measurement” and “just measurement” is achieving
correctness and removal of injustice that might result from inclining to one
of the two sides. He said [of Hell-Fire], “[T]hey will hear it sighing as it
boils, almost bursting with fury” (Q. 67:8-9). The real sense of “sighing” here
is the “horrible sound”, which consists of two words whereas “sighing” is one
word - and it is more concise and gives additional elucidation; the real sense
of “bursting” is “breaking asunder without differentiation”, but the metaphor
is more eloquent because a thing “bursting” is indeed without differentiation;
the real sense of “fury” is boiling vehemently but He mentioned “fury” because
its vehemence is perceptible by one’s soul, and because vengeance through
it is proportionately equal, thus [the verse] contains wonderful elucidation
and a severe chiding, which the original word in its real sense cannot replace
at all.
His saying, may He be exalted, “And when the anger of Moses fell silent”
(Q. 7: 154), means when it abated or went away; but “fell silent” is more eloquent
because it indicates an expectation of returning to anger when the situation
is considered and harm to religion is seen by a return to worshiping the calf;
furthermore, a person falling silent is expected to speak again.
His saying, may He be exalted, “Leave Me with him whom I created
alone” (Q. 74:11) means leave my power and my punishment; but the verse
is more eloquent in threatening, as when you say, wanting to exaggerate and
go far, “Leave me with him!” If He had said, “Leave my hitting him and
my censuring him [to me]”, [that statement] would not replace the other
satisfactorily and perhaps would not be as beautiful or acceptable.
His saying, may He be exalted, “We have blotted out the sign of the
night” (Q. 17:12) means “We have uncovered the darkness”, but the former
is more eloquent because when you say, “I blotted out a thing”, you make
clear that you left no trace of it; but when you say, “I uncovered a thing” (such
as [on removing] a curtain or the like), you do not make clear that you made it
go away and did not leave any trace of it.
In His saying, may He be praised, “And We have made the sign of the
day seeing”, the real meaning is “shining”; the metaphor is more eloquent
because it uncovers where the usefulness lies and shows how valuable the
blessing of seeing is.
And in His saying, may He be exalted, “And my head is all aflame with
hoariness” (Q. 19:4), the real meaning is that hoariness has become abundant
in my head and has become visible; the metaphor is more eloquent because the
light of fire is more impressive than the light of hoariness, for it extracts from
the visible to what is even more visible than it [originally was], and because the
spread of hoariness in the head is not liable to be reversed, just as the burning
of fire is not liable to be reversed ... etc.
(d) Ibn Sinan [al-Khafaji] said (Sirr al-Fasaha, 112):

cAh ibn cIsa [al-Rummani] explained the metaphors occurring in the Qur’an.
Among them were [the following]:
In His saying, may He be exalted, “And We came to the work they did and
We scattered it into particles of dust” (Q. 25:23), the real sense is “We resorted
to ...”, but “We came to ...” is more eloquent, because it shows He treated
them like someone coming back from a trip for, in order to grant them respite,
He treated them like someone who was absent from them and who, coming back,
saw them doing what was contrary to what he had ordered them to do. In this,
there is warning from being deluded by neglect.
In His saying, may He be exalted, “Verily, when the water rose high, We
carried you in the ship” (Q. 69:11), the real sense of tagha is “rose high” but
the metaphor is more eloquent because tagha means “rose high, overflowing
its boundaries”.
Similar to this is “by a fierce, severely violent wind” (Q. 69:6), because the
real meaning of '■atiyah is “severely violent” and it is more eloquent because its
severity has a certain recalcitrance in it; and in His saying, may His name be
honoured, “And a sign for them is the night, from which We strip off the day”
(Q. 36:37), because “stripping something off another” means “ridding it of it
and removing it immediately” as is the separation of day from night, “stripping
off’ is the more eloquent because the separation in it has additional elucidation.
In His saying, may He be exalted, “And [I swear] by the dawn as it
breathes”, the “breathing” here is borrowed metaphorically, its real meaning-
being “as it begins to spread”, but “as it breathes” is more eloquent on account
of the comfort it affords.
In His saying, may He be exalted, “And keep not your hand chained to
your neck, nor stretch it out altogether” (Q. 17:29), the real meaning is “do
not withhold giving altogether”, and the metaphor is more eloquent because it
makes withholding an act of giving equivalent to chaining the hand to the neck,
which is a clearer image.
Examples of this in God’s Book are numerous.
(e) Al-Fakhr al-Razi said in Nihayat al-Ijaz (p. 81):

cAh ibn hsa [al-Rummani] said, “A metaphor is using a term in a manner
for which it was not originally intended in the language.” This is invalid for
four reasons:
The first is that it necessitates that every figurative usage be a metaphor,
which we have invalidated. The second is that it necessitates that the transferred
distinguishing mark be figurative. The third is that the use of the term in other
than its [original] meaning, done because of ignorance, should be considered as
figurative. The fourth is that it does not deal with the imaginational metaphor
- as will be explained. It is closer to accuracy to say: A metaphor is mentioning
a thing by the name of another and attributing to it qualities belonging to

another for the sake of exaggeration in comparison.
(f) Ibn Abi al-Isbac [al-cAdwanl] said (BadaW al-Quân, p. 15 of the copy of
Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya):
Scholars differed in defining a metaphor. Al-Rummani said, “It is relating a
term to what it was not originally intended for in the language by way of
transference.” Ibn al-Khatib invalidates this definition for four reasons (and
he quotes Ibn al-Khatib’s previous words) but he objects to the third and says,
“In my view, this reason is questionable.” After he quotes Ibn al-Khatib’s words
on the metaphor, he defines it in another way and says, “I say: A metaphor is
naming a hidden unlikely thing by the name of a clear preponderant name.”
Thus, you give the qualities of preponderance and clarity belonging to one
thing to the hidden unlikely thing, exaggerating with respect to comparing the
borrowed-to with the borrowed-from. The second expression is more graceful.
(g) Yahya ibn Hamza al-cAlawi said in Al-Tiraz (1:199):

The first definition of a metaphor was made by al-Rummani, and the gist of
what he said was that a metaphor was using a term in a manner for which it was
not originally intended in the language. This is the summary of his words and
it is invalid for three reasons: first, because it necessitates that every figurative
usage be a metaphor - which is wrong, because every one of the figures of speech
has a definition that is different from that of another and its real sense, and there
is no reason to mix them; second, because it necessitates that the transferred
distinguishing marks be figurative and of the same kind as the metaphor - and
this is wrong, for figurative usage does not enter into these tropes apart from the
metaphor; third, because what he said necessitates that if we give the name of
the sky to the earth, this would be a figurative usage — and this is invalid, and
nobody holds this view.
(6) Harmony (al-tala’um)

(a) Ibn Sinan [al-Khafajl] said (Sirr al-Fasaha, p. 91):
Abu al-Hasan cAli ibn cIsa al-Rummanl believed that composition can be
of three kinds: (i) discordant, (ii) harmonious of the middle category, and
(iii) harmonious of the highest category. He said that the harmonious of the
middle category is like the poet’s saying:
God’s curtain being between her and me, Ramlm shot me

On the evening when white antelopes hid in their covert.
There was a day when, if she shot me, I would have shot her;
But my long acquaintance with fighting is ancient and bygone.
He said the harmonious of the highest category is the Qur’an in its entirety,
and this is evident to anyone who contemplates it carefully. The difference
between it and other speech in the harmony of letters is like the difference
between the discordant and the harmonious of the middle category; and this is
not correct: it would be an improper division. That is because composition is of
two kinds: discordant and harmonious. Within the harmonious, there may be
some parts that are more harmonious than others as the composition goes; this
does not need to be placed in a third category. Similarly, some of the discordant
may have parts that are more discordant than others, but al-Rummanl did not
make this a fourth category. As for the two verses quoted, they are, in this place,
not better than any others as an attestation.
As for his saying that the Qur’an is of the highest category of the harmonious
and that other speech is of the middle category, meaning by this all the speech
of the Arabs, the matter in fact is not like that. There is no difference between
the Qur’an and any other speech chosen as eloquent in this matter. When a
person thinks well and has the least knowledge of choice composition, he finds
that the speech of the Arabs had characteristics that resembled the Qur’an in its
composition. Perhaps Abu al-Hasan [al-Rummanl] believes that the iâz of the
Qur’an would not be consummated except through such a false claim [as his],
but the matter - thank God - is so clear it doesn’t need to be strengthened by
such a claim which repels everyone with the least appreciation for literature or
the least knowledge of speech criticism.
On returning to the investigation, we find that one aspect of the Fjaz of
the Qur’an is turning the Arabs away from imitating it by depriving them of
the sciences with which they could imitate it when they would have liked to
do that. If this is so, we would not need to lay claim to the belief of those who
say that [difference between] the composition of the Qur’an’s words and that
of other Arab speech is like [the difference] between the harmonious and the
discordant. Furthermore, if we say that another aspect of the i’-jaz of the Qur’an
is eloquence and claim that it is more eloquent than all other Arab speech to the
extent that separates the inimitable from the possible, this will not be different
from the claim of those who would find a difference between the composition of
its words and that of the words found in the speech of the Arabs, for the Qur’an
is not eloquent because of this composition only. Eloquence is the product of
many other constituents that occur in speech, among which harmony in words
is only one, and wc have thrown light on some of those constituents and will
[later] mention the remaining ones. Therefore, the composition of words found
in the Qur’an and in the eloquent speech of the Arabs being one and the same,
it is to be denied that the Qur’an is of the highest category, because it contains
word composition of which harmony comprises only a small part. It is clear that
in both cases, we are not in need of claiming what he [al-Rummani] has claimed,
which is so clearly false and invalid.
He is then to be asked: Isn’t harmony to be considered in the composition of
the letters comprising a single word, as we mentioned earlier? The answer must
inevitably be: Yes. He is then to be asked: What do you think of the composition
—
of each single word of the Qur’an on its own is it harmonious of the highest
category or of the middle one? If he answers: Of the same [high] category, he is
to be asked: Isn’t this single word identical to one that the Arabs spoke before
the Qur’an and after it? If it were not so, the Qur’an would not be Arabic,
nor would the Arabs have understood it. You have now admitted that, in the
speech of the Arabs, there are harmonious words of the highest category as
single words, but this would not obligate you to mar this aspect of the Qur’an’s
iâz [for this reason]. You should rather have said: In their speech composed of
single words, there are ones that are so - and knowing one of them is knowing
the other, indeed.
If he says: Each of the Qur’an’s words is harmonious of the middle category,
he is to be told: First, the Qur’an’s common use of their [i.e., the Arabs’]
category of words in this fashion still continues; therefore, what is the difference
between you and those who claim that harmony of the Qur’an’s words is of the
middle category, the one being like the other? However, harmony is clearly
evident in a single word when it consists of a small number of letters and their
phonetic articulation is taken into consideration: if they arc far from one another
[in articulation], its composition is harmonious; and if they are near one another,
it is discordant. This consideration for a middle category is based on the letters
articulated being neither extremely far nor excessively near one another, and
thus harmony is understood in both cases and no one will contend with us
about a word of the Qur’an whose composition we have explained clearly. We say
this with regard to the highest category [of single words], and we say the same
with regard to the composition of [several] words with one another, because in
both cases the touchstone is the same. It is clear that what should be dependable
to say is that composition is of two kinds: harmonious and discordant. The
composition of the Qur’an and the eloquent speech of the Arabs are both of
the harmonious kind, and this does not impair any aspect of the Qur’an’s i(jaz
- praise be to God.
'All ibn 'Isa [al-Rummani] believed also that discordance happens when
the letters [of a word] are close to one another in articulation or extremely far
from one another, and he reported this from al-Khalil ibn Ahmad. It is said that
when articulation [of the letters] is extremely far, it is like bouncing from one
place to another and when it is excessively close, it is like the walk of a
—
fettered man for it is equivalent to raising the tongue and returning it to its
place, both of which arc difficult for the tongue, ease being found in moderation;
and that is why in speech there is idgham (doubling or assimilating of letters)
and Mal (phonetic change of letters).
What I believe in, with regard to this, is what I have mentioned earlier. I
do not see that there is discordance in letters that are far from one another in
articulation but rather [only] in those that are close to one another. To show the
correctness of this idea, the word alam [pain] is not discordant, although it is
composed of letters (a, 1, m) that are far in articulation because the hamza (a) is
enunciated from the farthest part of the throat, the mim (m) from the lips and the
lam (1) from in between. According to him [al-Rummani], this composition should
be discordant because the letters in it are at an extreme distance in articulation.
Similar to this are words like am [or] and aw [or] because the mim (m) and the
maw (w) are the farthest letters from the hamza (a) in articulation. These two
examples, however, are not like the words lahha and sarra that have discordance
because of the closeness in the articulation of letters in each of them. When you
consider all the examples, you will not find that extreme distance between letters
in articulation is a cause for discordance as he [al-Rummani] mentioned. As for
idgham and ibdal, they both testify that the discordance is in the closeness of
letters in articulation and not in their distance, because either one hardly occurs
in speech except to escape from the closeness of letters in articulation. This, in
my view, is the rule that should be applied because study and contemplation
determine that it is correct. And if what we have mentioned is true, it is clear
that repetition of words and of [identical or similar] letters takes away a portion
of the eloquence.
(b) Ibn al-Athlr said in discussing Ibn Sinan’s opinion (al-Malhal al-Sa?ir, ed.
by Muhyi al-Din, pp. 151-153):
Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji mentioned the [rhetorical] qualities pertaining to the single
word and divided them into several kinds, such as: having the word’s letters
placed far from one another with regard to [their phonetic] articulation, having
it follow Arab usage and not be in some way exceptional to it, having it use the
134 THREE TREATISES ON THE I‘JAZ OF THE QUR’AN
diminutive form in places where it expresses something delicate or clandestine

or the like, and avoid being something trite and vulgarly used among the
common people and other such qualities.
In what he mentioned, there are things not needed. As for the distance
between letters in phonetic articulation, most [rules] of the Arabic language
deal with it; for the originator [of the language] divided its words into three
parts: triliteral, quadriliteral and quinqueliteral. Triliteral words are the majority
and there is nothing among them that is repugnant to usage save for rare
exceptions. As for the quadriliteral words, they are between the triliteral and
the quinqueliteral in number and usage. The quinquclitcral words are the least
[in number] and only some rare exceptions are used.
Accordingly, most of the [words of the] language are used without [causing
any] repugnance, and the wisdom of this noble language, which is the queen of
all languages, requires this by necessity. That is why the Originator dropped
from use many specific letters in combination because of their burdensome
and repugnant pronunciation and did not consider it harmonious to combine
guttural letters such as the hip [h], the khiP [kh] and the âyn [c], nor did he
consider it harmonious to combine the jim [j] and the £«/[q], or the lam [1] and
the rcP [r], or the zay [z] and the sin [s]. All this is an indication of his interest
in the harmony of letters far from one another in articulation, but not those
that are close to one another; and it is strange that he [occasionally] broke this
comprehensive principle of beautifying the language.14 He took interest also
in other less important matters, like the similarity of vocalization between the
vowels of a verb and its verbal noun in pronunciation such as ghalayan, daraban,
naqadan and nazawan and the like where all the consonantal letters are followed
by vowels. Whoever looks into the wisdom of how this language was originated
and sees [the attention paid to] these subtleties, which arc like mere edges
and margins for it, wonders how it could ever have anything that breaks the
fundamental principle of harmony between letters.
However, if a composer of verse or a writer of prose wished to consider the
articulation of letters when using words, in order to ascertain whether they were
composed of letters far from one another or close to one another in articulation,
his concern would be a long and difficult one. A poet would then compose a
poem and a writer would then write a book only after a long period of numerous
days and nights. We believe that the commanding principle [used] is contrary
to that, for the sense of hearing is the criterion in this situation and it decides
the beauty of beautiful words and the ugliness of ugly ones.
(7) Periodic rhyme and assonance (al-fawasil)

(a) Abu Hilal [al-cAskarl] did not agree with al-Rummani’s opinion which
differentiated between fawasil and saf (rhymed prose), nor with his considering
saf to be a defect and fawasil to be [good] rhetoric. Al-Rummani had said,
“FawasU are [good] rhetoric and asja1 are a defect”, and [Abu Hilal al-cAskarl]
responded to this by saying the following:
[...] Similarly, all the rhyming prose and doubling [constructions] that
occur in the Qur’an contradict [al-Rummani’s opinion], for they strengthen the
meaning and the purity of wording, and they consist of elegance and fluency
congruent with human beings’ speech. Don’t you see that, in His saying, may
His name be exalted, “By the snorting chargers, by the fire strikers, by the dawn
raiders, arousing dust trailers, in the centre of [hostile] fighters” (Q. 100:1-5),
there is a difference from all their [Arabic pre-Islamic] oaths of this kind such as
the [rhyming] saying of the soothsayer, “By heaven and earth, by loan and duty,
by flooding and germinating”? Such rhyming prose is obnoxious because of its
affectedness and arbitrariness. That is why, when a man said to the Prophet,
“[He is] the most generous man who ever drank and ate, and could shout and
initiate: the like of him, one should emancipate”, he retorted [disapprovingly],
may God bless him and grant him peace, “[Are you repeating] rhymed prose like
that of the soothsayers?!” For affectedness was rampant among them; and if he,
blessing and peace be upon him, had disliked it merely because it was rhymed
prose, he would have said, “[Are you reciting] rhymed prose?” and would have
said nothing more. Why would he disapprove of it, why would he dislike it? For
if it is free from affectedness and devoid of arbitrariness, there is nothing more
beautiful than it among all kinds of speech. Much of his own speech, peace be
upon him, practised it {Kitab al-SiniFatayn, 1952 edition, p. 261).
(b) Al-Qadl al-Baqillani said in his Ijaz al-QuF an:

(p. 89) All our friends15 reject the existence of saf (rhymed prose) in the Qur’an
and Abu al-Hasan [al-Rummani] mentioned it in more than one place in his
books.
(p. 90) [...] And what they consider as saj1 [in the Qur’an] is an illusion,
because speech may look like saj1 but it is not; for in sajj the meaning is
subservient to the wording that constitutes it, and this is not what they consider
as saF in the Qur’an because the wording in it is subservient to the meaning.
There is a difference between speech organized in words that, in themselves,
convey the intended meaning and speech in which meaning is organized without
(subservience to) words. When the meaning is related to saj1, the latter’s effect
is like that of any other [device]; but when the meaning stands by itself without
the saj^, it is paronomasia speech without emendation of the meaning.
(p. 94) [...] And there is no meaning to their saying that the idea of [s«jc]
is derived from the dove’s cooing repeated in one pattern with monotony,
because what is written in this manner docs not depend on derivation alone
and on repetition of monotonic rhymes. Matters that make speech agreeable
are various. Perhaps this one here ought to be called rhyme (qqfiya) - which is
specific to verse; and perhaps it may be called periodic assonance (fawasil) when
the two speech kinds are different. The fawasil of the Qur’an are specific to it
and are not shared with other varieties of speech or comparable to it.
(c) Ibn Sinan said (Sirr al-Fasaha, p. 165):

[...] As for the fawasil in the Qur’an, [scholars] called them fawasil and not sap.
They distinguished between them and said that saj1 was sought for itself and that
meaning was then forced on it, whereas the fawasil devices were not sought for
themselves but rather they constituted the meanings. cAll ibn fisa al-Rummani
said, “Fawasil [devices] are [good] rhetoric and saj1 is a defect”, and he justified
this, as we have mentioned, by saying that meaning was subservient to saj1
but that fawasil [devices] pursued meaning. This is not correct and what should
be said in this regard is that saj1 devices are made of similar letters at the end
of phrases.
Fawasil are of two kinds: one kind consists of saf whose letters at the end
of phrases are similar, and the other kind is not sajf but its letters at the end
of phrases are parallel and not [exactly] similar. Either of the two kinds - I
mean the one with similar letters and the one with letters that sound close to
one another - may possibly be unaffected, facile and subservient to the meaning
but, on the contrary, it may be affected and leading the meaning. If it is the
former, it is the praiseworthy kind that indicates eloquence and beautiful
elucidation; and if it is the latter, it is the blameworthy and rejected one.
As for the Qur’an, nothing but the former praiseworthy kind occurs in it
because it is of the highest eloquence. Its fawasil can be cither kind, similar
(mutmathila) or close-sounding (mutaqariba'). Examples of the similar ones are
Elis saying, may He be exalted, “By the Mount, and by a Book inscribed, in a
parchment unrolled, and by the House frequently visited” (Q. 52:1—3);16 and
His saying, may His name be honoured, “Ta Ha. We have not sent down the
Qur’an upon you so that you should be distressed, But as a reminder to him
who fears [God], and a revelation from Him who created the earth and the
high heavens, the Compassionate [who] has settled Himself on the Throne”
(Q. 20:2-6);17 and His saying, may He be blessed and exalted, “By the snorting
chargers, by the fire strikers, by the dawn raiders, arousing dust trailers, in the
centre of [hostile] fighters” (Q. 100: 1-5);18 and His saying, may He be blessed
and exalted, “By the dawn, and by ten nights, and by the even and the odd, and
by the night when it journeys on: is there [not] in that an oath for a man with
a mind?” (Q. 89: 1—4);19 and His saying, may He be blessed and exalted, “Have
you not seen how your Lord dealt with cAd, Irani of the lofty pillars, the like
of whom have not been created in the land? And with Thamud who hewed out
rocks in the valley? And with Pharaoh, the lord of the tent-pegs, who transgressed
in the lands, and wrought much corruption therein?” (Q. 89:6—11). 2(1 The long
/ i/ in yasri and wadi was deleted [and replaced by a short / i/\ for the sake of
agreement in the fawasil:, and His saying, may lie be exalted, “The hour has
drawn nigh and the moon is rent asunder. And if they see a sign, they turn
away and say, ‘A continuous sorcery’” (Q. 54:1-2),21 and all this [latter] sura is
built on doubling [constructions]. It is permissible to call this saf because it
has the purport of saf and there is nothing in [Islamic] law that forbids it.
Examples of the close-sounding fawasil are His saying, may He be blessed
and exalted, “The Compassionate, the Merciful, Master of the Day ofj udgement”
(Q. 1:3—4)22 and His saying, may He be blessed and exalted, “Qaf. By the
glorious Qur’an, but they marvel that a Warner has come to them from among
them, and the unbelievers say, ‘This is a strange thing’” (Q. 50:1-2).23 This is
not called saf because, as we explained, saf has [exactly] similar [last] letters.
As for al-Rummani’s saying,“Saf is a defect and fawasil are [good] rhetoric”
absolutely, it is wrong because, if he meant by saf something that is pursuing a
meaning and appearing as though it is not intended, then this is [good] rhetoric
and the fawasil [similarly constructed] are too. But if he meant by saf something
to which the meaning is subservient and which is intended and affected, then
this is a defect and the fawasil [similarly constructed] are too; for, in the same
manner as affectation occurs in saf when seeking similar [rhyming] letters, it
occurs in the fawasil when seeking close-sounding letters.
I think that what motivated our friends to call all rhyming phrases in the
Qur’an fawasil and not saf was their desire to keep the Qur’an detached from
any quality associated with sayings of soothsayers and their ilk, and the purpose
of such naming is understandable. But the truth is what we have mentioned, for
there is no difference between having saf in parts of the Qur’an in common with
other [Arab] speech and having all the Qur’an be a presentation, an utterance,
an Arab speech and a composition. This is something that is hidden, requiring
further elucidation; and there is no difference between the fawasil with similar
letters at phrase endings and the saf. If someone says, “If, in your opinion, saf
is praiseworthy, why is the entire Qur’an not in saf form? And why are parts
of it not in saf form?” He should be answered, “The Qur’an was revealed in
the language of the Arabs, and in accordance with their traditions and customs.
Their eloquent speech was not all in saf form, because that would have traits
of affectation, aversion and artifice especially in prolonged speech. And so, it
-
did not occur in saf form, in agreement with their tradition in the high class of
speech. But it was not without saf because the latter is beautiful in some speech,
as we have shown earlier, and so it occurred in eloquent speech produced by
them. Speech could not possibly be of the highest class of eloquence and violate
one of its conditions. This is the reason, and so the Qur’an was revealed in saf
form [in some parts] and not in saf form in others. And God knows best.
(d) Ibn al-Athir said (Al-Mathal al-Salir, p. 144) regarding saf - which is the
agreement in the fawasil in prose on one letter [ending the phrases]:
Some of our friends who arc masters of this art have condemned it. I do not see a
138 THREE TREATISES ON THE NAZ OF THE QUR’AN
reason for that except their inability to produce it; for if it were objectionable, it
would not have occurred in the Holy Qur’an which abounds with it to an extent
that a whole sura of it may occur in rhymed prose form, such as Surat al-Rahman
(Q 55), Surat al-Qamar (Q 54) and others; and on the whole, there is not a
single one of its suras that is completely free from it.
(e) Yahya ibn Hamza al-cAlawI said (Al-Tiraz, 3:20):

(He had just mentioned the disagreement concerning the belief that the Quran
contains saj1 and the distinction between sa/ and fawasil.)
A chapter on the rhymed-prose form: There are two opinions about it, the
first permits it and considers it beautiful - and this is what scholars of rhetoric
apply, their argument being that God’s Book, the Prophetic Tradition, and
the speech of the Commander of the Faithful are full of it; the second opinion
demonstrates an aversion to it, and this is cited by Ibn al-Athir but I do not
know who [originally] expressed it, nor have I found it in the books on rhetoric
that I read.
(8) Paronomasia (al-tajanus)

Ibn Rashlq said (AlÛmda, p. 227) in the chapter on paronomasia:
[. . .] Paronomasia was mentioned as being part of a construct phrase (mudaf),
and a group of investigative scholars, one of whom was al-Jurjani, cited it in
the following:
O moon of fullness, you have unfairly helped

The prolonged full night against me.
In their opinion, this and the like would be a paronomasia if it is continuously

similar in construction; but if the continuity of construction is broken, it is
not. It would have been a paronomasia, if the poet had mentioned the night in
a construct phrase by saying “the night of fullness” as when he said [in Arabic],
“O moon of fullness”. Al-Rummani called this kind muzamj (pairing), and
similar to it in his opinion is the poet’s saying:
My resources have protected me from abundant waters.

So don’t protect me from drinking the water of grapes.
Of this kind of pairing in their opinion is the saying of God, may He be exalted,
“[The hypocrites] seek to deceive God, but He deceives them” (Q 4:142);
and His saying, “So, whoever transgresses against you, do transgress likewise
against him” (Q 2:194); and His saying, “[W]e were only mocking. God will
mock them” (Q. 2:14-15). All these are figures of speech, because what is meant
by them is “punishment”, so He paired the [relevant] two words.
(P. 228) [...] In al-Rummani’s opinion, the true significance of the
paronomasia is its relation to the original meaning as in Abu Tammam’s saying
[about the sword]:
In its edge [hadd] is the boundary \hadd\ between seriousness and play.
He said, “[This is so] because both meanings [of hadd\ become more
eloquent [when placed in relation to one another].” But when one says qaruba
and iqtaraba (to come close) or lulu1 and mailed (rise [as in sunrise]) and the
like, this in his opinion is part of the way words are inflected in the language
and he does not consider it a paronomasia.
(9) Beautiful rendition (husn al-bayan)

(Ibn Abi al-Isbac [al-cAdwam] benefited from it and cited it among the chapters
of rhetoric in his book BadaW al-Qudan, apparently depending on what
al-Rummani had said in Al-Nukatl)
Ibn Abi al-Isbac [al-cAdwani] said (BadaW al-Qudan, p. 74 b):
Beautiful rendition may be expressed either in the form of nouns and
single attributes or in both together, the signification of the first being finite
and that of the second infinite. However, rendition [of a meaning] may be ugly
or beautiful or in-between. Ugly rendition would be like that of Baqil who was
asked about the price of a gazelle he had with him and he wanted to say, “Eleven”,
but was overcome by an inability to express himself; so he spread out the fingers
of his hands and put out his tongue, and consequently the gazelle escaped. This
was the ugliest rendition [of a meaning], although he went to the greatest length
to make [the interlocutor] understand by bringing out the number [eleven] from
hearing to seeing. But it was a deficient rendition because it specified sight to
the exclusion of hearing. The preferred method of the art of elucidation must
be the one specified for hearing, for it is conveyed by words and by expression
without gesturing ... And the elucidation of the Sublime Book and of all
eloquent clear rendition is one of the most beautiful kinds to the exclusion of
the ugly kind and the middling mediocre one, whether distant from or close to
rhetoric. Each of these kinds is also divided into three classes in relation to one
another: most beautiful, most ugly and middling.
The true significance of beautiful rendition is to bring out the meaning [of
a text] in a most beautiful manner that explains it clearly, and to convey it to
the understanding of the person to whom it is addressed through the easiest
and closest of means. It is the very essence of rhetoric. It may be expressed by
way of concision and by way of prolixity, in accordance with the requirements
of the situation. Prolixity {al-ilnab} is [good] rhetoric but verbose elaborateness
(al-ishab) is an incapability of expressing oneself. The [beautiful] rendition of
the Sublime Qur’an has come from a combination of these two ways, an example
of which is His saying, may He be exalted, “Many were the gardens and the
springs they left behind, and the sown fields and the noble places” (Q. 44:26—27).
Similar to it is His saying, may He be exalted, in which He wanted to show
[His] promise, “Verily, the righteous will be in a secure place ...” (Q. 44:51)
and likewise is His saying, may He be exalted, in which He wanted to show
[His] threat, “Verily, the Day of Decision is the appointed time for them all”
(Q. 44:40], Similar to it is His saying decisively arguing with the enemy, “And
he coins a comparison for Us, forgets his own creation [by Us], and says, ‘Who
can quicken the bones when they are decayed?’ Say, ‘He Who created them the
first time, for He knows well every kind of creation’” (Q. 36:79—80]. Similar to
it is His saying, may He be blessed and exalted, wanting to make [evildoers]
regret, “And it will not profit you today that you are partners in punishment,
for you have acted wrongfully” (Q. 43:39). Similar to it is his saying, may He
be exalted, wanting to show [His] justice, “And if they were sent back, they
would surely return to that which they were forbidden. Certainly, they are liars”
(Q. 6:28). Examples similar to these are many.
( 1 0) Antithesis (al-mutabaqd)
In a chapter on antithesis, which is not in al-Rummani’s al-Nukat, Ibn Rashiq
quoted al-Rummani - perhaps from another book. We cite here what Ibn
Rashiq wrote in his al-Ûmda (2:7):
[...] And al-Rummani said, “Antithesis is the equalization of the quantity
without increase or decrease.” The author of the book says, “Among others, this
is the best saying about antithesis I have heard, and it is the most comprehensive
in meaning. It comprises the definitions of the two groups as well as Qudama’s.
As for al-Khalil’s saying that if you combined two things in one manner and put
them together, this would be equality of quantity without increase or decrease,
it is just as al-Rummani said. Labld’s verse testifies to this saying:
“They took turns in speech in equal quantities

As you would equate one shoe with another.”
And [he wrote in] al-Umda (2:11):

[...] And al-Rummani and others said, “Black and white are opposites, but
the remaining colours are not opposites to one another. White is the opposite
of black in real terms, for the more each of them intensifies, the further it
goes from the other; whereas whenever the other colours intensify, they become
closer to black and, whenever they weaken, they become closer to white.
Furthermore, white is liable to be stained but black stains other colours and is
not stained; the remaining colours are not like that, for they all stain and are
not stained.24
(11) Aspects of the Qur’an’s i^jaz

In his book al-Itqan fiiUlum Ui-Qur'an (Perfection in the Sciences of the Qur’an),
al-Suyutl quoted some of what was said in the last chapter of al-Rummani’s book
and he said (2:206):
And al-Rummani said, “Different aspects of the Qur’an’s icjaz become
manifest once [people] abandon its imitation despite abundant motives and great
need: the [Qur’an’s] challenge to all people, the sarfa (turning would-be imitators
away), the [Qur’an’s] information about future matters, its breach of custom,
and its comparison with all [other] miracles.” He said, “Breach of custom is that
current custom was to have several known kinds of speech including poetry,
rhymed prose, orations and prose used by people in conversation. The Qur’an
brought a unique way that departed from custom and had a status in beauty
surpassing all other ways and excelling metrical verse which is the most beautiful
mode of expression.” He said, “As for its comparison with all [other] miracles,
its tyaz in this regard is abundantly clear, for splitting the sea, turning a cane into
a serpent, and the like were one way of i^jaz (incapacitation); but [the Qur’an]
departed from custom and deterred human beings from imitation [of it].”
And he said (al-Itqan 2:212):
The ninth [note]: Al-Rummani said, “If someone says, ‘Perhaps the short
suras can be imitated’, he will be told that they cannot, because the challenge
includes them and the inability to imitate them is manifest in His saying, ‘Then
bring a sura’’ (Q. 2:23 and Q. 10:38). By that, He did not specify the long ones
to the exclusion of the short ones. If he says, ‘It is possible in the short ones to
replace [the rhyming words of] the fawasil with others; would that be imitation?’
he will be told, ‘No, just as an inarticulate imitator may compose a line of verse
but will not be able to distinguish by natural disposition between wrong and
correct meter; if he wants to replace the rhyme words of the poem of Ru’ba:
“ ‘Of dark depths and empty space,

Of mountains resembling one another and flashing lightning,
With wind blowing from wherever it gusts
“‘and he replaces “space” with “shreds”, “lightning” with “twilight” and

“gusts” with “bursts” [all rhyming but incongruent], he can do that but will
not be confirmed as having composed a poem or an imitation of Ru’ba’s by
anyone who has the least knowledge. Similarly, this is what happens to him
who replaces [the rhyming words of] the fawasil.' ”
(3) A summary of cAbd al-Qahir’s idea about the Qur’an’s Fjaz based
on its nazm
cAbd al-Qahir [al-Jurjani] said in his book DalcPil al-Ijaz (p. 295, edition of
1331 AH):
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
We would like to resume by [offering] a presentation in which we enlighten
people to the fact that they will remain at a loss until they follow the path we
have taken and concentrate on contemplating what we have found out. Unless
they do that, they will remain beguiled and will continue to deceive themselves
with aspirations like someone looking forward to drinking from a shimmering
mirage. It will be said to them, “You recite the saying of God, may He be
exalted, ‘Say, “If humankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the like
of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like of it” ’ (Q. 17:88) and His saying,
may He be glorified, ‘Say, “Then bring ten suras like it”’ (Q. 11:13) and His
saying, ‘[produce] a sura like it’ ” (Q. 2:23). Do say now: Is it possible that God,
may He be exalted, commanded His Prophet, may God bless him and grant
him peace, to challenge the Arabs to imitate the Qur’an without their having
known the quality of the speech which, if they did produce it, would be one like
it? The answer must be, “No” because if they said, “It is possible”, they would
invalidate the challenge, for - as is well known - the challenge is a demand that
they bring speech with a certain quality. It is not valid to demand the production
of speech with a certain quality if that quality is not known to the one being
required [to produce it]; this will also invalidate the claim of ijaz [itself], because
it is unimaginable that there would be any incapability [of imitation] until it is
confirmed that there is something known that it is not possible to imitate. No
rational person would say to his opponent, “I consider you incapable of doing
what I did” without indicating to him a certain quality which he knows to be
that of his own deed which he has done. If a man were to say to another, “I have
produced craftsmanship in making a ring that you cannot replicate”, he would
have no argument and it would not be confirmed that he had produced what
would incapacitate the other man until he had shown him the ring and indicated
to him what craftsmanship he claimed to have originated in it; for it is not
right to describe a man as incapable of doing a thing until he wants that thing,
intends to imitate it, and then is unable to do it. It is unimaginable that he would
intend [to make] something he did not know about, and that he would want
to do something he did not know at all.
Furthermore, this quality ought to be one that is new in the Qur’an, a trait
that did not exist in other [texts] and that has not been known before it was
revealed. If so, it should be known that this quality could not reside in single
words, for considering it to be so might lead to something impossible, namely,
that the individual phrases - which are the usual coinage of the language - had
acquired certain qualities, in the skill with which their letters and sounds [were
put together], that did not exist before the revelation of the Qur’an, and which
have acquired specific guises and qualities that the listeners hear when recited
in the Qur’an and that they do not find outside the Qur’an. Additionally, this
quality should not reside in the meanings of the single words which are theirs
hy language conventions, for this leads to the possibility that new meanings
have been given to “praise” and “the Lord”, as well as to “the worlds”, “the
king”, “the day”, “judgement” and so on - meanings that did not exist before
the revelation of the Qur’an. If anything should be farther from the impossible
and uglier than it, it would be this. Moreover, this quality should not reside in
the syllabic composition [of the Qur’an] as though people were challenged to
come up with speech whose words in succession should be rhythmically
equilibrated with the words of the Qur’an as if the quality differentiating the
Qur’an [from other texts] were like the differentiation between the variant
meters of verse; for this would be not unlike the stupidity that Musaylima
undertook when saying, “We have given thee the multitudes. Pray, then, to thy
Lord and openly declare” and “By the grinding mills that grind ...”
A similar judgement will be made against those who claim that the quality
with which they were challenged was merely to produce speech with phrases
{maqati^ and assonances (fawasil) like the ones in the Qur’an, for this too will
be nothing more than depending on observance of rhythm. Assonances in the
verses of the Qur’an are like rhymes in poetry, and we know how great their
ability to produce rhyme was. If the challenge was no more than producing
fragments of speech having endings like rhymes, this would not have been
beyond them or impossible for them. Someone imagined something like this,
if the story is right, and produced what was claimed to be fragments of speech
with [rhyming] endings like those of the [Qur’anic] verses such as ya'-lamun
(they know) and yu^minun (they believe) and the like. [At any rate,] i^jaz does
not [merely] exist by having a text with words whose letters are not difficult
to articulate by the tongue.
In short, this and similar suppositions occur only to persons because of
their insufficient knowledge of this matter or because of their failure or because
of their desire to say strange things. Who would ever lend himself to the claim
that the evidence that appeared to them [in the Qur’an], that the matter that
overwhelmed them, the form that overpowered their hearts, the awe that had
struck them and disturbed them to such an extent that they had said, “Indeed,
it has sweetness; indeed, it has beauty! Its early yield is verily bountiful, and
its tardy one is verily fruitful!” was only because of something that had struck
them in the sequence of its vowels, in the composition of its syllables, or in
the assonances at the end of its verses? How would such a quality and such a
comparison be appropriate for that? Or do you think that, when [cAbd Allah]
ibn Mascud said, describing the Qur’an, “It cannot be considered trifling, nor
can it be found disgraceful”, and “When I recite Al Ha Mlm (Q. suras 40 to 46
beginning with Ha Mint], I am in mellow gardens in which I become elegant”
— —
that is, “I follow their beautiful merits” do you think he said that because of
the rhythm of the words and because of the assonance at the end of the verses?
Or do you think that for this reason they said, “Its wonders are endless and it
does not become worn out despite abundant repetition”? Or do you think
al-Jahiz was thinking of that when he said in The Book of Prophecy, “And if a
man recites one sura to one of their orators and eloquent men, he will realize
[on hearing it] that he is unable to produce the like of it because of its order,
the sound of its words and its general character. And if he challenged the most
eloquent2’ of the Arabs with it, he would admit his inability [to imitate it] in
language and wording”? These words of his are not at all like anything they
believe. Their comparison of some [Qur’anic] verses with what people say has
the same meaning, such as “And there is life for you in retaliation” (Q. 2:179)
and “Killing some gives life to everybody”, is wrong on their part, because we do
not see that there is any connection in this comparison with matters of syllables
and assonances; and we do not think they meant by comparison anything other
than what people usually mean when comparing one statement with another in
eloquence and rhetoric, and in delicate composition and the augmentation of the
meaning. If it were not for Satan who had taken possession of many people in
this matter by making them abandon thinking, neglect reflection and submit to
weak intentions and low aspirations so that they let him cast every inconceivable
falsehood in their souls, which they accepted and accommodated in their hearts
— these vicious sayings would not have entered inlo writings where they are
repeated to clarify their falsity and make it known.
These afore-mentioned abominations are also attached to those who
believe in the sarfa, for if their inability to imitate the Qur’an and to bring
forth something like it was not on account of its being inimitable by itself but
because they were incapacitated and their intentions and minds were turned
away (yurifat) from composing speech like it and they were entirely in the
condition of someone who was deprived of the knowledge of something he used
to know and who was prevented from an act he could do - it ought not have
been impossible for them, nor should they have acted in a way indicating their
regarding it as formidable and their being astonished at it, and [in a manner]
showing that it dumbfounded them and was considered remarkably great by
them. Their astonishment ought [rather] to have been at26 the inability which
seized them and at the change of their condition that they noticed, and at the
fact that they were prevented from doing something that had been easy for
them and that a door was closed that had been open to them. Imagine that if a
prophet said to his people, “My miracle is that I put my hand on my head now,
and you are all prevented from being able to put your hands on your heads” and
[imagine that] what he said happened. At what should the people’s astonishment
be: at his putting his hand on his head or at their inability to put their hands
on their heads?
Going back to the sequence [of our argument], we say: If the characteristics
of the Qur’an that incapacitated them are untenable with regard to anything we
have enumerated, nothing remains but metaphor [as an incapacitating quality].

But metaphor cannot be considered the foundation of ijaz because that would
lead to limiting i(jaz to a few verses, especially in certain places of the long
suras. Since this is impossible, nothing remains but that it subsists in the nazm
and composition [of the Qur’an], because there is nothing but nazm where ijaz
subsists after we have shown everything else to be untenable. If so, and as we
know that nazm is nothing but seeking the ideas and rules of grammar about
relations of words and that, if we spend a lifetime exerting ourselves to find
a thread for single words that organizes them together and a means that joins
them and puts them together in a relationship other than the ideas and rules of
grammar, we will be seeking an impossibility greater than all others.
It is, therefore, clear that he who speaks about nazm and claims that he is
trying to show its merit by ignoring the rules and principles we have mentioned
earlier and by not following the paths we have taken is benighted, self-deluded,
and deceived by false hopes. That is because, if nazm is nothing but seeking the
ideas and rules of grammar, it is most amazing that someone would claim to seek
merit in nazm without seeking it in the ideas and rules of grammar, which nazm
is an expression of.27
If someone says, “Your saying, ‘nothing but nazm' requires excluding
metaphor and other kinds of figurative speech in the Qur’an from everything
that makes it inimitable, and this is not justifiable”, he will be answered, “The
matter is not as you have thought; this rather requires including metaphor and
similar figures by which it [the Qur’an] is inimitable. That is because these
—
ideas metaphor, allusion, comparison and other kinds of figurative speech
- are some of the requirements of nazm by which it is induced and by which it
subsists. It cannot be imagined that any of these would enter into a construction
in a sentence as independent single words with no rules of grammar having
been adduced to link them. It cannot be imagined that there could be a verb
or a noun used in a metaphor without being related to the other words. In His
saying, may He be exalted, “and my head is all aflame with hoariness” (Q. 19:4),
don’t you see that if he intended “head” not to be the subject of “is aflame”
and wanted “hoariness” to be an attribute of specification in its place, he would
not imagine it to be a metaphor? And so is the case with similar metaphors - so
know that.
And know that when they said, “We seek excellence [of expression]”, they
were wrong when they thought its occurrence would be in the single word, on
the understanding that nazm was merely nazm of single words, and that nazm
follows words without the ideas [following as a matter of course]. When they
thought that and believed it, they stopped at words and did not think of anything
else. Being so fixated, they could not come up with anything to correct what they
thought. What they said, however, contradicts and invalidates that the single
word as such should be the place where excellence [of expression] occurs; and so
they admitted unknowingly that the excellence |ol expression] they sought had
no place but in the ideas and rules of grammar; for they said, “Eloquence is not
apparent in single words but rather in their combination in a specific manner.”
Their saying “combination” of words is not correct if it means “pronouncing-
one word after another” without there being a connection of meaning between
them; for if it were so, there would be eloquence in saying, “he laughed he left”
by just combining “laughed” and “left”. If this is invalid, then there remains
nothing but that the meaning of “combination” should be combining one word
with another by seeking the rules of grammar between them. Their saying,
“in a specific manner” necessitates this too, for “manner” - if you intend the
word itself - has no meaning [otherwise]. If you think of it, this is all they said,
and you will see that they actually made excellence [of expression] subsist in
the ideas and rules of grammar unconsciously, for this is a necessary thing and
one cannot do without it.
One of the things you will find them depending on and returning to is their
belief that ideas do not increase but words do. This is meaningless, if you think of
it, unless “increase of words” means the excellence [of expression] that happens
between words when the ideas and rules of grammar are sought, for increase of
words as words and as utterances by the tongue would be inconceivable.
Furthermore, we know that the required excellence [of expression] in this
regard is an excellence based on thought and sound reflection. It is inconceivable
that a word should have a quality discovered by thought and deliberation, unless
composing a tune with it is intended, and this is not what we are dealing with.
Hence, inflection should not be counted when aspects of excellence are counted,
because inflection is common to all Arabs and is not something discovered by
thought and deliberation. If someone says the case of the subject [in a sentence]
is nominative, that of the object is accusative and that of the second part of a
construct phrase is genitive, he is not more knowledgeable than anyone else;
nor is [knowing] the object something that requires a sharp mind and a quick
wit. What is rather needed is the knowledge of what necessitates that a thing
be subject when it is in a figurative speech construction, such as His saying,
may He be exalted, “and their commerce has not profited [them]” (Q. 2: 16), and
such as al-Farazdaq’s saying:
and holes in the ears gave them drink,
and similar things that make a word the subject by means of a delicate
interpretation. This is not knowledge of inflection but of the quality necessitating
the inflection. Hence, it is not permissible for us to consider someone using one
of two ways of saying something as being more eloquent and as having guarded
himself against what the common people err in, nor as having used uncommon
words, because knowledge of all this is no more than knowing the language
and the particular single words, as well as what can be remembered by heart
without any reflection or thought. If the common people and their like hardly
know eloquence as being anything but this, it is ill-advised to do likewise
in [serious] thought when one is claiming to be studying the indications of
i'jaz. Do you think the Arabs were challenged to choose saying shama' instead
of sham' (wax) and nahar® instead of nahr (river) and to protect themselves
from common people’s unidiomatic constructions such as “This is worth [yaswa
instead of yusawi] a thousand”, or to come up with uncommon words in speech
as a way of imitating the Qur’an? How could this be so when, reading one of
the long suras of the Qur’an, you do not find any uncommon words in it?
Consider the Qur’an’s uncommon words collected by scholars and you will
see that those uncommon words, except rarely, are so because of a metaphor
contained in them, such as “and they were made to drink the calf in their
hearts” (Q. 2:93), and “they retired, conferring together” (Q. 12:80), and “So
declare openly what you are commanded” (Q. 12:80) without the word being
uncommon in itself. You only see this in a limited number of words such as
in “hasten to us our portion [qittana] ” (Q. 38:16), and “made of planks and
nails [dusur]” (Q. 54:13), and “Your Lord has placed a rivulet [sariyya] under
you” (Q, 19:24).
Moreover, if most of the words of the Qur’an were uncommon, it would
have been unthinkable to have them considered in its i'jdz and to have a rightful
challenge with them, because if challenge were made with them, there could be
someone who has or has no knowledge of similar uncommon words and who
would not find it impossible to imitate the Qur’an with similar words. Don’t
you see that it is not impossible for you, if you know uncommon words meaning
tawil (tall), to imitate one who says shawqab by saying shawdhab, and if he says
amaqq, by saying ashaqq^ And if someone with no knowledge of such uncommon
words were challenged with such words, this would be tantamount to challenging
the Arabs to speak in the tongue of Turks.
Worse still is to consider the use of uncommon words as a virtue when it
has been confirmed that they found virtue in avoiding and not using uncommon
words. Don’t you recall the saying of cUmar, may God be pleased with him,
about Zuhayr, “He did not overlay words and did not seek unusual language”?
He associated unusual language, which is doubtlessly uncommon words, with
overlaying [of words], which is complexity.
148 THREE TREATISES ON THE IÂZ OF THE QUR’AN
Notes
1 Rhetoric (balagha) is the art of using- language effectively in speaking or writing. It is also
the scholarly study analyzing this art, setting its rules and naming its various means of
expression. Translator.
2 Later on, majaz came to mean figurative speech. Translator.
3 Fjaz al-QuPdn, cd. Al-Sayyid Ahmad Saqr (Cairo, [1954]). Translator.
4 Page 202 of the Cairo edition, 1349 AH.
5 Ibid, p. 207ff.
6 The Remembrance (al-Dhikr) is the Qur’an, referred to as such in the Qur’an itself.
Translator.
7 Fjaz al-QuPan, p. 209 (Salafiyya edition, [Cairo:] 1349 AH).
8 In his book, Ibn Rashiq quotes from al-Rummani in more than one place, and it seems
that some of these quotations are from books by al-Rummani other than Al-Nukat ft Fjaz
al-Qur>an.
9 As mentioned earlier, Rumman! has ten kinds.
10 In Arabic, the pre-Islamic saying is “al-qatlu anfa li-l-qatlF and is considered to have
discordant letters, and the Qur’anic verse is “nw lakum fi-l-qisdsi haydtun” and is considered
to have flowing letters. Translator.
1 1 Abu al-Faraj al-Wa’wa’.
— — —
12 Imagery explained: pearls tears; narcissus eyes; roses cheeks; jujube — lips; hailstones
= teeth. Translator.
13 The literal meaning of isti^dra is “borrowing”. As a technical term in rhetoric, it means
“metaphor”, which involves borrowing a quality of one thing and transferring it to another,
suggesting a likeness or analogy between them. Translator.
14 Example: nuqakh^ which means pure, cold water. Translator.
15 In the margin, it is mentioned that it is Abu Mansur al-Maturidi.
16 The last syllable of each of the phrases in Arabic is -ur. Translator.
17 'The last syllable of each of the phrases in Arabic is -d. Translator.
18 The last syllable of the first three phrases in Arabic is -ha and of the next two is -97. Translator.
19 The last syllable of each of the phrases in Arabic is -ri. Translator.
20 The last syllable of each of the phrases in Arabic is -ad. Translator.
21 The last syllables of the two phrases in Arabic are -ar and -ir. Translator.
22 The last syllables of the two phrases in Arabic are -ini and -in. Translator.
23 'The last syllables of the two phrases in Arabic are -id and -ib. Translator.
24 Sec AlAUmda ft Mahdsin al-Shi^r wa Addbih ma Naqdih by Abu CA11 al-Hasan Ibn Rashiq
al-Qayrawani al- Azdi, edited by Muhammad Muhyi al-Din cAbd al-Hamid (Beirut: Dar
al-Jil, 1981), fifth edition, two volumes in one tome. Translator
25 I read “ablagh” and not “aghlab” in accordance with al-Jurjani’s Dalaîl al-Fjadz, eds
Muhammad cAbduh and Muhmmad Rashid Rda, sixth edition (Cairo, 1380 AH/ 1960 ad),
p. 250. Translator.
26 I read ^lilladhr and not “alladhi” in accordance with 9Abduh and Rida’s edition, page 250;
see ibid. Translator.
27 In translating this sentence, missing Arabic text is added from al-Jurjani’s DaUPil ad-Fjaz, eds
Muhammad cAbduh and Muhammad Rashid Rida, sixth edition (Cairo, 1380 ah/ 1960 ad),
p. 251. Translator.
28 For river, the Qur’an uses nahar as in Q 2:249, Q 54:54 and Q 18:33 and not nahr which is
commonly used for river. Translator.
Index
A Bayan Bjaz al-QuPan 1-3, 9-47

<Abd al-Qahir 142-7 authorizing permission for 1
cz\.bd al-Rahman ibn Hassan 101 editions of 1-2
AbuaMAliya 18 idea and method of 2
Abu cAmr ibn al-Âl^ 29, 40 beautiful rendition 139-40
Abu al-Aswad 94, 97 black and white colours 140
Abu Bakr 36 brevity in use of words 54, 121
.Abu Dharr 90 al-Buhturi 101
Abu Du’ad 97
Abu Du5ad al-Iyadi 43
Abu al-Hasan see al-Rummam C
Abu Hazim 100 citing 75
Abu Hilal aKAskari 1 18, 122-5, 127-9, closeness of words in articulation 133-4
134-5 Companions of the Prophet 31
Abu Jahl ibn Hisham ibn Mughira 88-9 concision 54-6,120,122,139
Abu Sufyan 78 correlation 7 1
Abu Tammam 139 custom, breaches of 79, 92—3, 141
Abu TJbayda 95,117
Abu al-Walid 89-90
abundance of motives 78 D
adjectives 17 Day of Resurrection 34
Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Malik 17 deletion of words 54-5, 75, 121
al-Akhtal 43 Dhu al-Rumma 13, 43
Aleem, Abdul 2 discordant composition 131—3
cAli ibn Abi Talib 101 dissonance 68
cAlqama al-Fahl 93 distraction from prayers 18
cAlqama ibn cAbda 38
cAmr ibn Kulthum 36-7, 71
analogy 73 E
antithesis 140 elephants 44-5
apodosis 71 ellipsis 24, 32—4
Arab people eloquence, rhetorical 2-3, 5, 12-16, 20-2, 25,
as distinct from non-Arabs 80 27, 34, 53-9, 73, 106-7, 112, 132, 137,
early and late 99, 104 146-7
superiority over all others 85 categories of 5
Arabic language 29-30 ten elements of 53-4
al-A<sha 42-3,91-2,96 elucidation 75-7
al-Asma<l 19-20 evidence 91, 96
assonances 69-70, 135-6, 143-4
F
B al-Farazdaq 13-14, 86-7, 91, 146
Baqil 75-6 al-Farra> 18,31,117
al-Baqillani 135-6 fawasil 70, 134-7, 141
figurative language 118, 121, 130-1, 145-6 K

forgery 108 Khalid ibn Safwan 85, 98
freeing a person 19 al-Khalil 68, 102, 133, 140
al-Khattabi 1-3
see also Bayan Bjaz al-QuPan
H al-Kisah 19
al-Hakam 36
Hammad al-Rawiya 95
Hamza 89 L
al-Harith 38-40 Labid 140
harmony 68-9, 131-4 “lamp”, metaphorical use of the term 66
al-Hasan 18-19, 101 linguistics 16
Hassan ibn Thabit 42-3, 105, 110
al-Hutay^ 94-5
hyperbole 74-5 M
majaz 117
al-Makhzumi 16
I al-Ma’mun 17
ibdal 68, 133 al-Mansur 95
Ibn cAbbas 21, 94—5 metaphor 27, 60-7, 126-31, 144-5
Ibn Abi al-Isbac 118, 125, 130, 139 miracles 1 2
Ibnal-Athlr 133,137-8 miserliness 17
Ibn al-Khattab 29 modulation of sounds 68-9
Ibn al-Khatib 130 mosquito 45
Ibn Mascud 143-4 al-Mubarrad 1 1 8
Ibn Mayyada 98 Muhammad the Prophet 11,19-20, 25,
Ibn al-Mughira 88 31, 47, 88-92, 104-5
Ibn al-Muctazz 118 Muhammad ibn Sallam 40
Ibn Rashiq 120, 138, 140 al-musawal 121
Ibn al-Sikkit 25 Musaylima 36, 70, 143
Ibn Sinan 121-2, 126, 129-36 muzawij 138-9
Ibn Surayj 29-30
iclgham 68, 133
N
iâz 2-6, 1 1-14, 46, 53, 55, 78, 96, 98, al-Nabigha 40-3, 91-2, 96
131-3, 141-7
alAktifa? 121 al-Nadr ibn Shumayl 18
implication 73-4 nazm 96-7,100-12,145
ImnP al-Qays 38-42, 61, 91-6, 100, niggardliness 17
127-8 Al-Nukat ft Ijaz al-Qui^dn 3-5, 53-80
inflection 146 analysis of 4-5
intuition, spontaneous 59-60 manuscript versions of 3-4
Qqal 98
P
panegyrics 103
J Paradise 59, 1 24-6
al-Jahiz 98-102,117-18,144 paranomasia 70-1, 138-9
Jarir 13, 86-7, 103 particles in constructions of speech 30
Joseph, son of Jacob 25-6
permutations 72-3
al-Jurjani 3, 5-6, 85
“pillars”, metaphorical use of the term
see also Al-Risala al-Shafiya ft al-Bjdz
65-6
INDEX 151
poets, ranking of 96-9, 102-3 Sibawayhi 101-2

praising 16-17 al-Siddiq 1-2
pregnant women 45-6 simile 56-60, 123-7
prolixity 55-6, 121, 139 “smiting” 67
prolongation 121 speculative thinking 1 1 1
punishment, threats of 35 speech, kinds of 14
spoils, apportionment of 31-2
“sterility” 66-7
CL suras 69, 137, 142, 145
quadriliteral words 134 al-Suyuti 141
Qudama 11 8
quinqueliteral words 134
Qur’an, the T
division of 32 Tarafa 27-8
grammar of 20, 145 Taymuriyya Collection 4
harmonious words in 131—3 Thaclab 118
imitation of 2-3,15-16, 20-1, 35-7, thanking 16-17
42-4, 69, 78-80, 85-7, 91-2, 97-106, tradition, learning from 111
109 12, 142, 147 triliteral words 134
repetition in 33-4
structure of 35
uncommon words in 147 U
al-Qurazi 89 ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab 21,46,95
al-Qutabi 19 Usama ibn Munquidh 118
al-Qutami 100 <Utba ibn Rabi<a 6, 46-7, 89-90
R V
al-Razi 130 verbosity 55
retaliation 122-3
reward, promises of 35
rhetoric 85-6 W
technical terms in 117-18 al-Walid 42,90
see also eloquence, rhetorical
rhyme 69-70,117,135,143
rhythm 143—4 Y
Al-Risala al-Shafiya 5—6, 85-113 Yahya ibn Hamza al-cAlawl 130-1, 138
analysis of 5-6 al-Yashkuri 93-4
Ru’ba 141 “yes”, use of 18
al-Rummani 3-5, 118-22, 126-41
see also al-Nukat fi Fjaz al-Qufian
Z
Zuhayr 91-2,95-6
S
saf 136-7
sarfa 2, 6, 78, 105-8, 144
Satan 1 44
al-Sawadi 75
al-Sha<bi 40-1
al-Shammakh 43
This book contains three important Arabic treatises from the fourth and fifth
centuries of Islamic history, published here in English translation for the first
time. They deal with the Islamic concept of iâz, that is, the inimitability of
the Qur’an because of its sublime style and divine content. While analyzing
i^jaz, they also partake in the development of the science of rhetoric in Arabic
and the evolution of Arabic literary criticism. The inimitability of the Qur’an
is considered a miracle authenticating the holy scripture of Islam and proving
the veracity of Muhammad's prophethood, Yet despite its importance in
Islamic thought and Qur’anic studies, few of the Arabic works on i^jaz have
been translated into Western languages. The three Arabic treatises in this
book are relatively short ones: they afford different points of view and offer a
variety of literary and theological'approaches that give the reader a virtually
comprehensive understanding of Fjaz and the issues related to it, meanwhile
contributing to the knowledge of Arabic rhetoric and literary criticism.

Three Treatises On The I'Jaz of The Qur'An

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Three Treatises On The I'Jaz of The Qur'An

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Great Boohs o( Islamic Civilization

al-Khattabi, al-Rummani and cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani

Quranic Studies and Literary Criticism

Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization

Faculty of Islamic Studies

al-Khattabi, al-Rummani and cAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani

Edited by Muhammad Khalaf-Allah Ahmad and Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam

Copyright © 2015 Muhammad bin Hamad Al-Thani Center

All rights reserved.

British I library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Typesei by Samantha Barden

Analysis of the three treatises 1

The first treatise

On the elucidation of the Qur’an’s Fjaz 11

The second treatise

(1) Chapter on concision 54

(9) Chapter on hyperbole (al-mubalagha) 74

THE THIRD TREATISE

Comments and additions

(1) Development of the technical terms of rhetoric up to 117

Professor Aisha Yousef Al-Mannai

This series of Arabic works, made available in English translation, represents

former Rector of the University of the United Arab Emirates. A further

Muhammad Khalaf-Allah and Muhammad Zaghlul Sallam, the two Egyptian

Muhammad’s prophethood. However, when analysing the elements of this

“[Muslim] scholars continue to study ijaz^ generation after generation, in

Issa J. Boullata, PhD (London)

The sixth book was Nukal al-lntisar li-Naql al-Qur'an by al-Imam

His scholarly standing is evident to us in what his contemporary Abu

m 1951 entitled Qur’anic Studies as a Factor in the Development of Arabic Literary

The first treatise

Kitab Bayan Fjaz al-Qur’an

It has an authorizing permission saying that it is narrated on the authority of

Editions of the book

It is printed from the original manuscript on which we ourselves depended.

The idea and method of this treatise

The second treatise

(A) A manuscript in the Baghdadli Wahbl Library in Asetaneh [Istanbul |, of

Kitab al-Nukat fl Icjaz al-Qur’an

This is one of the manuscripts we copied in Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] at the

And in the last line, there is the following:

It appears that Chapter 10 on “Beautiful Rendition” [beginning] on page 49 is

It ends with a colophon that says:

Analysis of the treatise

The third treatise

Analysis of the treatise

Bayan Fjaz al-Qur’an

Abu Sulayman Hamd ibn Muhammad

319 ah-388 aii

On the elucidation of the Qur’an’s /jaz

Genealogists consider the tribe of Tamim

as strong as you!” He recognized [the added verses] by his natural disposition

“[5] Similarly His saying, may He be praised, ‘And surely, he is strong in

“[12] Likewise is His comparison of something with another, although there

“[16] Then, on the contrary, there is repetition after repetition in it as in His

“[18] Furthermore, an idea is sometimes introduced between two statements

He is a young man who, to his cousin, is unlike the wolf

Another poet said:18

O Abu Khurasha, if you have a group who will defend you,

A man considers every night’s wealth to be of his own making

Another poet said:

They both claim they arc our lords, but

If there is difficulty in [paying] the kayl of al-Yamama,