Study-Islam.org

CHAPTER III

CAN THE LANGUAGE AND STYLE OF THE QUR’AN BE DEEMED MIRACULOUS AND BE CONSIDERED A PROOF THAT IT IS GOD'S WORD?

OUR Muslim brethren assert that the eloquence and the beauty of the style of the Qur'an are a miracle, and that thus the Qur'an itself alone is a sufficient proof of Muhammad's prophetic office and Divine commission. They tell us that he could neither read nor write, and hence could not himself compose such a book. Hence they conclude that it must have been Divinely revealed and sent down to him from Heaven. Each prophet, they say, had some special sign granted to him as a proof that he had been sent from God; but the signs given to prophets varied with the age in which they lived. In Moses' time the magicians had great influence, hence the miracles which he wrought in Egypt were similar to their tricks in appearance, though really performed and very much more surprising. In Jesus' time the art of healing had made great progress, hence He performed superhuman works of healing. In Muhammad's time eloquence was highly prized among the Arabs, hence the book he was given excelled all others in its eloquence and its poetry. In proof of this peerlessness (إعجْاز) of the Qur'an they quote the challenge to produce a verse like one contained in it (Surahs 2:21 and 17:91).

But when this argument is considered with the care and the respect which are its due, we do not think it is very convincing. In the first place, there are some famous books in the world which were composed by men who could not read or write and which are, in their own languages, quite unrivalled. The Rig-Veda in India was composed between 1,000 and 1,500 years B.C., long before any written characters were known in that country. It is a very large work, much larger than the Qur'an. It was composed not by one man, but by several, but they had no amanuenses to whom they could dictate their verses. In the Greek language there are two eloquent poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which are commonly ascribed to a blind poet named Homer. Blind men in that age were not generally able to read or write. It is possible that there did exist in Homer's time a Greek alphabet, but it is not considered probable that he made use of it or dictated his poems to scribes, more especially as he was a poor man who made his livelihood by going from place to place to recite his poems, in the same way as do storytellers in Eastern lands today.

Moreover, it is by no means certain that Muhammad was unable to read and write. The opinion that this was so rests almost entirely upon the term An-nabiyyu'l Ummi (النّبِيٌ آلأُمِّيّ) in Surah 7, Al A'raf, vers. 156, 158. But this does not mean “the Unlettered Prophet” but “the Gentile Prophet”, i.e. the prophet who is not an Israelite, but is from among the Gentiles (مِنَ الأُمِّيّيٍنّ). This is clear from Surah 3, Al 'Imran, ver. 19, where the command is given to Muhammad: “And say thou to those who have been brought the Book and to the Gentiles” (وَاْلأْمِّيّيِنَ). Here it is clear that the Arabs are called “the Gentiles” in contradistinction from “the People of the Book”. Hence the expression An Nabiyyu'l Ummi, “the Gentile Prophet,” is equivalent to the title so common today, An Nabiyyu'l 'Arabi, “the Arabian Prophet,” and does not imply illiteracy. Scholars are also aware that there exist traditions, quoted by Muslim and Al Bukhari, which remove the stigma of want of education from Muhammad. For instance, we are told that, when the Treaty of Hudaibah was being signed, Muhammad took the pen from 'Ali, struck out the words in which 'Ali had designated him “the Apostle of God”, and wrote instead with his own hand the words, “Son of 'Abdu'llah.'' Tradition tells us too that, when he was dying, Muhammad called for pen and ink, to write a command appointing his successor, but that his strength failed him before writing-materials were brought. This tradition rests on the statement of Ibn 'Abbas, but is supported by both Al Bukhari and Muslim. As it is a subject of dispute between the Sunni and the Shi'ah parties, we shall not attempt to decide upon its correctness. But the existence of such Traditions, supported by leading Traditionists, is of great weight, especially as there is nothing unlikely about them. Writing was not uncommon among the Arabs of Muhammad's time. It is well known that when some of the people of Mecca were captured by the people of Medinah, they purchased their freedom by teaching the latter to write. The very existence of the Seven Mu'allaqat (whether these were “suspended” in the Ka'bah, as As Suyuti thinks possible, ¹ or were kept in the treasury of the king of 'Ukaz (عُكاظ), as Abu Ja'far Ahmad ibn Isma'il an Nahhas says  ² ), shows how customary it was for Arabian authors, then and earlier, to commit their works to writing. But even if Muhammad was not much in the habit of writing himself, yet we know from Tradition that Zaid ibn Thabit was only one of several amanuenses whom he employed. The verses of the Qur'an, as dictated by Muhammad, were written upon the shoulder-blades of mutton, pieces of wood, or any other writing-materials that were at hand. The Kufic alphabet was used, destitute of diacritical points and vowel signs. In later times many of the various readings noticed by commentators arose from the imperfection of this alphabet. Whether the Kufic alphabet was that in which the Qur'an is supposed to have been written on the “Preserved Tablet” in Heaven the writer of these pages does not know, but it is not very ancient, having been derived from the Estrangelo Syriac, which itself arose from the old Phoenician letters.

When any verse was dictated by Muhammad and written down, it was soon learnt by heart by pious Muslims. But occasionally, before this could be done, some verses were lost, if we may credit Tradition. For instance, in the Mishkatu’l Masabih, the Traditionist Muslim informs us that 'Ayishah said “Among ³ what was sent down of the Qur'an were ten well-known (verses about) Sucking, which prohibited: then they were annulled by five well-known ones. Then the Apostle of God deceased, and they are in what is recited of the Qur'an.” It is evident that, at the time when 'Ayishah said this, these verses were still recited by some of the Reciters, who had not yet heard that they had been annulled. But they are not found in the present text of the Qur'an. Muslim tells us, on the authority of 'Umar, that the latter said: “Verily ⁴ God sent Muhammad with the truth, and He sent down upon him the Book, accordingly the Verse of Stoning was part of what God Most High sent down: the Apostle of God stoned, and we stoned after him, and in the Book of God stoning is the adulterer's due.” The Verse of Stoning ran thus: “And ⁵ the old man and the old woman, if they have committed adultery, then stone them both assuredly.” But it is no longer to be found in the text of the Qur'an. Instead of this we have in Surah 24:1-5 the penalty of 100 stripes for this crime. Elsewhere Ibn Majah informs us that 'Ayishah said: “The verse of stoning and of sucking came down . . . and its sheet was under my bed: when therefore the Apostle of God died and we were occupied about his death a tame animal came in and ate it.” Muslim quotes Abu Musa' Al Ash'ari as saying to 500 Reciters of the Qur'an at Basrah: “Verily we used to recite a Surah which in length and severity we used to compare to Bara'ah, ⁶ and I have forgotten it, except that I remember of it (the words) 'Ye relied', &c. And we used to recite a Surah which we were wont to compare with one of the Rosaries: and I have forgotten it, except that of it I remember (the words) 'O ye who', &c.”

It ⁷ is well known that Ubai added to his copy of the Qur'an two short Surahs, entitled respectively Suratu'l Khala' and Suratu'l Hafd (which latter is also known as Suratu'l Qanut), because he affirmed that they were parts of the original Qur'an, but had been omitted by 'Uthman. On the other hand, Ibn Mas'ud omitted Surahs 1, 113, and 114. Some of the Shi'ah party say that certain words relating to 'Ali have been purposely omitted from the present text of the Qur'an in Surahs 4:136. 164; 5:71 ; 26:228. They say that in Surah 3:106, the word ummatin (أُمّةٍ), “nation,” has been put for the original word a'immatin (أَيُِمّةٍ) “Imams”; and that in Surah 25:74, in place of the present reading, “And make us a model to the pious” (وَآجْعَلْنَا لِلْمُتَقِينَ إماَمَا), the original and correct reading was, “And make for us from the pious an Imam “ (وَآْجْعَلْناَ لَنََا مِنَ لِلْمُتّقِينَ إماَمّا). They mention other changes which they assert were wilfully made in Surahs 13:12 and 23:39. Iman Fakhru'ddin Razi ⁸ accepts as possibly correct the tradition that in 'Ali's copy of the Qur'an, in Surah 11:20, in place of the present reading, “And a witness from Him readeth it, and before it was the Book of Moses, a leader and a mercy,” the text ran thus: “And ⁹ a witness from Him, as a leader and a mercy, readeth it, and before it was the Book of Moses.” The difference in the sense is considerable, for the Shi'ah party explain that 'Ali is the “witness” here referred to, and this reading would apply the words, “a leader and a mercy,” to him, and not to the Torah of Moses. Moreover, some assert that a whole Surah, called the Suratu’n Nurain, has been purposely omitted from the Qur'an. This Surah is quoted at full length by Mirza Muhsin of Kashmir, surnamed Al Fani, in his Dabistan-i Mazahib (دبستانِ مذاهب), pp. 220, 221.

We do not wish to express an opinion upon the correctness of the statements that some have made about the omission of part of the text of the Qur'an or the addition of verses and Surahs to it after Muhammad's death. But when we are considering whether the Qur'an is or is not a proof of Muhammad's Divine commission, it is our duty to be aware of the fact that such statements have been made and ably maintained by some learned Muslims.

We must now inquire in what manner the scattered Surahs and verses of the Qur'an were brought together into one book. In this matter also we appeal to Muslim authorities only.

Al Bukhari informs us that, apparently about a year after Muhammad's death, the Qur'an was first put together into one collection by Zaid ibn Thabit at the command of the Khalifah Abu Bakr. Zaid's ¹⁰ own account, quoted by Al Bukhari, is this: “At the time of the slaughter of the people of Al Yamamah, Abu Bakr sent for me, and lo! 'Umar ibnu'l Khattab was with him. Abu Bakr said: Verily 'Umar has come to me and has said, Truly the slaughter on the day of Al Yamamaha was severe ¹¹ among the Reciters of the Qur'an, and indeed I fear that there has been severe slaughter in the battlefields among the Reciters, therefore much of the Book is going away (i.e. being lost). And I consider that thou shouldest give orders for the collecting of the Qur'an. I said to 'Umar; How wilt thou do a thing which the Apostle of God did not do? Then 'Umar said: By God, ¹² this is good. And 'Umar did not desist from repeatedly urging me, until God expanded my breast thereto, and I have formed the same opinion as 'Umar has. Abu Bakr said: Verily thou art an intelligent young man, we do not distrust thee, and thou usest to write out the Revelation for the Apostle of God. Therefore search out the [various chapters and verses of] the Qur'an and gather it together. And, by God if he had enjoined upon me the removal of one of the mountains; it would not have been heavier upon me than what he commanded me regarding the collecting of the Qur'an. I said: How will ye do a thing which the Apostle of God did not do? He said: By God, it is good. Accordingly Abu Bakr did not desist from repeatedly urging me, until God expanded my breast to that which Abu Bakr's breast and that of 'Umar had explained to him. Accordingly I sought out the Qur'an: I gathered it together from leafless palm branches and thin white stones and men's breasts, until I found the end of Suratu't Taubah ¹³ with Abu Khuzaimah the Ansari, I found it not with anyone except him: 'There came unto you an Apostle from among yourselves,' ¹⁴ unto the conclusion of Bara'ah. And the sheets were with Abu Bakr until God caused him to die, then with 'Umar during his life, then with Hafsah, 'Umar's daughter.” This same account, except the last sentence, is quoted by ¹⁵ As Suyuti also.

Probably only this one copy of the Qur'an was made by Zaid, and no other copy of the complete Qur'an existed anywhere except between its covers. Hence others of the Muslims had to depend upon oral tradition for their knowledge of their sacred book, unless they happened to have a few portions written down. Being handed down orally and pronounced according to seven different dialects (the “Seven Readings”), there was danger lest the text should become so corrupt as to be altogether uncertain. Hence 'Uthman, when engaged in the conquest of Armenia and Azarbaijan, was warned of this risk by Hudhaifah ibnu'l Yaman. Bukhari's ¹⁶ account is as follows: “Hudhaifah therefore said to 'Uthman: O Commander of the Faithful, restrain this people before they differ in the Book, as do the Jews and the Christians. Accordingly 'Uthman, sent to Hafsah, saying, Send us the sheets, that we may copy them into the volumes: then we shall return them unto thee. Hafsah therefore sent them to 'Uthman. Then he commanded Zaid ibn Thabit and 'Abdu'llah ibnu'z Zubair and Sa'id ibnu'l As and 'Abdu'llah ibn Harith ibn Hisham, and they copied them into the volumes. And 'Uthman said to the company of the three Quraishites: When ye differ, ye and Zaid ibn Thabit in any portion of the Qur'an, write it in the dialect of the Quraish, for verily it came down in their dialect. And they did so until, when they had copied the sheets into the volumes, 'Uthman restored the sheets to Hafsah. And he sent to every region a volume from what they had copied, and commanded regarding everything of the Qur'an besides it, in every sheet and volume, that it should be burned. Ibn Shahab said: Kharijah ibn Zaid ibn Thabit informed me that he heard Zaid ibn Thabit say: When we copied the volume, there was missing from Suratu'l Ahzab ¹⁷ a verse which I used to hear the Apostle of God recite. Therefore we sought for it. And we found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit the Ansari from among the Believers, men who proved true to what they had covenanted with God. Therefore we inserted it in its Surah in the volume.”

From this it is evident that some difference existed between the revised copies of the Qur'an issued by 'Uthman and the original “sheets” (الصّحُف) which Hafsah had had in her keeping. The fact that the Khalifah ordered all other early copies of parts of the Qur'an except hers to be burnt is another proof that they did not in everything agree with his second edition of the Qur'an. Another proof that Hafsah's copy of the Qur'an an differed in some respects from 'Uthman's edition is found in the circumstance that it too was on that account burnt soon afterwards by Marwan, when he was governor of Medinah. In spite, however, of this rather violent effort to prevent the occurrence of various readings in the text of the Qur'an, some may still be found, as we learn, for example, from Al Baizawi. (See, for instance, his commentary on Surahs 3:100; 6:91; 19:35; 28:48; 33:6; 34:18; 38:22, &c.) ¹⁸

On the other hand, the chief reason for concluding that the Qur'anic text as it now exists is in nearly the same state in which Muhammad left it is that it contains in Surah 33:vers. 37, 38, 49-52, certain statements which throw a very clear light upon Muhammad's character. It is impossible to suppose that any of his followers would have ventured to invent these verses, and thus to depict their Master, had he not himself recited these words and ordered them to be considered part of the Qur'an. The incident referred to in vers. 37 and 38 of this Surah is recorded by every one of Muhammad's biographers. Nothing has been more effective in turning men from Islam than these verses.

It is impossible for enlightened Muslims at the present day to explain away this passage. Their ‘Ulama assert that the Qur'an is a miracle, that its style alone is a sufficient proof of Muhammad's Divine commission, and that neither men nor angels could produce a single Surah like any of those contained in the Qur'an. Every word of the Qur'an, they say, was written down by the Pen on the Preserved Tablet in Heaven, ages before the creation of the world, and doubtless this passage among the rest. From the Divine Original the Qur'an was brought down by the Angel Gabriel to the lowest Heaven on the Night of Power. He afterwards dictated it to Muhammad as occasion arose. Hence Ibn Khaldun says: “Know ¹⁹ therefore that the Qur'an descended in the language of the Arabs and in accordance with their style of eloquence, and all of them understood it and knew its various meanings in its several parts and in their relation to one another. And it continued to descend, section by section and in groups of verses, in order to explain the doctrine of the Unity of God and religious obligations, according as circumstances required. Some of these verses consist of articles of faith, and some of them of commandments for the regulation of conduct.” In another passage he says: “All this ²⁰ is a proof to thee that, amid the Divine Books, it was verily the Qur'an with which our Prophet was inspired, in the form of something recited just as it is in its words and in its sections: whereas the Torah and the Injil, on the other hand, and all the other Heavenly Books, were revealed to the Prophets in the form of ideas when they were in a state of ecstasy, and they explained them, after their return to man's ordinary condition, in their own customary language: and therefore there is nothing miraculous in them.” According to this learned writer therefore, both the language and the teaching of the Qur'an are directly from God, while not the style and form, but the contents of the Old Testament and the New are due to inspiration. Hence, if our inquiry shows that the style of the Qur'an is not miraculous, or at least that the peerlessness (إعجاز) of the Qur'an cannot be proved, it will not be an adequate reply to say, “The style of the Bible also is not peerless, nor does it prove the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.” We Christians do not claim that it does, and Ibn Khaldun's words show that even in his time Christians made no such claim. We hold that each Biblical writer used the style that was natural to him; hence some wrote poetry, sublime and beautiful, some prose, direct and simple. The message, the doctrine, is God's; the task of clothing it in human language was that of the Prophet or Apostle, Psalmist, Evangelist or Historian whom God commissioned to write.

Of course learned men are now aware that the dialect of the Quraish is the old language of Mecca, not that of Paradise. Arabic is one of the Semitic tongues. Its sisters are Hebrew, Aramaic, Æthiopic, Syriac, Assyrian, and other tongues of less importance. Arabic is an ancient and beautiful tongue, the Quraish dialect is the most cultivated of its dialects, and the style of many parts of the Qur'an is by all scholars admitted to be elegant and eloquent. Yet at the same time scholars rightly inform us that in the Qur'an there are to be found certain words which are not pure Arabic, but are taken from other languages and merely Arabicised. Among these are many names of people and places. Pharaoh (فِرْعَوْن) is derived. from Ancient Egyptian; Adam and Eden from a very old tongue called Akkadian; (Ibrahim) Abraham from Assyrian; the names Harut and Marut, the words Sirat, Hur, jinn, firdaus, are taken from Ancient Persian; tabut, Taghut, zakut, malakut, are Syriac; Hawari is Æthiopic; Hibr, sakinah, ma'un, Taurat, Jahannam, are from the Hebrew; and Injil is corrupted from the Greek. Hence the language of the Qur'an is not absolutely pure Arabic. We admit that there is no reason why Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Akkadian, Æthiopic, Persian, and Egyptian words should not have been written on the Preserved Tablet, if Arabic words really were so written. But we think that proof is needed of this last point.

Besides this, in the present text of the Qur'an there have been pointed out certain grammatical constructions which, if found anywhere else, would be admitted to be wrong. These are not many. We content ourselves with mentioning three. ²¹ (1) One is in Surah 2:192:  ‏ تِلْكَ عَشَرَةْ كَامِلَةْ‬ ‎ (2) The second is in Surah 13:28:  ‏ الْقْلُوبُ الْذيِنَ‬ ‎(3) The third is in Surah 20:66:  ‏ إنْ هَذَانِ لَسَاحِرَانِ.

Besides all this, it is by no means the universal opinion of unprejudiced Arabic scholars that the literary style ²² of the Qur'an is superior to that of all other books in the Arabic language. Some doubt whether in eloquence and poetry it surpasses the Mu'allaqat, or the Maqamat of Hariri, though in Muslim lands few people are courageous enough to express such an opinion. Yet history informs us that there have been among the Arabs men of learning who have ventured to deny the peerlessness of the Qur'an in point of eloquence. Thus Sultan Isma'il, in that part of his History in which he deals with Muslim affairs, tells us that Isa ibn Sabih, surnamed Abu Musa', and known as Al Muzdar, founder of the sect of the Muzdariyyah, used to say that men were quite competent to produce such a book as the Qur'an in poetry, elegance, and eloquence. He too asserted that the Qur'an had been created, about which point fierce disputes arose during the reign of the Khalifah Al Ma'mun (A. H. 198-218: A. D. 813-833). The author of the book entitled Sharhu'l Mawafiq informs us that Muzdar used to say that it was possible for the Arabs to compose a work at once more elegant, more eloquent and better than the Qur'an. Ash Shahristani tells us that Muzdar annulled the Qur'an's claim to be peerless in respect of elegance and eloquence (البلاغة والْفصاحة). An Nizim (النّظام) says that the peerlessness (اعجاز) of the Qur'an lies in the information which it gives regarding the past and the future. If it is unrivalled, he says that the reason is because it refuses to permit the consideration of the claims of other books, and, forcibly or by discouraging them, prevents the Arabs from engaging diligently in such an attempt. He thinks that, if they were permitted to do so, the Arabs would surely be able to “bring a Surah like it” in eloquence, elegance, and poetry. Doubtless most Muslims regard these opinions as heretical, and it is by no means the desire of the author of these pages to maintain such views. He would merely point out that the peerlessness of the Qur'an, so constantly asserted by Muslims as clear and indisputable, has by no means remained undisputed by certain learned Arabs themselves. If then the style of the Qur'an has not seemed to these men miraculous, and to be a sufficient proof that Muhammad was Divinely commissioned, it is no marvel that the cogency of this asserted proof has not been clear to men of less learning and slighter knowledge of Arabic.

Even were it granted, however, that the style of the Qur'an is superior to that of any other Arabic book, that would not prove its inspiration or its descent upon Muhammad. In each cultivated language there are certain books which in that language are without a rival. In English, no dramatist equals Shakespeare; in German, Goethe and Schiller are unrivalled in their dramas; in Persian, Hafiz surpasses all other poets in one kind of poetry, Maulana yi Rumi in another. In Sanskrit, no one can now produce a poem equal to those in the Rig-Veda. Yet it would be absurd to suppose that these works are inspired merely because they are unequalled, each in its own style and in its own tongue. We must judge this by the teaching of the book, not by its style. This we have shown in the Introduction. Otherwise the Hindus would he justified in saying, as they do, that the Rig-Veda is inspired, although we find thirty-three deities mentioned in it. In any inspired book we may admire a noble literary style, but we rightly expect that which is essential, that is, true doctrines. Even an ordinary theological book written in our own time is not of much value, if its teaching is imperfect and untrustworthy, however polished and eloquent its style may be.

If it be asserted that the Qur'an is more eloquent and contains more beautiful poetry than any other book, in whatever language, then this assertion is entirely destitute of proof. It could not be proved to anyone, unless that man knew all the languages of the world, ancient and modern, and had read all the books ever written. No one on earth has ever done this, for such a task is far beyond human power. It is unreasonable therefore for our Muslim friends to assure us that their religion is a light and a guidance and necessary for all men to accept, and yet to tell us that the greatest proof of the truth of Islam and of the mission of Muhammad is one which no human being can possibly, under any circumstances, be able to profit by. It is as if one blind man assured another that his salvation depended upon his distinguishing all the colours of the rainbow. For neither the Muslims nor ourselves know all human languages and have read all Earth's many books. The proof which they adduce is therefore as unreal and unprofitable to them as to us.

We cannot read all languages, but we can read some of the most important. When we read the Old Testament in the original Hebrew, many scholars hold that the eloquence of Isaiah, Deuteronomy, and many of the Psalms, for instance, is greater than that of any part of the Qur'an Hardly anyone but a Muslim would deny this, and probably no Muslim who knew both Arabic and Hebrew well would be able to deny it. But even those who are not scholars may test this matter for themselves. Let anyone read a selected part of the Qur'an translated into Persian, or Urdu, or Turkish, and then compare it with a good translation of a portion of Isaiah into the same tongue. He will then be able to form his own opinion as to the unsupported assertion that the Qur'an excels all other books in beauty of style.

But, even were it proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the Qur'an far surpasses all other books in eloquence, elegance, and poetry, that would no more prove its inspiration than a man's strength would demonstrate his wisdom or a woman's beauty her virtue. Only by the contents of a book, by its doctrines, by its satisfying the criteria laid down in the Introduction, can any book be recognized as Divinely inspired. The impostor Mani is said to have claimed that men should believe in him as the Paraclete because he produced a book called Artang, full of beautiful pictures. He said that the book had been given him by God, that no living man could paint pictures equal in beauty to those contained ²³ in it, and that therefore it had evidently come from God Himself. But no wise Muslim nor Christian would now consider that the beauty of these pictures proved Mani to be a Prophet, though they possibly showed that he was a skilful painter. His book, like all others, had to be judged by its contents. It was so judged, and it has perished off the face of the earth, and the religion which Mani taught, though once believed in by many, has not a single adherent now. Only by its teachings can a book be rightly judged. Therefore we proceed in the next chapter to consider the contents of the Qur'an, just as we have previously considered those of the Bible.