THE QUR’ĀN
IBN H.AZM’S VIEWS
ON
THE I‘JĀZ (INIMITABILITY)
OF
THE QUR’ĀN
By
Muhammad Amin Abdul-Samad
Prof. I.J. Boullata
The Qur’ān and Arabic Stylistics (397-778A)
December 2, 1977
INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES
MCGILL UNIVERSITY
Montreal, December 2, 1977
Very good 42/50
INTRODUCTION
This is an attempt to formulate the view
of Ibn H.azm on the icjāz
al-Qur’ān (the inimitability of the Qur’ān. Ibn H.azm
(d.456/1064) who lived in Muslim Andalusia was a prolific writer on many
different subjects, an exponent and a devoted advocate on the vanished Z.āhirī school. The Z.āhirī school was founded by Abū
Sulaymān Dāwūd b. Khalaf (d. 2760/884). This school was known for its literal
adherence to the nas.s. (divine text) of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah
and its ostensible meanings, and its rejection of qiyās (analogy) and ra’y
(personal opinion).
The aspects of the icjāz
of the Qur’ān is one of many subjects of debate among Muslim scholars. The Z.āhirī point of view on this matter as
expressed by Ibn H.azm will
hopefully be interesting and rewarding.
IBN H.AZM’S VIEWS
ON THE I‘JĀZ
(INIMITABILITY) OF
THE QURĀN
There has never been any dispute among
Muslim scholars that the Qur’ān is a mucjizah (a miracle, an
inimitable thing). Yet, they differ in their interpretation of the icjāz
(inimitability) of the Qur’ān. Ibn H.azm offers us
five issues concerning icjāz al-Qur’ān in his book al-Fis.al fī al-milal wa ’l-ahwā’ wa ’l-nih.al.[1]
These issues are objects of controversy among ahl al-kalām (Muslim
theologians). These issues are as follows:
a. The view that the thing which
Allah challenges people to produce the like of has not been heard by people.
b. The continuity or discontinuity
of the icjāz of the Qur’ān.
c. The inimitability being in the stylistic
structure (naz.m) of the
Qur’ān, or in its verses which contain warning about the invisible things.
d. The inimitability consisting in
its being the highest level of eloquence, or in Allah’s preventing people from
imitating it.
e. The measure (miqdār) of
inimitability in the Qur’ān.
With regard to the first issue, Ibn H.azm says that there is a view reported
from the Ash’arī school stating that the wonder which challenges people to
bring something similar to it is with Allah and has not been revealed to the
Prophet.[2]
This view is rejected by Ibn H.azm. He
contends that it is impossible to challenge someone with something he has never
known and has never heard.[3]
The second issue is whether the
inimitability of the Qur’ān has been accomplished by the inability of the Arabs
in general and the Arab poets in particular to imitate the Qur’ān, or that the
inimitability continues for ever. The first view makes an analogy between the
miracle of Moses turning his staff into a real serpent—where none of his opponents
among the magicians was able to do the same—and the challenge of the Qur’ān to
people during the time of the Prophet—and none of the Arabs was able to produce
verses similar to the Qur’ān. With this accomplishment, had any Arab poet
challenged the Qur’ān after that period, his challenge would be disregarded.
The second view is that the icjāz of the Qur’ān remains until
the Last Day, and the Qur’ān is still challenging people to produce verses
similar to it. Here Ibn H.azm does not
make any distinction between icjāz and tah.addī (challenge). Ibn H.azm upholds the second view.[4]
His argument is based on his literal interpretation of the following verse of
the Qur’ān:
قُلْ
لَئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْإِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَى أَنْ يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَذَا الْقُرْآَنِ
لَا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ
وَلَوْ
كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيرًا (الإسراء : ٨٨)
“Say: Verily, though mankind and Jinn
should assemble to produce the like of this Qur’ān, they could not produce the
like thereof though they were helpers on of another” (Q. 17:88).
Ibn H.azm contends that the word lā
ya’tūna indicates the future, and therefore, it cannot be interpreted as
past, unless there is any other clear nas.s. (divine text), or convincing ijmāc
(consensus), which indicates that, the word in question (i.e., lā ya’tūna)
means other than its ostensible meaning, or unless there is any necessity (d.arūrah). Ibn H.azm denies the existence of any of
these things which would change the meaning from the future into the past. He
contends further that the work al-jinn wa al-ins in the verse above is
general for every man and jinn, and cannot be interpreted to mean people
or jinn of a particular time in the past.[5]
The third issue is the feature of
inimitability in the Qur’ān. Some theologians, including al-Naz.z.ām (d.
331/943)[6]
among the Muctazilīs (whom Ibn H.azm does not
mention by name), say that it is not the Qur’ān’s stylistic structure which
makes it inimitable, but its warning about invisible things.[7]
Other theologians like al-Bāqillānī (d. 403/1013) say that both the naz.m and the warning about invisible
things are inimitable.[8]
This is also the view of Ibn H.azm, who
bases his argument on the same Qur’ānic verse mentioned above. He contends that
since Allah states that men cannot produce a sūrah (chapter) similar to
that of the Qur’ān and the fact that most of the sūrahs in the Qur’ān do
not contain news of invisible things, the falsehood of those who uphold the
view that the inimitability of the Qur’an is exclusively in news about
invisible things, is evident.[9]
The fourth issue is the aspect of the
inimitability of the Qur’ān. Some theologians, including al-Khat.t.ābī (d.
388/998), say that the inimitability of the Qur’ān lies exclusively in its
highest level of eloquence (kawnuhu fī aclā marātib al-balāghah).
One example of this eloquence is the Qur’ānic verse:
وَلَكُمْ فِي الْقِصَاصِ حَيَاةٌ يَا أُولِي
الْأَلْبَابِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَتَّقُونَ (البقرة : ١٧٩)
“And there is life for you in
retaliation O men of understanding, that ye may ward off (evil)” (Q.
2:179).
They
contend that if the eloquence were not inimitable, such a verse would not have
reached such a high level of eloquence. Other theologians, like al-Naz.z.ām, maintain
that the inimitability of the Qur’ān lies in the fact that Allah prevents people
from having the ability of imitating the Qur’ān, i.e., the idea of s.arfah (Allah turning people away
from imitating the Qur’ān) .[10]
Ibn H.azm rejects the first view. In his
refutation he gives the following reasons:
a) If the inimitability of the
Qur’ān is its high level of eloquence, this is not an evidence (h.ujjah), because, Ibn H.azm contends, the case is the same (i.e.,
the inimitability) with anything that reaches the highest level of perfection,
whereas miracles (signs) of prophets (āyāt al-anbiyā’) are beyond the
level in question.
b) In stating that the inimitability
of the Qur’ān is at the highest level of eloquence many questions would come to
our mind: why did Allah make this kind of eloquence exclusively inimitable, why
did He send such-and-such a prophet instead of another man, why did He turn the
staff of Moses into a serpent instead of a lion. Such questions, in Ibn H.azm’s view, are unreasonable and
prohibited, because Allah is not subject to questioning.[11]
c) By allowing such questions as
above to come to our mind, then one might ask: “Why did the inimitability exist
in the language of the Qur’ān alone, and not in every language, so that
everybody, an Arab or a non-Arab, would have the same ability of knowing this
inimitability?” This question, in Ibn H.azm’s view,
is also unreasonable.[12]
With regard to the verse cited above as an example of
the highest eloquence, Ibn H.azm does not
accept it as a h.ujjah. His
argument is as follows: He gives his opponents two alternatives: a) either they
consider that the icjāz of the Qur’ān lies exclusively in the
verse “And there is life for you in retaliation,” as mentioned above,[13]
and verses which have similar eloquence, or b) the icjāz also
comprises the rest of the verses of the Qur’ān. If his opponents affirm the
first, then Ibn H.azm will
accuse them of being infidels. On the other hand, if his opponents affirm the
second alternative, Ibn H.azm will
wonder, why they specify these verses not other ones, for this act would make
people imagine the existence of non-miraculous verses.[14]
Ibn H.azm argues
further by citing a Qur’ānic verse and asking his opponents whether it is mucjiz.
The verse is as follows:
... وَأَوْحَيْنَا
إِلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْمَاعِيلَ وَإِسْحَاقَ وَيَعْقُوبَ وَالْأَسْبَاطِ وَعِيسَى
وَأَيُّوبَ
وَيُونُسَ
وَهَارُونَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ وَآَتَيْنَا دَاوُودَ زَبُورًا
(النساء : 163)
“… as We inspired Abraham and Ishmael and
Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and
Solomon, as We imparted unto David the Psalms.”(Q. 4:163).
If
this verse is not mucjiz according to Ibn H.azm’s opponents, they will be considered
infidels by Ibn H.azm. If the
opponents affirm that it is mucjiz Ibn H.azm will agree with them, but he
wonders if this verse has fulfilled the requirement of being in the highest
level of eloquence. If they affirm that to be so, Ibn H.azm
will not agree and say that it is an exaggeration, because the verse mentioned
above contains names only.[15]
According to Ibn H.azm, the
eloquence of the Qur’ān has reached the level desired by Allah, but this level
is outside the realm of human eloquence, neither above, nor below, nor even the
same level of eloquence, because the Qur’ān is not the words of human beings.
His argument is that if a man puts letters similar to those found in the Qur’ān[16]
in his speech or his message, this act will not be out of the said eloquence.
Therefore, Ibn H.azm contends,
the eloquence of the Qur’ān is outside of that of human speech, and that Allah
prevents His creatures—men and jinn—from imitating it, i.e., the idea of
s.arfah. A proof of this, Ibn H.azm argues, is that Allah cites in the
Qur’ān some speech of infidels, for example, when they were asked the reason
for their entering Hell, they answered:
قَالُوا لَمْ نَكُ مِنَ الْمُصَلِّينَ. وَلَمْ
نَكُ نُطْعِمُ الْمِسْكِينَ. وَكُنَّا نَخُوضُ مَعَ الْخَائِضِينَ.
وَكُنَّا نُكَذِّبُ بِيَوْمِ الدِّينِ. حَتَّى
أَتَانَا الْيَقِينُ (المدثر :٤٣-٤٧)
“They will answer: we were not of those who prayed. Nor did we
feed the wretched. We used to wade (in vain dispute) with (all) waders, and we
used to deny the Day of Judgement, Till
the inevitable
came unto us.” (Q. 74:43-7).
Another example
is that the infidels said about the Qur’ān:
فَقَالَ إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا سِحْرٌ يُؤْثَرُ.
إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا قَوْلُ الْبَشَرِ (المدثر :
٢٤-٢٥ )
“ِAnd said:
This is naught else than magic from of old; This is naught else than speech of
mortal man.” (Q. 74:24-5).[17]
All these words, Ibn H.azm contends,
when they were spoken by human beings, were not mucjiz; there
has never been any dispute among Muslims about it. But when Allah cites them
and makes them His words, then they become mucjiz. [18]
The fifth issue dealt by Ibn H.azm
in his Fis.al is the amount (miqdār)
of the icjāz in the Qur’ān. Ibn H.azm
mentions two views: a) those of the Ashcarīs who maintain that the
minimum of the icjāz is one short sūrah (chapter),
namely, sīrat al-Kawthar (chapter 108), whereas less than that is not mucjiz;
b) others maintain that the whole Qur’ān is mucjiz, in a
small as well as a great amount of it;
this is also the view of Ibn H.azm. The
argument of the Ashcarīs as mentioned by Ibn H.azm
is based on the following Qur’ānic verse:
وَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي رَيْبٍ
مِمَّا نَزَّلْنَا عَلَى عَبْدِنَا فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِنْ مِثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا
شُهَدَاءَكُمْ مِنْ دُونِ
اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ (البقرة : ٢٣)
“and if ye are in doubt
concerning that which We reveal
unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah
of the like thereof, and
call your witnesses
beside Allah if ye are
truthful.” (Q. 2:23)
This verse, according to the Ashcarīs, does
not limit the amount of icjāz to less than one sūrah.
Ibn H.azm counters
this argument by maintaining that the verse in question does not state that
what is less than one sūrah is not mucjiz.[19]
Instead, in another verse the Qur’ān states “to produce the like of this
Qur’ān.”[20] This
gives an indication, in Ibn H.azm’s view
that everything in the Qur’ān is mucjiz, and there has never
been any disagreement about it.[21]
In refuting the view of his opponents
who limit the amount of icjāz to one short sūrah, Ibn H.azm gives four possible implications
of their view, as follows: 1) one short sūrah not less; 2) the number of
verses in sūrat al-Kawthar, i.e., three verses; 3) the number of words
in that sūrah, i.e., ten words; 4) the number of letters in that surah
i.e., forty-two letters. If the icjāz is not available in
less than one sūrah, Ibn H.azm contends,
that the whole sūrat al-Baqarah, which is a very long one, or any other sūrah
minus one verse or one word at its beginning or end is not mucjiz.
This, in Ibn H.azm’s view,
will lead to infidelity. Moreover, the three verses of the Qur’ān وَالْفَجْرِ. وَلَيَالٍ عَشْرٍ.
وَالشَّفْعِ وَالْوَتْرِ (الفجر :١-٣) “By the Dawn. And ten nights, And the Even and Odd”
(Q. 89:1-3)
will have the same value
in its being mucjiz with āyat
al-kursī [22]
plus two other verses, if the icjāz is estimated with the
minimum of three verses. If it were so, this also would mean an exaggeration.
Ibn H.azm also gives the example of the
three words:
وَ الضُّحىَ وَ ْالفَجْر وَاْلعَصْر
“By the
morning Hours” (Q. 93:1), “By the Dawn (Q. 89:1), “By the
Declining day” (Q. 103:1),[23]
which also consists of three verses. If the opponents disagree because these
three verses are not joined together, Ibn H.azm will
contend that if this were so (i.e., not mucjiz), the
same will be the case with the rest of the Qur’ānic verses. These verses will
become imitable if they were separated from each other, and this again would be
an exaggeration and infidelity. If the minimum number of words or letters equal
to that of sūrat al-Kawthar is the amount of icjāz,
then Ibn H.azm offers two
possibilities: a) it contradicts and
nullifies the opponents’ own argument by referring to the Qur’ānic verse which
challenges people to produce one sūrah. It is because they have made
words or letters as mucjiz instead of sūrah; b) Ibn H.azm refers to the Qur’ānic verse
chapter 4 verse 163[24]
which consists of twelve words, which is equal to seventy-two letters. If we
exclude the names in the verse, there are ten words which equals 62 letters.
This number of words or letters surpasses that in the sūrat al-Kawthar—which
consists of 10 words or 42 letters—and therefore the verse in question should
also be mucjiz, if the number of words or letters are taken
into consideration. If his opponents
reject this view, then Ibn H.azm would
accuse them of abandoning their view of basing the measure of icjāz
through words or letters. But if his opponents affirm the view mentioned
above, the Ibn H.azm would
accuse them of abandoning their view of basing the icjāz
through the highest level of eloquence, because the verse in question consists
of names only.[25]
Ibn H.azm further contends
that those who limit the icjāz of the Qur’ān to not less than
three verses in number are contradicting their view that the icjāz
is in the eloquence of the Qur’ān, because one verse instead of three can be
eloquent. However, the Qur’ān challenges people to produce the like of the
Qur’ān, and this challenge is applicable to one verse. Ibn H.azm maintains that every word of the
Qur’ān is mucjizah, because Allah prevents people from
imitating the Qur’ān.[26]
This view of Ibn H.azm
about the icjāz al-Qur’ān is the reflection of his adherence
to his Z.āhirī school in which he interprets
the Qur’ānic verses dealing with the icjāz by their
ostensible meanings, as we have seen in this study.
CONCLUSION
In this paper I have ried to present the view of Ibn H.azm on the icjāz
al-Qur’ān. As we understand it, Ibn H.azm does not
make any distinction between icjāz and tah.addī of the Qur’ān. Yet, though
his scrutiny and literal interpretation of the Qur’ān he insists that the
Qur’ān is inimitable and will remain so, and that the Qur’ān is still
challenging mankind as well as the jinn to produce the like of it. Ibn H.azm maintains that both the structure
(naz.m) and the contents of the Qur’ān
are mucjiz. The naz.m is
mucjiz not only because of its eloquence, but also due to
Allah’s preventing human beings from imitating the Qur’ān. The eloquence of the
Qur’ān is mucjiz, because it is beyond the level of human
standards of eloquence. Ibn H.azm does not
limit the icjāz of the Qur’ān to the minimum of one short sūrah
or three verses and over, but he insists that whatever is said by Allah in
the Qur’ān is mucjiz.
ENDNOTES
[1]Ibn H.azm, al-Fis.al fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Nih.al, 4 vols (Baghdād: Mat.bacat al-Muthannā; Cairo:
Mu’assasat al-Khānjī, n.d.), vol. 3, pp. 15-22. (Hereafter referred to as Fis.al).
[2] Ibn H.azm does not
give us any detail about those Ashcarīs who uphold this view, and
what is mean by their saying: “something which has never been revealed by
Allah.” Perhaps they mean the Qur’ān, which is preserved on the Lawh. Mah.fūz. (Preserved Tablet), basing their
interpretation on the Qur’ānic verse بَلْ
هُوَ قُرْآَنٌ مَجِيدٌ. فِي لَوْحٍ مَحْفُوظٍ (البروج : ٢١-٢٢) “Nay, but it is a glorious Qur’ān. On a
guarded tablet.” (Qur’ān, 85:21-2). (See also ibid., 56:77-8. the
translation is rendered by M.M. Pickthall. Reference to Qur’ānic verses and
translation relating to them in other places in this paper are also his). These
Ashcarīs whom Ibn H.azm does not
name, might also mean the word of Allah which is itself one of His attributes (al-kalām
al-qadīm al-ladhī huwa s.ifat al-dhāt),
see Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūt.ī, al-Itqān
fī cUlūm al-Qur’ān, 1st ed., 2 vols. (Cairo: al-Mat.bacah al-Azhariyyah al-Mis.riyyah. 1318 AH), vol. 2, p. 118.
(Hereafter referred to as Itqān).
[3] Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 15.
[4]This is also the view of the Mu’tazilī jurist, al-Qād.ī ‘Abd al-Jabbār (d.
415/1025). See Sharh. al-Us.ūl al-Khamsah,
1st ed. (Cairo: Mat.bacat
al-Istiqlāl al-Kubrā, 1384/1965), p. 587.
[5]Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 16. According
al-Suyūt.ī, some culamā’ (scholars) whom he does not mention by name,
believe that the tah.addī is
exclusively for men, not for jinn, because the Arabic language is not
the language of the jinn. They maintain that the purpose of mentioning
the jinn in the verse above is only for the glorification of the Icjāz
of the Qur’ān. Other culamā’ maintain that the tah.addī applies also the jinn.
Itqān, vol. 2, p. 124.
[6]Dr. Muh.ammad Zaghlūl
Sallām, Athar al-Qur’ān fī Tat.awwur al-Naqd
al-Adabī, ed. Muh.ammad Khalaf
Allāh Ah.mad, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dār
al-Macārif, 1961), p. 70. (Hereafter referred to as Athar
al-Qur’ān).
[7]On the contrary, the Mutazilī al-Jāh.iz. (d. 255 AH) maintains that the icjāz
of the Qur’ān is in its structure alone (muttas.il
bi al-naz.m qah.dahu).
Dr. M.Z. Sallām, Athar al-Qur’ān, p. 77.
[8]Al-Qād.ī Abū Bakr
al-Bāqillānī, the Ashcarī jurist, mentions three aspects of icjāz,
i.e., the naz.m, the
story of the past, and the reports of the unseen, see Icjāz
al-Qur’ān, at the margin of al-Suyūt.ī, Itqān,
vol. 1, pp. 51-5; 77-80.
[9]Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, pp. 16-7
[10]Suyūt.ī, Itqān,
vol. 2, p. 118; for the argument of al-Suyut.ī in refuting
al-Naz.z.ām’s view of s.arfah, see ibid.
[11]Ibn H.azm is
referring to the following Qur’ānic verse: لَا
يُسْأَلُ عَمَّا يَفْعَلُ وَهُمْ يُسْأَلُونَ
(الأنبياء: ٢٣) “He
will not be questioned as to that which He doeth, but they will be questioned.” (Qur’ān 21:23).
This verse also serves Ibn H.azm as an
argument for refuting the presence of cillah (cause) as well
as for Allah’s prohibition of using cillah in Islamic law;
see al-Ih.kām fī Us.ūl al-Ah.kām,
ed. Ah.mad Shākir, 8 vols (Cairo: Mat.bacat al-cĀs.imah, n.d.), vol. 8, pp. 1130 and 1138
respectively.
[12]Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, pp. 17-8.
[13]See above p. 5.
[14]Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 18.
[16] There are many separated letters found at the
beginning of many sūrahs in the Qur’ān; for example, see Qur’ān, 21:1,
26:1, 42:1-2 and 50:1.
[17] For another verse mentioned by Ibn H.azm, see Q. 17:90-3.
[18] Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 19.
[20]This is an example of Ibn H.azm’s
adherence to the literal meaning of the Qur’ān.
[21] Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, pp. 19-20.
[22] Āyat al-kursī is a very long verse. For its
location see Qur’ān, 2:255.
[23] These three verses are Allah’s oaths.
[24] See above, p. 6.
[25]Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, pp. 20-1.
[26] Ibid., p. 21.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CAbd al-Jabbār. Sharh. al-Us.ūl al-Khamsah,
1st ed. Cairo: Mat.bacat
al-Istiqlāl al-Kubrā, 1384/1965.
Bāqillānī, al-Qād.ī Abū Bakr al-. Icjāz
al-Qur’ān, in the margin of al-Suyūt.ī, Itqān. 2
vols. Cairo: al-Mat.bacah
al-Azhariyyah al-Mis.riyyah. 1318
AH.
Ibn H.azm, Abū Muh.ammad
cAlī. Al-Ih.kām fī Us.ūl al-Ah.kām,
ed. Ah.mad Shākir, 8 vols. Cairo: Mat.bacat
al-cĀs.imah, n.d.
-------- Al-Fis.al fī al-Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Nih.al, 4 vols. Baghdād: Mat.bacat al-Muthannā; Cairo:
Mu’assasat al-Khānjī, n.d.
Pickthall, Mohammed
Marmaduke. The Meaning of the Glorious Koran. New York and Scarborough:
George Allen and Unwin Ltd, n.d.
Dr. Muh.ammad Zaghlūl Sallām. Athar
al-Qur’ān fī Tat.awwur al-Naqd
al-Adabī, ed. Muh.ammad Khalaf
Allāh Ah.mad, 2nd ed. Cairo: Dār al-Macārif, 1961.
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūt.ī. Al-Itqān fī cUlūm
al-Qur’ān, 1st ed., 2 vols. Cairo: al-Mat.bacah
al-Azhariyyah al-Mis.riyyah. 1318 AH
No comments:
Post a Comment