1

IBN H.AZM’S VIEWS ON

THE I‘JĀZ (INIMITABILITY) OF

THE QUR’ĀN

By

Muhammad Amin A. Samad

Prof. I.J. Boullata The Qur’ān and Arabic

December 2, 1977 Stylistics (397-778A)

INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC STUDIES

MCGILL UNIVERSITY

Montreal, December 2, 1977

Very good 42/50

2

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.

3

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 mu

cjizah (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.

4

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:

“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 Mu

ctazilīs

(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

5

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 a

clā marātib al-balāghah). One example of this

eloquence is the Qur’ānic verse:

“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

6

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:

“… 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

7

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:

“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:

-

“Aِnd 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 i

cjāz 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:

“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)

8

This verse, according to the Ashcarīs, does not limit the amount of i

cjāz

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 i

cjāz 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

“By the Dawn. And ten nights, And the Even and Odd” (Q.

89:1-3) will have the same value in its being mu

cjiz with āyat al-kursī

22 plus two other verses, if the i

cjāz 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:

“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 mu

cjiz), 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

9

Qur’ānic verse chapter 4 verse 16324

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.

10

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 mu

cjiz 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.

11

ENDNOTES

1Ibn 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 Ash

carīs 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 ) “Nay, but it is a glorious

Qur’ān. On a guarded tablet.” (Qur’ān, 85:21-2). (See also ibid., 56:77-78. 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.

4This 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.ba

cat al-Istiqlāl al-

Kubrā, 1384/1965), p. 587. 5Ibn 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.

6Dr. 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). 7On the contrary, the Mutazilī al-Jāh.iz. (d. 255 AH) maintains that the i

cjāz

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. 8Al-Qād.ī Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī, the Ash

carī 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. 51-55; 77-80.

9Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, pp. 16-17

12

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:

“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. 17-18. 13

See above p. 5. 14

Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 18. 15

Ibid. 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. 17:90-93. 18

Ibn H.azm, Fis.al, vol. 3, p. 19. 19

Ibid. 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. 20-21. 26

Ibid., p. 21.

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CAbd al-Jabbār. Sharh. al-Us.ūl al-Khamsah, 1

st ed. Cairo: Mat.ba

cat 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