-
Inimitability Of A Surah Of The Quran
I recently heard this song:
Six Day War- Colonel Bagshot
At the starting of the week
At summit talks you’ll hear them speak
It’s only Monday
Negotiations breaking down
See those leaders start to frown
It’s sword and gun day
Tomorrow never comes until it’s too late
You could be sitting taking lunch
The news will hit you like a punch
It’s only Tuesday
You never thought we’d go to war
After all the things we saw
It’s April Fools’ day
Tomorrow never comes until it’s too late
We’ll all go running underground
And we’ll be listening for the sound
It’s only Wednesday
In your shelter dimly lit
Take some wool and learn to knit
‘Cause it’s a long day
Tomorrow never comes until it’s too late
You’ll hear a whistling overhead
Are you alive or are you dead?
It’s only Thursday
You feel a shaking of the ground
A million candles burn around
Is it your birthday?
Tomorrow never comes until it’s too late
Though that shelter is your home
The living space you have outgrown
It’s only Friday
As you come out to the light
Can your eyes behold the sight
It must be doomsday
Tomorrow never comes until it’s too late
Ain’t it funny how men think
They made the bomb, they are extinct
It’s only Saturday
I think tomorrow’s come, I think it’s too late
I think tomorrow’s come, I think it’s too late
I think tomorrow’s come, I think it’s too late
————
Whilst I was listening I thought it was quite an interesting piece. After reading it a few more times I was even more impressed.
My question is isn’t it a bit subjective as to what would class as an example as a surah if the Quran? Like one could say this song is very powerful and deep for them. So how do we, for example, say that this song is not as good as the Quran?
-
11 Replies
-
Inimitability Of A Surah Of The Quran
updated 3 years, 5 months ago
3 Members
·
11
Replies
-
Here is the video:
-
It’s comparing apples to oranges. Quran’s genre is very different i.e. it deals with matters of life and death, matters of human creation, matters of this worldly scheme. It presents a whole scheme of things from start till the end and what will happen after that and presents its arguments to support its premise. Therefore, for something to be compared to Quran, that thing should touch the same topics and then both can be compared to see which one makes more sense and gives the most rational holistic picture of life on this earth.
-
The Quran says bring one surah. One surah will obviously only have one topic
-
Bring one Surah just like Quran i.e. ‘which talks about the same subject-matter as that of Quran’
-
Yes and the song I shared is one to show the human disease of conflict. Just as, for example, surah zilzaal is based on describing the terror of the day of judgement and its justice- this song draws upon how mankind is so caught up in war and evil. And how quick war escalates and how, it is implied that, it is a terror striking sight.
-
Quran is telling about an event that our eyes has not yet seen and has given arguments from intuitive, intellectual and empirical domains for that day. How is this a fair comparison with this song which is talking about something we already know? Just because the song talks about wars and terror, doesn’t make it in the same league as Quran, as far as we are talking about the fair comparison.
-
How is the Quran arguing from empirical domains and calls us to action to be safe on the last day better or worse than a human arguing from empirical domains and calling us to action to do something in this world?
-
Quran’s subject-matter is life after death while that song’s subject-matter is only this world. That’s a big difference. Doing better in this world to attain peace as per song; while doing better in this World to meet the lord and attain eternal peace.
-
And why does that make one linguistically better than the other in any way?
-
Quran’s challenge is not from the domain of linguistics only (it is one factor indeed). Other factors that I mentioned above are actually what make any kalam unique and superior to others. Please listen to the following response:
-
-
You may find this excerpt helpful in your question
“Abu at-Tayyib Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Mutanabbi al-Kindi was considered an inimitable poetic genius by many Arabs. Some have argued that although other poets have used the same panegyric genre and poetic metre as the great poet, they have not been able to match his level of eloquence and stylistic variance. Therefore, they conclude that Al-Mutannabi is inimitable because we have the blueprint of his work and the linguistic tools at our disposal, but cannot emulate anything like his poetic expression. If this is true, then it undermines the Qur’an’s inimitability. However, this acclamation of Al-Mutanabbi is unfounded. There have been imitations of Al-Mutanabbi’s work by the Jewish poets Moses ibn Ezra and Solomon ibn Gabriol. Interestingly, the Andalusian poet Ibn Hani’ al-Andalusi was known as the Al-Mutanabbi of the West.[45]
One significant point is that medieval Arabic poetry did not create new literary genres. This was due to the fact that it depended on previous poetic work. The academic Denis E. McAuley writes that medieval poetry largely hinged “more on literary precedent than on direct experience.”[46]
In classical Arabic poetry, it was not unusual for a poet to attempt to match a predecessor’s poem by writing a new one in the same poetic metre, rhyme and theme. This was considered normal practice.[47] It is not surprising that Professor of Religion Emil Homerin explored the literary expression of Ibn al-Farid, and described his work as “very original improvisations on al-Mutanabbi”.[48]
To highlight further the fact that Al-Mutanabbi can be emulated, he disclosed that he borrowed work from another poet, Abu Nuwas.[49] Many medieval Arab literary critics such as Al-Sahib ibn ‘Abbad and Abu Ali Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hatimi wrote criticisms of Al-Mutanabbi. Ibn ‘Abbad wrote al-kashf ‘an masawi’ shi’r al-Mutanabbi and Al-Hatimi wrote a biographical account of his encounter with Al-Mutanabbi in his al-Risala al-Mudiha fi dhikr sariqat Abi al-Tayyib al-Mutanabbi.[50] The conclusions of these literary criticisms imply that although his work is the product of genius, they can be emulated. Al-Hatimi presents a stronger polemic against Al-Mutanabbi and argues the case that his poetry does not have a unique style and contains errors. Professor Seeger A. Bonebakker, who studied Al-Hatimi’s literary criticism of Al-Mutanabbi, concludes that his “judgement is often well-founded and one almost ends up feeling that Mutanabbi was, after all, a mediocre poet who was not only lacking in originality, but also had insufficient competence in grammar, lexicography, and rhetoric, and sometimes gave evidence of incredibly bad taste.”[51]
Consider the general consensus that Shakespeare is thought to be unparalleled with regards to the use of the English language. However, his work is not considered inimitable. His sonnets are written predominantly in a frequently used meter called the iambic pentameter, a rhyme scheme in which each sonnet line consists of ten syllables. The syllables are divided into five pairs called iambs or iambic feet.[52] Since the blueprint of his work is available, it is not surprising that the English dramatist Christopher Marlowe has a similar style, and that Shakespeare has been compared to Francis Beaumont, John Fletcher and other playwrights of his time.[53]”
A valid contention concerning academic testimonies of the Qur’an’s inimitability, is that the scholars who agree that the Qur’an cannot be imitated have not concluded that it is a divine text. The problem with this contention is that it conflates testifying to the Qur’an’s inimitability with inference to the best explanation. The argument I am presenting in this essay does not conclude the divinity of the Qur’an from the statements of scholars. Rather, it articulates that the best explanation to elucidate the inimitability of the Qur’an is that it came from God. Whether these scholars accept the inference or the divinity of the Qur’an, is irrelevant. The statements of the scholars are used as evidence for the Qur’an’s inimitability, not that it is best explained by God. The argument infers from the text’s inimitability, not from conclusions the scholars may have drawn from the fact that it cannot be imitated. It must be pointed out that these scholars may not have been presented with an argument that presents an inference to the best explanation, or they may have not reflected on the philosophical implications of the Qur’an’s inimitability. These academics may even deny the God explanation because they adopt philosophical naturalism. The belief in naturalism will deter them from concluding anything about the supernatural.
You can read whole article “God’s Testimony: The Divine Authorship of the Qur’an” by Hamza Tzortzis
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
