An Analytical Assessment of the Argument(s) from Literary Miraculousness of the Quran

Why does it matter?

I would readily grant that Muslim apologetics is indeed a recent development in the arena of analytic philosophy of religion, insofar it can be called a development at all. Most of the time, what is construed as Islaamic apologetics is no more than an extension of preaching, and it is often difficult to draw a demarcation line somewhere- to know where preaching ends (a sophisticated form of it, one must admit), and apologetics begins. Regardless of this status quo, the need for Muslim apologetics is getting increasingly pronounced. The epistemic claim made at the onset of the Quran- This is the Book wherein there is no doubt seems intriguingly bold in the face of this postmodernist pluralistic culture. The truth claims of religion do not prima facie suffice for themselves anymore to the doubt-stricken net savvy Muslim youth, especially when material dealing with this evidential aspect of Islaam is so rare. This and related concerns enunciate the need for a rational investigation for religious truth. Apologetics is needed, then, because a thousand voices calls for it. Now a cursory glance at the prevalent apologetics material (much of which is available on the internet) gives us the impression that Muslim apologists are more concerned with defending Islaam from claims made against it e.g. scientific inaccuracy or historical anachronisms in the Quran, as opposed to advancing a positive epistemic case for its truth claims. In other words, the emphasis is placed on showing what Islaam is not (as opposed to what its antagonists claim it is), and not so much on what Islaam and Muslims claim it actually is- A revelation from He who created the earth and highest heavens. Part of this overt focus on the defense aspect of Muslim apologetics, at the expense of what I colloquially refer here as the offense aspect, is possibly due to the fact that the discipline is entirely new and not much effort has been put into it. However, my personal conviction is both questions are of equal epistemic value, and the question of offense is just as basic as that of defense. Also, many of the apologist attempts at defense resorts to somewhat ad hoc-seeming reinterpretation of scripture. Given the premise that Islaam is true, these difficulties presented by these ad hoc attempts at reinterpretations dissipate, for the Muslim can then explain this difficulty in light of Islaams evidence. So a positive case for Islaam serves not only the offense, but also its defense. Another important aspect of the evidences of Islaam is explaining its laws and commandments. Given we have good evidence to believe Islaam is indeed Divine revelation to man, its laws can be justified simply by stating because God says so, without going into independent assessment of the laws themselves. Because of these and other, perhaps more obvious reasons, it should of primary interest to the apologist to develop a rigorous intellectual case for the truth of Islaam.

The following essay is the first of a series of essays which would seek to provide an index of the potential arguments for the evidence of Islaam, a logical way of constructing them, and possible room for research and development in their regard. In this article, we only consider the argument from Literary miraculousness of the Quran. This oft-quoted yet rarely explained argument is perhaps the most vocal claim the Quran makes for its authenticity. In this paper we consider two forms of the argument, a plausible logical structure for both of them, possible refutations and suggestions of room for development. Notably, this paper does not take up the argument from testimony (Arabic-savvy people at the time of its revelation held the Qurans literature to be miraculous, so based on their testimony we can say that the Quran indeed is miraculous), because I consider this an argument from history and not literature. With that introduction, let us analyze the first form of the argument from literary miraculousness.

1. Argument from the inimitability of the Quran.

This is evidently the most common argument the Quran advances for itself. Simply (and therefore vaguely) put, the argument states that the Qurans literature is unique in that it cannot be imitated by anyone, no matter what amount of effort is put into it [3]. Note that this argument does not use the eloquence of the Quran as a premise, rather its uniqueness- its inimitability. This is an important distinction, because eloquence and inimitability are different things. An eloquent literature may be imitable, while an inimitable piece may not be eloquent. Inimitability (or imitability) and eloquence are, therefore, mutually independent features of a text. Many people miss this distinction, and use the eloquence of the Quran as a premise to establish its inimitability. This challenge of inimitability occurs in no less than five places in the Quran in different forms, as exemplified in: And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant *Muhammad+, then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah , if you should be truthful. But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers. *2:23-24, cf: 10:38, 11:13, 17:88, 52:33-34] Before moving on with my analysis of the argument, I should make it abundantly clear that the following analysis is entirely superficial, and there is a very real possibility that my views are wrong. This is because such an analysis would require knowledge of Arabic, which I lack. In my analysis I have worked under the assumption that what applies to any other language or literature would apply to classical Arabic as well, which might as well be false. The foremost difficulty about this argument is understanding it. The Qurans inimitability is explained differently by different sources. Some of these explanations are downright subjective, to the extent that without further explanation they are hardly feasible to address on a rational plane. More objective interpretations include:

1. The language of the Quran doesnt fall in any of the prevalent conventions in pre-Islaamic poetry or prose.
The inimitability, then, lies in its structural uniqueness. Shaykh Abdul Wahhab at Turayri comments: It is, likewise, possible for a person writing in Arabic to reach a great level of literary excellence and, in the most moving of poetry and prose, convey the noblest thoughts and sentiments but nobody has ever done so using the Qurns particular style. And what an elusive style it has proven to be! The Qurn is neither in Arabic prose nor in what is acknowledged as Arabic verse. It is not written in a combination of both prose and poetry, but in neither of those modes. It is unique. At the same time, the Qurn is internally consistent in maintaining its unique style This, then, is the acid test: Write something in the exact same style as the Qurn and in doing so produce something of arguably similar quality and sublimity. Muslim preacher Abdur Rahim Green has been reported to have defined the argument from inimitability as such: to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar (the conventional rhythmic styles of Arabic poetry), that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. By defining inimitability as uniqueness, and defining uniqueness in turn as not any of the conventional Arabic styles, be it poetry or prose, this view does solve the problem of the subjective nature of the argument. However, some other important questions need to be addressed as well. First of all, does inimitability really equal miraculousness? In this context, it would do well to remind the reader about the definition of miracles. Simplistically put, miracle is an event which cannot be produced by the relevant natural causes of that time and place. A sea splitting into two at the strike of a staff, for example, is a miracle. There is nothing about the relevant natural causes e.g. the staff, the force with which the sea was struck, waves, air current and so on which adequately explain the phenomenon of an entire sea splitting into two. Another attribute of a miracle which sets it apart from merely naturally anomalous events is that a miracles takes place in an appropriate religio-historical context. For example, there are quite a few instances of improbable recoveries from complicated diseases. But if such a recovery (or at least enough number of recoveries consistently) takes place immediately after praying to God, that gives us reason to believe that this is possibly not a natural anomaly, but a miracle. So now to redefine the question, is there anything about the inimitability of the Quran which cannot be explained by relevant natural causes? The critic may argue, for example, that birth of unique, peerless styles and genre of literature is nothing uncommon in human history. What is it about the Qurans literary inimitability that not only sets it apart from these other parallels, but makes it miraculous?

Another important question involves strategies to address the Quranic challenge of inimitability. How would the proponent of this view present a tangible challenge for the critic to address? To address this problem, the question one first needs to resolve is this: by saying that the Quran doesnt follow any of the conventional Arabic styles, are we ascribing a definite style to the Quran, which can be tangibly described using variables which were used to describe different styles of Arabic poetry? Or is it that we are not ascribing any definite style to the Quran at all, and defining its inimitability only by taking the vague phrase not any of the Arabic styles literally? If it is number one, then to show that the Quran is inimitable, this is the line of reasoning one might have to adopt: Premise 1. The Quran adopts a particular style which can be characterized with tangible literary qualities (like the different styles of Arabic poetry was characterized). Premise 2. Those specific literary qualities of Quranic styles are impossible to duplicate. Conclusion. The Quran is inimitable. Given this line of reasoning, critics may justifiably ask about the meaning of the phrase impossible to duplicate in premise 2. I cannot speculate any further on this, because doing so would presumably require knowledge of Arabic, which I lack. I think if impossible to duplicate is said to mean it cannot be reproduced in any other Arabic literature, then a case for inimitability will indeed be established. In other words, people can point to different structural nuances in the Quran, and demonstrate that it is impossible to construct a piece of Arabic literature while being faithful to such a nuance. However, I havent seen any such cases advanced by Muslims. If on the other hand, the proponent of literary inimitability doesnt ascribe any definite style to the Quran, then the situation becomes more complex. Again, I am not versed in Arabic, so there is every possibility that my position be mistaken. But given this view, inimitability seems to be defined as being outside the Arabic literary conventions. If this is accurate, the challenge of inimitability doesnt seem at all impressive. In fact, its hard to see how producing literature that doesnt conform to literary conventions is even a challenge to begin with. Anyone can come up with a few rhyming lines that cannot be qualified in terms of the literary conventions. It would most often be insensible to claim that such an example which stands without regard for the rules is even a decent piece of literature, much less inimitable. So unless this view is qualified further, it is very problematic to address and appreciate. However, Abdur Rahim Green does try to qualify the interpretation further by saying it must not be normal speech. That again brings up a horde of questions as regards what qualifies as normal speech. One of the dilemmas this view poses is this: by not attributing a specific style to the Quran, the Muslims sometimes dismiss efforts to imitate the Quran as being too Quranic, as opposed to bringing something new as the Quran claims. While on the other hand, efforts to construct something different than the Quran is also dismissed on grounds that they are not similar to the Quran, as the Quran

claims. This may as well be a false dilemma resulting not from the challenge itself, but rather from faulty interpretations of the challenge. In conclusion of our analysis of inimitability of the Quranic discourse in terms of overall literary structure, these are the problems we face: 1. If inimitability is such that the Quran has a specific, definite, qualifiable literary style which cannot be imitated in any other Arabic literature, then the Quran is indeed inimitable. However such a case doesnt seem to be common or even existant. 2. If the Quran doesnt have a specific, definite, qualifiable literary style and inimitability is such that the it stands outside the conventions, then this view renders the challenge meaningless and absurd, and so it needs to be qualified. 3. Even if the Qurans inimitability is established, the important question that requires treatment is does inimitability imply miraculousness, given inimitable genre in literature and art has been produced multiple times in human history? What is it about Qurans inimitability that makes it miraculous, as opposed to simply unique? With these questions, we move on to a more interesting but very uncommon view as regards the Qurans inimitability.

2. The language of the Quran adopts linguistic innovations, giving birth to a new language altogether.
I find this view to be a lot more promising than the previous one, unfrotunately very little work is available on this. I only found one 20-odd page article written by Dr. Bassam Saeh on this topic, and much of this essay was difficult for me to relate with due to my lack of knowledge in Arabic. I will have to resort to direct quotations from the essay itself on occasions. According to this view, the Quran is inimitable in that it contains numerous linguistic innovations that cannot be imitated in any other Arabic literature. This view is similar to the first variant of the previous view i.e. the Quran has a definite style, but it is impossible to implement this style anywhere else outside the Quran. Similarly, if someone takes a specific linguistic innovation in the Quran and tries to implement this in non-Quranic literature, he will not be successful in making a coherent expression. What is meant by innovation here? Dr. Saeh defines them broadly as breaks with (contemporary) linguistic conventions, but doesnt give any further rigorous qualification. He holds that these innovations are ridiculously frequent: *T+he Qurans true distinctiveness lies not inits occasional breaking with the contemporary linguistic conventions but in the consistently high frequency with which the breaks occur. Indeed, every single surah in the entire Quran contains more breaks with linguistic convention than the number of its words.

The author then goes on to list 23 examples from Surah Fatiha alone, as well as some other examples. Here is my effort to broadly categorize some of these examples (the list is nowhere near exhaustive): 1. Producing new morphological variances of common words, e.g. Alameen. This plural form of alam wasnt known to the Arabs. 2. Ascribing new meanings to commonly used words, e.g. Deen, Sirat. Both of these words have been used to mean something entirely different in the Quran than their normal usage. 3. Using never before used inter-word or phrase relationships, e.g. Al-Hamd, Maliki Yawm. According to the author, the definite particle Al wasnt used before Hamd in pre-Islaamic literature. Same goes for Maliki Yawm. 4. Grammatical shift from person to person (Iltifaat), e.g. shift from verse 1-3 to verse 4 onwards. Muslim rhetoricians have recognized this. As it appears from Dr. Saehs essay, these linguistic innovations are significant in two ways. First, if an author commits such linguistic innovations in any language, we expect the audience to promptly point out that the author is wrong in departing from conventional usage. However, this doesnt happen with the Quran. Even though it did break conventions of Arabic, not only did the Arabs not reject it as bad literature, but became mesmerized by it. The author explains: First, however, it should be stressed that the Quran did not bring with it a new language separate from Arabic, but took Arabic as its point of departure, and it is precisely here that it has uniqueness. The Quran went beyond the Arabic languages traditional limits, therefore, its distinctiveness lay not in the creation of a new language out of nothing, for the process was far more complex than that. It entailed constructing a new language on the foundations of the old language with its established rules and principles, then rising to a level that had never been reached by the old language. Any child today could easily sit down at a computer and, using the twenty nine letters of the Arabic alphabet, construct thousands, and perhaps millions, of new words. Yet, how would the Arabs understand them? How would they communicate their meaning in a context so that they could be used to form statements that would be meaningful to their hearers? One does not have to be a genius to produce a new language. However, to go beyond the accustomed boundaries and conventions of a particular language, while remaining consistent with its basic rules and structures, is an extraordinary achievement. Second, many of the linguistic innovations employed in the Quran are literally inimitable, in that they cannot be used in non-Quranic expressions and still make sense. The author gives the example of the word Kana, which means was. In many places of the Quran, inna (is) is replaced with Kana (was) e.g. Innallaha Kana Ghafurur Raheem. This new (kana) is still inimitable. No one now can construct a single sentence replacing (inna) with (kana) without changing the whole meaning. The author further comments on this phenomena in reference to different particles in the Quran:

I counted at least 30 particles which are used in different meaning, including: (examples). Most of the new uses of these particles, if not all, are still restricted to the Quran, Arabs have never used them, and will never, simply because they are unusual and inimitable. What shall we make of this view? For starters, the view does seem to solve the problem posed by equivocating inimitability with miracles. If it is indeed true that Quranic expressions simply cannot be used in any non-Quranic linguistic context, then it does seem to satisfy the criteria for a miracle: a phenomenon which cannot be accounted for using relevant natural resources in that time or place. Given all the natural resources e.g. the Arabic alphabet and grammar, if it is indeed linguistically impossible to use a Quranic expression in a non-Quranic context, then that would mean the text of the Quran is something that is impossible to produce by natural means. In other words, the challenge of the Quran now appears as an appreciable challenge. However, there are important questions as regards this view as well: 1. The foregoing analysis presupposes accuracy on the authors part. In support of the claim that the Quranic innovations were not regarded as grammatical errors by the Arabs, the author appeals to evidence from the hadeeth literature. Similarly with the second claim i.e. the Quranic innovations being inimitable, he simply asserts this claim. So the problem here is lack of explanation: why is it that the Arabs did not regard (or would not regard) the Quranic innovations as grammatical error, and how is it demonstrable that the Quranic expressions are indeed inimitable? Consider, for example, the authors claim that the Quranic usage of Kana is justified but the non-Quranic usage is not. What makes this conclusion valid? 2. The case for inimitability as regards the expressions being impossible to imitate in non-Quranic literature is clear. However, it is less clear in the fact that the Quranic innovations were not interpreted as errors by the Arabs. This does not pose a problem to the entire case per se, because the case would still make sense even if we confine it to Quranic expressions being inimitable. 3. Another important question is whether the innovations are indeed innovations. The author defines innovations as departure from prevalent Arabic conventions, and defines Arabic conventions in turn as the conventions found in pre-Islaamic poetry and hadeeth literature. Is this construal valid, or an oversimplified equivocation? Did enough pre-Islaamic poetry survive to make such a claim? 4. Finally, if this was indeed the key miracle of the Quran, why is it that the scholars of Ijaaz had little to nothing to say about it? Dr. Saeh tries to answer this question: For many centuries, linguists, grammarians and commentators hesitated to state categorically that the Quran contained linguistic innovations, for fear of being accused of implying that the text was not written in genuine Arabic. So, the scholars studies were confined to the aesthetic and expressional aspects of the Quranic miraculous (sic) while carefully avoiding an examination of the new Quranic language. This explanation seems a bit ad hoc to me, can a milleniums silence be explained by just this one motive?

While many things are left unanswered, Dr. Saehs view is significant and challenging. I dont deem it necessary to choose between either of the two views concerning Quranic inimitability, we can adopt an eclectic approach by incorporating both views into one, integrated argument. With the case thus laid to rest, we move on to the second form of argument for Qurans literary miracle.

2. Argument from Qurans Literary Precision

Precision in language is almost ubiquitiously present in oral and written literature alike. They come in a lot of forms, for example wordplay, imagery, emphasis, structural coherence of the different parts of the speech, and so on. As such, an argument which merely uses the precision of literature as a premise is bound for failure. However, the proponents of this argument claims that the precision of the Quran is of a completely different order. Notice that this argument is qualitatively different from the argument from inimitability. This argument does not claim that the Quran is inimitable per se, but rather it was impossible to produce given the context of its revelation. As such, it is markedly similar to the claim from scientific accuracy of the Quran i.e. the scientific facts allegedly mentioned in the Quran were impossible to mention given the context of Qurans revelation. With this brief introduction, let us define and analyze the argument.

The definition
I propose the following definition for this argument: The precision of the Quranic language is of such an order, that the Quran was impossible to produce given the relevant natural causes of the time and place of revelation.

Breakdown of definition
Phrase: the precision of the Quranic language is of such an order
Much like the argument from scientific accuracy which depends on specific instances of scientific knowledge allegedly mentioned in the Quran prior to its time, this argument relies on different instances of precision in language as its premise. As mentioned in the introduction of this section, this arguments premise is not merely that the Quran displays a level of precision in speech (which is true of any piece of literature whatsoever), but rather it displays precision of an altogether different order. How can this level of precision be characterized to formulate an argument? Perhaps more specifically, what is the difference between Quranic precision and precision extent in any other text of literature? To understand this crucial contention, lets look at an example of Quranic precision first. Note that I am using Quranic precision as a very broad term. Precision in the Quran (or any literature) can be of different forms, e.g. choice of words, sentence structure, cohesion between different parts of a passage, and so on. The following example displays precision in word choice.

Example of precise word choice from Surah Ash-Shuara (the 26th Surah of the Quran) Much of the Surah narrates the stories of the Prophets with intermittent didactic and eschatological comments. In order of their occurrences, the following prophets and their stories are mentioned: Moses (vv. 10-68) Abraham (vv. 69-104) Noah (vv. 105-122) Hud (vv. 123-140) Salih (vv. 141-159) Lot (vv. 160-175) Shuayb (vv. 176- 191)

Notice how the first two stories are much longer than the others. The last 5 relatively shorter stories invariably begin with the following refrain: *Name of nation* denied the messengers When their brother *name of the corresponding Messenger* said to them, Will you not fear Allah? Indeed I am to you a trustworthy messenger So fear Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. So for example, the narrative of Noah starts as: The people of Noah denied the messengers When their brother Noah said to them, Will you not fear Allah? Indeed I am to you a trustworthy messenger So fear Allah and obey me. And I do not ask you for it any payment. My payment is only from the Lord of the worlds. An intriguing exception to this refrain is found in the story of Shuayb *vv. 176-177]: The companions of the thicket denied the messengers When Shuayb said to them, Will you not fear Allah?.... The difference between this refrain and the remaining four is: the term their brother does not occur in the second line. Interestingly, at other places in the Quran, it doesnt hesitate to identify Shuayb as a brother to its nation. For example, in Surah Al-Araf and Surah Hud *7:85, 11:84+: And to *the people of+ Madyan *We sent+ their brother Shuayb. He said, O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him So by all standards, the omission of their brother from the beginning of the story of Shuayb in Shuara stands out as peculiar. However, this peculiarity need not be arbitrary. The verse identifies Shuaybs people as the companions of the thicket (Ashabul Aika), which is a religious identity of the people, and

not an ethnic one (Aika was a tree the Midianites used to worship). This is in contrast to the preceding four stories, where the nations have been referred to with their ethnic identity (i.e. people of Noah, Aad, Thamud, and the people of Lot), and hence identifying the messenger as the brother to his people is perfectly logical. Additionally, this is also in contrast with the other Quranic narratives about Shuayb, where his people is addressed with their ethnic identity (i.e. the people of Madyan). However, after having addressed Shuaybs people with their religious identity, the Quran aptly refuses to ascribe ties of brotherhood between the messenger and his people. Ibn Kathir, eminent commentator of the Quran, writes: The companions of Al-Aykah were the people of Madyan, according to the most correct view. The Prophet of Allah Shu`ayb was one of them, but it does not say here, their brother Shu`ayb, because they called themselves by a name denoting their deification of Al-Aykah, which was a tree which they used to worship; it was said that it was a group of trees which were tangled, like trees in a thicket. For this reason, when Allah said that the companions of Al-Aykah denied the Messengers, He did not say, "When their brother Shu`ayb said to them.'' Implications of this example How can we characterize Quranic precision with this example? An apt way to do so would be to explore the differences between this and regular precision found elsewhere than the Quran. An apt example of precision in word choice would be puns. Wikipedia defines pun as: The pun, also called paronomasia, is a form of word play which suggests two or more meanings, by exploiting multiple meanings of words, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect. As an example of a specific type of pun: The homophonic pun, a common type, uses word pairs which sound alike (homophones) but are not synonymous. Walter Redfern exemplified this type with his statement "To pun is to treat homonyms as synonyms". For example, in George Carlin's phrase "Atheism is a non-prophet institution", the word "prophet" is put in place of its homophone "profit", altering the common phrase "non-profit institution". Similarly, the joke "Question: Why do we still have troops in Germany? Answer: To keep the Russians in Czech" relies on the aural ambiguity of the homophones "check" and "Czech". Often, puns are not strictly homophonic, but play on words of similar, not identical, sound as in the example from the "Pinky and the Brain" cartoon film series: "I think so, Brain, but if we give peas a chance, won't the lima beans feel left out?" which plays with the similar but not identical sound of "peas" and "peace". Notice, that the point of puns (and really any other instance of wordplay or precision in word choice) is that the effect must be obvious. If the listener does not get the pun upon hearing it, the point is lost. As such, wordplay in literature tends to be obvious.

Is the Qurans wordplay obvious? It does not appear that way. To note the significance of the omitted their brother, one would have to take note of the previous four refrains of the Surah, the subtle meaning intended by companions of the thicket (it could have very well been used as a simple substitution for Midianites), and perhaps some other factors as well. People may argue that it was obvious to its immediate audience; since the Quran was primarily a recital and not a written text, people would presumably have noted the exception from the previous refrains, which it closely followed. However, merely noticing the omission of their brother would not have been sufficient for this worldplay to be obvious. An obvious wordplay would be such that the listener, in addition to getting the something is amiss/awkward feeling, would readily understand what the point of the wordplay is. From that perspective, it seems hardly plausible that the example from Ash-Shuara is obvious. Ibn Kathirs comments illustrates this point: He is not described as belonging to them because of the meaning that was inherent in the name given to them even though he was their brother by blood. Some people did not notice this point, so they thought that the dwellers of Al-Aykah were different from the people of Madyan, and claimed that Shu`ayb was sent to two nations; some said that he was sent to three. Far from the wordplay being obvious, ibn Kathir notes that some people- scholars and commentators of the Quran at that- missed this point altogether, which led to controversies. Now the question that faces us is, would a non-obvious wordplay be superior (i.e. harder to produce) than an obvious wordplay? Note that by non-obvious wordplay, I do not mean wordplay which is bad e.g. a lame joke which no one gets, rather wordplay which is just as clever and expresses deep shades of meaning, yet not obvious; and you require more than a cursory reading to unearth it. It does appear that defined thus, non-obvious precision in word choice is harder to produce than obvious wordplay. In our example, to produce such precision in word choice, the speaker/author needs to keep in mind the four preceding refrains, the subtle meaning conveyed by companions of the thicket and so on. This is demonstrably more difficult from obvious word play. Take for example the afore-quoted pun atheism is a non-prophet institution, all the speaker needs to keep in mind is the (not even subtle, direct) meaning of the word prophet and the common phrase non-profit institution. Given this discussion, it does seem that the example under scrutiny exhibits a level of precision which is of a different, superior order than regular precision observed elsewhere. What if it is not precision at all? In order to characterize Quranic wordplay, we demonstrated that it is not obvious and therefore of a different literary level. However, it may be argued that since it is not obvious, then perhaps examples of precision are simply read into the passage, and it does not contain any precision in reality to begin with. The omission of their brother is purely due to chance, and this is being manipulated to retro-fit claims of precision in the passage.

This contention, I think, stems from a premature understanding of what is meant here by non-obvious. By non-obvious I do not simply mean vague or ambiguous (if it were that way, then the passage would indeed be fodder for such manipulations), rather requires a more thorough reading. Unlike a superficial reading, a through reading requires you take more information into account. In the case of this example, the deeper reading mandates the whole surahs structure be taken into consideration. It does not imply tinkering with the data, but being aware of more (relevant) data. At such a level of thorough reading, the example of wordplay does not require vague or ambiguous any more, rather it clearly stands out in its meaning. To probe a bit deeper, a cursory reader would not find the precision in word choice obvious, since as he passes vv. 176-177, he would only take into account these present verses. However a deeper reading would make him aware of the previous refrains as well, and in the context of this additional information, the peculiarity of the omission of their brother would readily stand out. If he is aware of what the companions of thicket denotes, the subtler meaning of the wordplay becomes clear. All of these additional data unearthed by the thorough reading is by no means irrelevant. The opening refrain in all five of the stories are considerably large, containing 5 verses of varying length. It seems unlikely that the omission of two words from one refrain, keeping the remaining four exactly the same, is due to chance; especially considering that there is indeed a solid, legitimate explanation as to this nuance. By way of summary, it seems unlikely that the claims of precision in Quranic language is retrospective, rather the precision is indeed genuine. Thus far, we deliberated upon the nature of precision Quran displays, and argued that the Quranic precision is indeed of a different, more sophisticated level. Now we move on to the second phrase of the definition.

Phrase: given the relevant natural causes of the time and place of revelation
This phrase is reminiscent of the definition of miracle presented earlier: an event which cannot be produced by the relevant natural causes of the time and place of revelation. So what would be the relevant natural causes of the time and place of Qurans revelation? Well, the answer differs on ones view about the origins of Islaam. According to the Muslim view, the Quran was revealed not as a written word, but as a recital; which was revealed piecemeal in the backdrop of specific socio-cultural contexts. Although extreme revisionists might disagree with this view, the Quran being revealed piecemeal is suppoerted by frequent internal evidences from the Quran itself, as well as the hadeeth literature. Revisionism seems adhoc in the face of all these accounts taken in aggregate. So, how does the fact that the Quran was revealed as a spoken word, as opposed to a written text, affect this argument? It actually depends on which variety of precision of word choice we are using as a premise. Generally speaking, precision in general is much harder to produce in oral literature as compared to written text, since the latter accommodates more time to think and develop the content. Additionally, one can liberally edit or modify written text, something almost impossible for a recital. This

is even more of an issue with the Quran, since The revelations, which he (Muhammad) presented to his hearers as the Word of God brought to him piecemeal by the angel Gabriel, were committed to memory by the faithful and recited in the prayer (quoted from Robinson, Discovering the Quran). Beyond this general problem of producing precision in word choice given the text is oral, there are yet other problems involved with specific examples of precision. Many of such instances require us to take a large part of the Quran into consideration. Consider the following example provided by Dr. Muntasir Mir: In 622 AD, Muhammad and his followers emigrated from Makkah to Madinah. Madinah (literally, 'city'- short for 'city of the Prophet') was formerly known as Yathrib. In the Qur'an, the city is invariably called 'Madinah' - except once, in 33:13, where it is called 'Yathrib'. The verse reports how, at a time of crisis, a certain group of people deserted the ranks of Muslims, appealing to their compatriots ('O people of Yathrib!') to give up Islam for lost. The use of 'Yathrib' instead of 'Madinah' graphically portrays the mentality of the deserters: they were convinced that Islam was about to be wiped out and that the city would no longer be the 'city of the Prophet' but would revert to its pagan status, becoming once again 'Yathrib' (Islahi V:200). If the above analysis is valid, then this can only be appreciated given that the Quran invariably refers to the city as Madinah, and not as Yathrib. The implications of this instance of precision involves the text of the Quran in its entirety, or at least every instance wherever any reference to Madinah is made. In order to produce this instance of precision, the author would need to have a vivid foresight of the entire text, a plan as to where and where not mention Yathrib. However, the Quran was revealed piecemeal, often in the context of specific events. So it is puzzling how such an instance of precision, which requires one to have foresight of the whole text even prior to its recital, could have been produced. Another, perhaps more obvious example of this problem is the argument from the order of the Surahs in the Quran. The Surahs in the Quran are not arranged in a chronological order, rather they were specifically ordered the way they are by the Prophet (on Divine authority). So if there is logical continuity among the Surahs, then this is a proof of foresight and planning prior to the origin of the text itself. More will be said on this specific argument in the next section. By way of summary, the argument from Quranic precision in language puts two facts together: 1. the sophisticated nature of Quranic precision, 2. the handicap placed on the production of these instances of precision given that the Quran was initially an oral text revealed piecemeal. The entire case above was developed on the basis of one or two instances of Quranic precision. However, I think this argument is a cumulative case argument i.e. we take all the instances of Quranic precision together and ask if all of these could have been collectively produced given that the Quran was an oral text. To understand why, consider our breakdown of the phrase the precision of the Quranic language is of such an order, where I argued that the example from Ash-Shuara is indeed a genuine example of precision, as opposed to such a claim being retrofitted into the text. With just one example however, the case does remain a bit shaky; it may appear to have a mountain-out-of-a-molehill flavor. However, these possibilities fall to the side when we produce a cumulative case with lots of examples of Quranic precision, demonstrating how none of them could plausible have been retro-

fitted. Also, it can deal with the more obvious problem of these instances of precision merely being due to chance. It should be of note, that according to the scholars of Balagha, such instances of precision are almost ubiquitous in the Quran (not saying there view is necessarily valid, but this is the view of scholars of antiquity who used this argument).

How else can this argument be refuted?

I can think of two other ways to respond to these arguments. 1. Counterexamples. In response to this argument, the critic may point to instances in the Quran where there is lack of precision; which, according to the critic, would convincingly argue against the Quran being precise in its language. However, I think this line of reasoning does not work, since it is near impossible to demonstrate lack of precision. For starters, how can we discount the possibility of there being some motive behind the usage of that specific word? We do not even have to appeal to vacuous possibility here, it would be easy to point out different ways in which that apparent non-precise word could have been precise in other ways. For example, if the critic suggests it is scientifically imprecise, the Muslim can point out it is phenomenologically precise, and that was the point of the verse. 2. This is not exclusive to the Quran. Here the critic claims that the only reason we find such instances of precision is because the Quran has been studied extensively. These instances can be produced by sheer chance alone, and if equal amount of study were carried out on any other book, we will probably end up with the same findings. I do not know how to answer this objection, except by saying it falls on the critic to demonstrate his case. Also, it seems unlikely that an appeal to chance can stand up to a cumulative case of Quranic precision.

Concluding remarks
As for my proposed structure for the argument from literary precision in the Quran, it ended with the last section. In this section, I provide some remakrs by means of summary. I would like to remind the readers that a successful case can only be complete with an actual, tangible cumulative case consisting of a substantial number of instances of precision in the Quran. To create such a list is not my task, being ignorant in Arabic or even the Quranic studies in general. Is there such a list available which can be used in the argument? Not in contemporary popular English literature, at least. The Muslim scholars in the past did produce a significant amount of material on this topic, however this is how Dr. Muntasir Mir assesses the status quo: In the 1890s Richard Moulton, author of The Literary Study Of The Bible, was able to justify the need for his work by pointing out that 'Literature', as opposed to 'literatures' - Greek, Hebrew, and German - 'is a separate entity' which, with its 'foundation forms ... such as Epic, Lyric, Dramatic,' deserves to be studied in its own right, and that such a study would break new ground (iv-v). And in 1987 Robert

Alter and Frank Kermode, editors of The Literary Guide To The Bible, spoke with satisfaction of the proven effectiveness of the literary approach to the Bible, adding that there is 'a need, felt by clerical and secular students alike, to achieve a new accommodation with the Bible as it is, which is to say, as literature of high importance and power'. The Qur'n, like the Bible, is an acknowledged literary masterpiece. But, unfortunately, it has not yet received the kind of attention Moulton speaks of with reference to the Bible. And it will probably not be in the near future that one will be able to speak, as on the literary front regarding the Qur'n. But, one might ask, does there not exist, at least in Arabic, a large number of works dealing with the literary qualities of the Qur'n? Such works certainly exist. But most of them are, in respect of their orientation, premises, and structure, works of theology rather than of literary criticism, a typical example being The Inimitability Of The Qur'n by the medieval scholar Ab Bakr Baqillan (950-1013). This being the case, studying the Qur'n as literature - and purely as literature - is not unlike setting foot on new territory. The Muslim preachers and scholars in the west who still talk about this issue naturally speak of this from a theological perspective, and not a purely literary one. As such, an analytic approach is rarely taken to evaluate alleged instances of Quranic literary precision, to see if they indeed conform to the rigorous logical standards of being qualified as miraculous. Bottomline being, this argument is very promising, but almost no work has been done on it. Examples of Muslim academics or scholars who have written on this topic (in English) include Dr. Mir Muntasir and Dr. Neal Robinson.