Grammatical Correctness and Stylistic Beauty in the Qur'an

Abstract

Arab grammarians sought to construct a system in which rules are universal. They relied on classification, observing conformity and difference in the language material they collected, and made conformity the basis of a given class, while disagreement distinguished one category from another. They thereby derived rules which they declared to be universal. When there were found to be restrictions on universality in a particular rule, they created a subsidiary rule, on condition that it did not entail ambiguity. However, conformity and similarity may result in multiple possibilities, which can in fact lead to ambiguity, while disagreement and difference provide distinct forms with unequivocal meanings. The grammarians had to discover indicators (qarā 'in) that point to the appropriate grammatical function in every category. They were able to isolate the following: 1. Conjoining (taḍāmm) 2. Word Order (al-rutba), whether fixed or changeable 3. Connectivity (rabṭ), by co-referencing or by concordance 4. Inflection signs (calāmāt al-icrāb) 5. Morphological patterns (al-binya) 6. Particles (al-adawāt) 7. Context (al-siyāq) It was in the light of all these, that grammarians ruled a structure to be correct or incorrect. Language, however, is much wider than grammar, and usage is not only concerned with grammatical correctness but also with stylistic considerations which can lead to departure from the grammatical rule, for instance by addition, omission, relaxation of the rule or metaphorical usage, and other features of stylistic boldness which challenge the universality of grammatical rules. The Qur'an was revealed 'in a clear Arabic tongue' before the existence of the study of grammar (naḥw). It thus embodied the force of the language, which is shown in many types of departure from the normal rules for stylistic considerations. This article considers where the Qur'an stands with regard to grammatical correctness and stylistic beauty. The article explains that the assumed universality of the rules that grammarians needed for their system is much narrower than the rich usage of the Qur'an, which does not submit to strict universality or analogy. Grammarians themselves when faced with a usage that differed from their rules were forced to overlook these or resort to reinterpretation in order to maintain universality for their rules. Such differences from the rules are seen in three important areas: 1) Features such as omission, addition, preponderance, separation or parenthesis, which do not lead to ambiguity in the statement. 2) Subsidiary rules, many of which are listed in the article. 3) Making concession in the indicators of meaning when there was no fear of ambiguity (the article lists many examples for each indicator). Such explanations show grammar to be much narrower than the language because grammar concentrated, from the beginning, on what followed the rules and avoided listing features of stylistic boldness which belong to the aesthetic aspect of the text and hence do submit to general grammatical rules. It is not surprising that quarrels often occurred between grammarians and poets, where the grammarian was armed with his universal rules, and the poet retorted with his artistic freedom, saying, ‘Our task is to say, and yours is to find suitable interpretations for what we say.’ The article then goes on to trace elements of beauty in the Qur'anic style at the level of sounds and patterns and choices of words as well as through imagery, descriptions, etc. Under each of these the author examines many examples from the Qur'an to illustrate its stylistic beauty.