That is because it is not permissible to imagine regarding anyone of sound innate nature, who affirms the Book of God, among those who have recited the Qur'an and known the limits set by God—that he would believe that part of the Qur'an is Persian and not Arabic, part of it Nabataean and not Arabic, part of it Roman and not Arabic, and part of it Abyssinian and not Arabic (1), after God, exalted be His mention, informed about it that He made it an Arabic Qur'an. For if that were so, then the statement of someone saying: "The Qur'an is Abyssinian or Persian," and the attribution of someone who attributed it to some of the tongues of nations in whose language part of it is, to the exclusion of the Arabs—would be no more deserving of elaboration than the statement of someone saying (2): "It is Arabic." Nor would the statement of someone saying: "It is Arabic" be more deserving of correctness and accuracy than
Notes
(1) In the printed edition and manuscript, "and part of it is Arabic, not Persian" appears in place of "and part of it is Roman, not Arabic," which corrupts the meaning, so I preferred to establish what the context of the speech requires. The Romans were mentioned previously on p. 16.
(2) In the printed edition: "bi-l-taṭawwul" [by lengthiness], and al-Ṭabarī intended by his phrase "al-taṭwīl" attributing the statement to exaggeration and license in speech, such that the description with one of the attributes consumes all other attributes. The speech of al-Ṭabarī requires further explanation—from the beginning of his statement: "That is because it is not permissible to imagine..." to his statement: "Nor is it permissible to attribute it to the speech of the Arabs." So I say:
al-Ṭabarī intended to say: It is not logically sound for a man to be a believer in the Book of Allah, knowing its meanings and limits, affirming that news has come from his Lord that He made the Qur'an an "Arabic Qur'an" and did not make it non-Arabic by His saying: {And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail? [Is it] a non-Arabic [recitation] and an Arab [messenger]?"}—then believe along with that: that part of the Qur'an is Persian, not Arabic, part of it is Nabataean, not Arabic, part of it is Roman, not Arabic, and part of it is Abyssinian, not Arabic. For if he does that, he has denied regarding part of the Qur'an that it is Arabic, while Allah describes the entire Qur'an as being Arabic, and he has established for part of the Qur'an that it is non-Arabic, while Allah Almighty denies regarding all of it that it is non-Arabic.
And the report of Allah Almighty concerning His Book that He made it an "Arabic Qur'an" is a comprehensive description whose scope no one is permitted to specify to part of the Qur'an to the exclusion of another part. If anyone were permitted to specify its scope on his own initiative, saying: "Part of the Qur'an is Abyssinian, not Arabic, or Persian, not Arabic...", it would also be permissible for a speaker to say on his own initiative: "The Qur'an is Abyssinian, or Persian, or Roman, or non-Arabic."
Al-Ṭabarī's argument in that is: the one who specifies the scope of the description on his own initiative for part of the Qur'an as being Arabic, while saying that another part of it is described as Abyssinian, Persian, or Roman, claims that describing the Qur'an as Arabic is construed as giving preponderance to one of the descriptions over all other descriptions. If that were permissible, it would be permissible for a speaker to say: "The Qur'an is Abyssinian, or Persian, or Roman," because he did the same, giving preponderance to one of the descriptions over the other descriptions.
And if the one who limits himself to describing part of it says: "The Qur'an is Abyssinian or Persian," he would be no more entitled to be attributed to expansion in speech and exaggeration in description than the one who says: "The Qur'an is Arabic," because he also limited himself to describing part of it, thus expanding in speech and exaggerating in description.
And if what is in the Qur'an of Persian, Roman, Nabataean, and Abyssinian is equivalent to what is in it of Arabic, then the statement of the one who says: "The Qur'an is Arabic," is no more entitled to correctness and accuracy than the statement of the one who says: "The Qur'an is Persian or Abyssinian," for both applied the description of one of the two equivalents to the other. If it were permissible for one of them to do that while being correct in his statement, the same would be permissible for the other while being correct in his statement.
And this is corruption of speech and contradiction, contrary to the saying of the Exalted: {And if We had made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would have said, "Why are its verses not explained in detail? [Is it] a non-Arabic [recitation] and an Arab [messenger]?"}. This is a testimony from Allah Almighty that He did not make it non-Arabic, just as it is His testimony, Glorified be He, that He made it an "Arabic Qur'an." The school of thought of this speaker required saying: "The Qur'an is Abyssinian or Persian," just as it is said: "The Qur'an is Arabic," equally. So this contradicted the statement of Allah, Glorified be He. This is a statement that "it is not permissible to imagine regarding someone of sound natural disposition, who affirms the Book of Allah, among those who read the Qur'an and know the limits of Allah," as al-Ṭabarī, May Allah have mercy on him, said.
Thus, the statement of the one among the Predecessors (Salaf) who said: "In the Qur'an there is from every language," does not mean that there is in it what is not Arabic that cannot be attributed to the language of the Arabs; rather, its meaning is that there are words in it used by the Arabs, and these words themselves are among those used by the Persians, the Romans, or the Abyssinians, by way of agreement of languages on using one word with one meaning, not by way of the word in the Qur'an being uniquely Persian and non-Arabic, or Roman and non-Arabic. For the Predecessors (Salaf) are more knowledgeable of the Book of Allah, its meanings, and its limits, and would not introduce corruption into their statements, contradicting Allah's testimony to His Book that it is Arabic, not non-Arabic.
This translation was produced with AI assistance and is part of an ongoing human-review process. Found a mistake? Use the feedback option in the reader menu.
Arabic (Source)
وذلك أنه غيرُ جائز أن يُتوهّم على ذي فطرة صحيحة، مقرّ بكتاب الله، ممن قد قرأ القرآن وعرف حدود الله -أن يعتقد أنّ بعضَ القرآن فارسي لا عربيّ، وبعضه نبطي لا عربيّ، وبعضه روميّ لا عربيّ، وبعضه حبشي لا عربي (١) ، بعد ما أخبر الله تعالى ذكرُه عنه أنه جعله قرآنًا عربيًّا. لأن ذلك إنْ كان كذلك، فليس قولُ القائل: القرآن حبشيٌّ أو فارسيٌّ، ولا نسبةُ من نسبه إلى بعض ألسن الأمم التي بعضُه بلسانه دون العرب- بأولى بالتطويل من قول القائل (٢) : هو عربي. ولا قولُ القائل: هو عربيٌّ بأولى بالصّحة والصواب من
Notes
(١) في المطبوع والمخطوط "وبعضه عربي لا فارسي" مكان "وبعضه رومي لا عربي"، وهو فاسد المعنى فآثرت أن أثبت ما يقتضيه سياق الكلام. وقد ذكر الروم آنفًا في ص ١٦.(٢) في المطبوعة: "بالتطول" وأراد الطبري بقوله "التطويل" نسبة القول إلى التزيد والسعة في الكلام، حتى يستغرق الوصف بإحدى الصفات سائر الصفات الأخرى. وكلام الطبري يحتاج إلى فضل بيان - من أول قوله: "وذلك أنه غير جائز أن يتوهم.." إلى قوله: "ولا جائز نسبته إلى كلام العرب". فأقول:أراد الطبري أن يقول: إنه لا يستقيم في العقل أن يكون الرجل مؤمنًا بكتاب الله، عارفًا بمعانيه وحدوده، مقرًا بأن الخبر قد جاء من ربه أنه جعل القرآن "قرآنا عربيا"، ولم يجعله أعجميا بقوله "ولو جعلناه قرآنا أعجميا لقالوا لولا فصلت آياته أأعجمي وعربي"- ثم يعتقد مع ذلك: أن بعض القرآن فارسي لا عربي، وبعضه نبطي لا عربي، وبعضه رومي لا عربي، وبعضه حبشي لا عربي. فإنه إن فعل، فقد نفى عن بعض القرآن أنه عربي، والله يصف القرآن كله بأنه عربي. وأثبت لبعض القرآن أنه أعجمي، والله تعالى ينفي عن جميعه أنه أعجمي.وخبر الله تعالى عن كتابه أنه جعله "قرآنا عربيا" صفة شاملة لا يجوز لأحد أن يخصص شمولها على بعض القرآن دون بعض. ولو جاز لأحد أن يخصص شمولها من عند نفسه فيقول: "بعض القرآن حبشي لا عربي، أو فارسي لا عربي.."، لجاز أيضًا لقائل أن يقول من عند نفسه: "القرآن حبشي أو فارسي أو رومي، أو أعجمي".وحجة الطبري في ذلك: أن الذي يخصص شمول الصفة من عند نفسه على بعض القرآن بأنه عربي، ويقول إن بعضه الآخر يوصف بأنه حبشي أو فارسي أو رومي- يدعى أن وصف القرآن بأنه عربي، محمول على تغليب إحدى الصفات على سائر الصفات الأخرى. ولو جاز ذلك، لجاز لقائل أن يقول: "القرآن حبشي أو فارسي أو رومي"، لأنه فعل مثله، فغلب إحدى الصفات على الصفات الأخرى.وإذا اقتصر المقتصر على صفة بعضه فقال: "القرآن حبشي أو فارسي"، لم يكن أولى بأن ينسب إلى التوسع في الكلام والتزيد في الصفة، من القائل: "القرآن عربي"، لأنه اقتصر أيضًا على صفة بعضه، فتوسع في الكلام وتزيد في الصفة.
وإذا كان ما في القرآن من فارسي ورومي ونبطي وحبشي، نظير ما فيه من عربي، فليس قول القائل: "القرآن عربي"، أولى بالصحة والصواب من قول القائل: "القرآن فارسي أو حبشي"، فكلاهما أطلق صفة أحد النظيرين على الآخر. وإذا جاز لأحدهما أن يفعل ذلك مصيبًا في قوله، جاز للآخر مثله مصيبًا في قوله.
وهذا فساد من القول وتناقض، ومخالف لقوله تعالى: "ولو جعلناه قرآنًا أعجميا لقالوا لولا فصلت آياته أأعجمي وعربي"، فهذه شهادة من الله تعالى بأنه لم يجعله أعجميًا، كشهادته سبحانه بأنه جعله "قرآنًا عربيا". وقد اقتضى مذهب هذا القائل أن يقال: "القرآن حبشي أو فارسي". كما يقال: "القرآن عربي" سواء. فناقض هذا قول الله سبحانه. وهذا قول "غير جائز أن يتوهم على ذي فطرة صحيحة، مقر بكتاب الله، ممن قرأ القرآن، وعرف حدود الله" كما قال الطبري رحمه الله.
وإذن فقول القائل من السلف: "في القرآن من كل لسان"، ليس يعني به أن فيه ما ليس بعربي مما لا يجوز أن ينسب إلى لسان العرب- بل معناه أن فيه ألفاظًا استعملتها العرب، وهذه الألفاظ أنفسها مما استعملته الفرس أو الروم أو الحبش، على جهة اتفاق اللغات على استعمال لفظ واحد بمعنى واحد، لا على جهة انفراد الكلمة من القرآن بأنها فارسية غير عربية، أو رومية غير عربية. فإن السلف أعرف بكتاب الله وبمعانيه وبحدوده، لا يدخلون الفساد في أقوالهم، مناقضين شهادة الله لكتابه بأنه عربي غير أعجمي.
