Обсуждение:Единство текста Корана

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Naẓm

1. In metrical speech. Literally meaning “stringing (pearls, beads, etc.)”, in early ʿAbbāsid times naẓm acquired the meaning of “versifying”, “versification”, and became almost synonymous with “poetry”, s̲h̲iʿr [q.v.], especially when contrasted with prose, nat̲h̲r , literally “scattering”. The comparison of a poem to a necklace, or verses to pearls, is apt in view of the relative independence of the individual verses, held together on the string of the uniform metre and rhyme. The image has pre-ʿAbbāsid origins, and although the noun naẓm was not used in the sense of “verse” until later (and Ḳudāma b. D̲j̲aʿfar [q.v.] still does not do so in his poetics), at least the related verb had already been used, when the 1st/7th century poet al-Nad̲j̲ās̲h̲ī said Sa-anẓimu min ḥurri ’l-kalāmi ḳaṣīdatan “I shall string/compose an ode of noble speech” (al-Ḥātimī, Ḥilyat al-muḥāḍara , Bag̲h̲dād 1979, i, 426). Yet Abū Nuwās [q.v.] could still speak, in an ode addressed to al-Amīn, of “my scattering ( nat̲h̲rī ) pearls on you” ( Dīwān , ed. Wagner, i, 241). The many discussions on the relative merits of prose and poetry regularly employ the terms naẓm and nat̲h̲r (on this debate, see e.g. Ziyad al-Zuʿbī, Das Verhältnis von Poesie und Prosa in der arabischen Literatur-theorie des Mittelalters , Berlin 1987). Not rarely, however, a distinction is made between s̲h̲iʿr as “true” poetry and naẓm as merely versifying, i.e. either prosodically correct but unintentionally bad poetry, or didactive verse (see e.g. Isḥāḳ b. Ibrāhīm b. Wahb, al-Burhān , Cairo 1969, 130; Ibn K̲h̲aldūn, The Muqaddimah , tr. F. Rosenthal, Princeton 1967, iii, 381-2).

(G.J.H. van Gelder)

2. In Ḳurʾānic studies. Here, the “arrangement of pearls on a string” is used metaphorically to indicate “ordering of words- cum -meanings”, i.e. “composition” (note that taʾlīf is sometimes used synonymously with naẓm), or, more freely, the “style” of the Ḳurʾān. In this sense it is closely connected with the discussions of the dogma of iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān [q.v.]; more particularly, it is evidently the backbone of the conception of iʿd̲j̲āz as “stylistic inimitability” of the Ḳurʾān.

The first known work devoted to this notion is the K. fi ’l-iḥtid̲j̲ād̲j̲ li-naẓm al-Ḳurʾān wa-salāmatihī min al-ziyāda wa ’l-nuḳṣān of al-D̲j̲āḥiẓ (d. 255/868-9 [q.v.]), which is unfortunately lost (Ch. Pellat’s reference in Nouvel essai d’inventaire de l’œuvre Ǧāḥiẓienne , in Arabica , xxxi [1984], 117ff., no. 191, to a ms. copy of this work preserved in the Escorial library is erroneous, see J. van Ess, Theologie , vi, 314). The work is usually cited with the brief title Naẓm al-Ḳurʾān . Al-Ḵh̲ayyāṭ describes it as follows: “No book is known concerning the argument for the well-orderedness (naẓm) and the wondrous composition of the Ḳurʾān, and that it is proof for the prophethood of Muḥammad—God bless him—, except the book of al-D̲j̲āḥiẓ” ( al-Intiṣār , ed. A.N. Nader [Beirut 1957], 111). This description contains all the elements of the iʿd̲j̲āz concept, as generally adopted later. Al-D̲j̲āḥiẓ radically breaks with the ṣarfa notion of his teacher al-Naẓẓām [q.v.], who did not believe that the composition of the Ḳurʾān ¶ was stylistically unattainable and who thought that Muḥammad’s pagan contemporaries, challenged to produce something like a sūra, were “turned away” by God from carrying out this task.

Claude Audebert has compiled a list of works on naẓm up to the time of al-K̲h̲aṭṭābī, eight in all ( al-Ḫaṭṭābī , 58-61). The most explicit title—and mostly we have but titles—is the one given to the Muʿtazilī al-Wāsiṭī’s (d. 306/918 or 307/919) book: K. Iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān fī naẓmihī wa-taʾlīfih (ibid., 59). It states the connection between iʿd̲j̲āz and naẓm and the near-synonymity of naẓm and taʾlīf It is remarkable that the authors of these works are partly mutakallimūn and partly traditionists.

Al-Ḵh̲aṭṭābī (d. 386/996 or 388/998 [q.v.]), in his treatise Bayān iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān , postulates a triad of elements that make up “speech” ( kalām ), namely, lafẓun ḥāmilun wa-maʿnan bihī ḳāʾimun wa-ribāṭun lahumā nāẓim “words as carriers, meaning subsisting in them, and a connection that orders both of them” (ed. M. Ḵh̲alaf Allāh and M.Z. Salām, 24 l. 11; tr. Audebert, al-Ḫaṭṭābī, 120, cf. also 87). The third element is usually called naẓm; al-K̲h̲aṭṭābī not infrequently also uses the plural nuẓūm to refer to the syntactic-stylistic “structures” or “molds” (this plural is not in the dictionaries). In all three elements the Ḳurʾān is the superior text, as the continuation of the quoted passage says. The workings of naẓm are several times metaphorically characterised (the various “types of ordering” [ rusūm al-naẓm ] are a “bridle on the words and a rein on the meanings” [ lid̲j̲ām al-alfāẓ wa-zimām al-maʿānī ]; cf. ed., 33; tr. 128), but not defined and explicitly discussed. A large part of al-Ḵh̲aṭṭābī’s Bayān is devoted to linguistic-stylistic criticisms (i.e. criticisms of the naẓm) of Ḳurʾānic passages by others, followed by the author’s refutation (al-Ḫaṭṭābī, 97-102).

Al-Bāḳillānī (d. 403/1013 [q.v.]), in his Iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān , lists the excellent naẓm of the Ḳurʾān as the third reason for its inimitability (after [1] prophesysing passages, and [2] the illiteracy of the Prophet, which proves Divine instruction about creation, etc.). He enumerates ten aspects of this naẓm: (1) The Ḳurʾān is sui generis as a literary genre (35). (2) The Arabs had not produced any eloquent text of such enormous length (36). (3) The Ḳurʾān is homogeneously eloquent in all its subgenres ( wujūh ), such as narratives, admonitions, argumentations, etc., whereas a poet may excel in panegyrics but not in invective, or vice versa (36-8). (4) The smooth transition from one topic to the next in the Ḳurʾān is unrivalled (38). (5) Not only man is unable to produce anything similar to it, but so are the jinn (38-41). (6) All stylistic and rhetorical possibilities occur in the Ḳurʾān (42). (7) Expressing new ideas, rather than well-worn ones, with beautiful words is the highest level of language mastership ( barāʿa ); this the Ḳurʾān does when it speaks about legal and religious matters (42). (8) When a Ḳurʾānic phrase is quoted, it stands out in its new textual surrounding through its beauty (42-4). (9) The “mysterious letters” at the beginning of twenty-eight sūras show an amazingly regular selection of phonemes, when measured against the various groups of phonemes that the grammarians have established (44-6). (10) The style of the Ḳurʾān is easy though impossible to imitate ( ḳarīban ilā ’l-afhāmi yubādiru maʿnāhu ’l-lafẓa ilā ’l-ḳalb … wa-huwa maʿa d̲h̲ālika mumtaniʿu ’l-maṭlab ); it is equally distant from lexical uncouthness ( waḥs̲h̲ī ) and unusualness ( g̲h̲arīb ) [q.vv.], on the one hand, and from affected artfulness ( al-ṣanʿa al-mutakkallafa ), on the other (46).

The list clearly shows that al-Bāḳillānī is not interested in the micro-analysis of what constitutes naẓm, ¶ nor does he establish, as al-K̲h̲aṭṭābī does, the strict correlation between naẓm and the two other elements of speech, “words” and “meaning”. He focuses more on the overall linguistic-literary quality of the Ḳurʾānic text.

ʿAbd al-Ḳāhir al-D̲j̲urd̲j̲ānī (d. 471/1078 or 474/1081 [q.v. in Suppl.]), in his Dalāʾil al-iʿd̲j̲āz (“Proofs for the Inimitability”), comes again closer to al-K̲h̲aṭṭābī, who may be called his precursor in matters of naẓm. But al-D̲j̲urd̲j̲ānī surpasses him by far. Over hundreds of pages he subjects Ḳurʾānic phrases, or syntactic phenomena in general, to the most painstaking semantic analysis and thus manages to fill the notion of naẓm with real content. He defines it as tawak̲h̲k̲h̲ī maʿānī ’l-naḥw (“minding the meanings of syntactic relations”). The syntactic-semantic phenomena discussed include inter alia: word order ( taḳdīm wa-taʾk̲h̲īr ), ellipsis ( ḥad̲h̲f ), syndetic and asyndetic coordination ( waṣl wa-faṣl ), and the various functions of the sentence-initial particle inna (see also Weisweiler, in Bibl .)

The “ordering” (naẓm) creates a specific shape/form ( ṣūra ) for a general g̲h̲araḍ (“intention”) in the mind and, parallel to it, in the language; the meaning ( maʿnā ) and the expression/wording ( lafẓ ) of a proposition ( kalām ) thus become mirror images. The inherited but, according to al-D̲j̲urd̲j̲ānī, misunderstood dichotomy lafẓ-maʿnā is thus reinterpreted: the wording (lafẓ) is no longer a “garment” for a “naked” maʿnā. The two are inseparable, no “meaning” can be expressed by two “wordings” equally well; the two “wordings” would express two different “meanings”.

K. Abu Deeb ( Poetic imagery , 24-64) and, more recently, N. Kermani ( Gott ist schön , 253-84, esp. 264, and n. 144) have argued that, with many of his deep-cutting analyses, al-D̲j̲urd̲j̲ānī is a precursor of modern semanticists or even on a par with them. As a whole, his book is indeed highly original but not very well arranged. Fak̲h̲r al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209 [q.v.]) and al-Sakkākī (d. 626/1229 [q.v.]) later turned his ideas into a textbook format, thus creating the discipline called ʿilm al-maʿānī (i.e. maʿānī ’l-naḥw ) [see maʿānī wa-bayān ].

All authors so far discussed restrict the notion of naẓm to single Ḳurʾānic or poetic phrases (lines, verses). Ibn Ras̲h̲īḳ (d. 456/1063 or 463/1071 [q.v.]), in his handbook on poetry, includes a chapter on naẓm, in which this notion has at times a wider compass, referring as it does to the cohesion of consecutive lines ( ʿUmda , i, 258-63). A similar approach to structures within a sūra can sometimes be found in books on the Ḳurʾān. Al-K̲h̲aṭīb al-Iskāfī (d. 421/1030), in his exegetical work Durrat al-tanzīl wa-g̲h̲urrat al-taʾwīl fī bayān al-āyāt al-mutas̲h̲ābihāt fī Kitāb Allāh al-ʿazīz (Beirut 1995), several times tries to do just that: a “knitting of part to part”, as Hamori calls it ( Iskāfī , 40-2). Some scholars seem to have gone even further and asked about the meaning of the place, within the Ḳurʾān, of individual sūras. Al-Zarkas̲h̲ī (d. 794/1392 [q.v.]) mentions one Abū Bakr al-Nīsābūrī, who “whenever the Koran was read to him, used to ask: Why is this verse put next to that one? For what reason does this sūra stand next to that one?” (G.J. van Gelder, Beyond the line, Leiden 1982, 100; the author suggests that we are possibly dealing here with Abu ’l-Ḳāsim [!] al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad al-Nisābūrī, who wrote a Kitāb al-Tanzīl wa-tartībih , see n. 214). However, al-Zarkas̲h̲ī also mentions that this subject did not attract much attention ( al-Burhān fī ʿulūm al-Ḳurʾān , ed. M.A. Ibrāhīm, Cairo 1972, i, 36).

In the modern period this has changed. In the ¶ Indian subcontinent we find Ḥamīd al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd Farāhī (d. 1349/1930) and his disciple Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d. 1997) upholding the idea of the coherence (naẓm) of the Ḳurʾān on all levels (see M. Mir, Coherence , in Bibl.). The main motivation behind this seems to be traditional Orientalist criticism of the Ḳurʾān that stressed its structural incoherence on all levels. It should be noted that in more modern Western literary approaches the perceived “incoherence” is considered to be rather one of the strengths of the Holy Book (see Kermani, Gott ist schön, 281).

(W.P. Heinrichs)

Bibliography

1. Texts. K̲h̲aṭṭābī, Bayān iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān, ed. Muḥammad K̲h̲alaf Allāh and Muḥammad Zag̲h̲lūl Salām, in T̲h̲alāt̲h̲ rasāʾil fī iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān, Cairo n.d., 19-65, tr. C.F. Audebert, al-Ḫaṭṭābī et l’inimitabilité du Coran: traduction et introduction au Bayān iʿǧāz al-Ḳurʾān, Damascus 1982

Bāḳillānī, Kitāb Iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān, ed. al-Sayyid Aḥmad Ṣaḳr, Cairo 1963, 35-48

ʿAbd al-Ḳāhir al-D̲j̲urd̲j̲ānī, Dalāʾil al-iʿd̲j̲āz, ed. Maḥmūd Muḥammad S̲h̲ākir, Cairo 1404/1984

Ibn Ras̲h̲īḳ, al-ʿUmda fī maḥāsin al-s̲h̲iʿr wa-ādābih, ed. M.ʿA.A. ʿAṭā, 2 pts., Beirut 1422/2001.

2. Studies. J. van Ess, Theologie und Gesellschaft im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra. Eine Geschichte des religiösen Denkens im frühen Islam, 6 vols., Berlin New York 1991-7

Kamal Abu Deeb, Al-Jurjānī’s theory of poetic imagery, Warminster, Wilts. 1979

Navid Kermani, Gott ist schön. Das ästhetische Erleben des Koran, Munich 1999

Aḥmad Abū Zayd, Muqaddima fi ’l-uṣūl al-fikriyya li ’l-balāg̲h̲a wa-iʿd̲j̲āz al-Ḳurʾān, Rabat 1409/1989, 51-122

Andras Hamori, Did medieval readers make sense of form? Notes on a passage of al-Iskāfī, in A.H. Green (ed.), In quest of an Islamic humanism. Arabic and Islamic studies in memory of Mohamed al-Nowaihi, Cairo 1985, 39-47

Mustansir Mir, Coherence in the Qurʾān. A study of Iṣlāḥī’s concept of naẓm in Tadabbur-i Qurʾān, Indianapolis 1986.

Cite this page

van Gelder, G.J.H. and Heinrichs, W.P., “Naẓm”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 28 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_8857>