Critiquing Islam 2.0

Best Arabic Ever?

Deconstructing the Linguistic Core of Qur’anic Inimitability

Among the most frequently repeated apologetic claims in Islamic discourse is this:

“The Qur’an is in perfect Arabic—no one can match its eloquence or beauty.”

This assertion underlies the iʿjāz al-Qur’ān doctrine and frames the Qur’an’s divine origin as self-evident from its style alone. But what does “perfect Arabic” mean? Is there a standard by which such a claim can be assessed? And does linguistic excellence—assuming it’s even proven—automatically imply divine authorship?

In this third post, we evaluate the “Best Arabic” claim through:

A linguistic breakdown of Qur’anic Arabic,
A comparison with other pre-Islamic and classical Arabic literature,
A philosophical analysis of the logic that equates stylistic beauty with divinity.

1. What Is Qur’anic Arabic? Classical, Mixed, or Evolved?

The Arabic of the Qur’an is often portrayed as the purest, most refined Arabic ever recorded. However, a critical linguistic analysis tells a more complicated story.

a. Dialects and Grammatical Variants

The Qur’an reflects features from multiple dialects—especially the Quraysh dialect—but also includes variations found in southern and northern Arabian tribes. It is not written in one uniform dialect but appears to blend grammatical forms and regional vocabulary.

Example: Some irregular plural formations (e.g., aṣḥāb vs. ṣāḥibūn) and verb conjugations are non-standard even within Qurayshi norms.
Scholars like Theodor Nöldeke, in Geschichte des Qorāns, documented cases of syntactic inconsistencies and non-standard grammatical constructions.

b. Foreign Vocabulary

The Qur’an contains a number of loanwords from other languages:

Hebrew/Aramaic: Torah, Injīl, Sakīnah, Jahannam
Syriac: Qistās, Firdaws
Persian: Zanjabīl, Sijjīl

Muslim scholars acknowledge this but argue these terms were “Arabized.” However, their presence undermines the idea of a uniquely “pure” Arabic text.

c. Rhythm vs. Grammar

The Qur’an’s language is highly rhythmic and repetitive, but often at the cost of grammatical regularity. For example:

Qur’an 20:63: “In hādhāni la-sāḥirāni”
Here, “hādhāni” (dual nominative) is used where the accusative form “hādhayn” would be grammatically correct. This has been defended via strained grammatical arguments, but the irregularity remains.

Conclusion: Qur’anic Arabic is neither uniformly grammatical nor dialectally pure. It is stylistically unique, but not demonstrably “perfect.”

2. Pre-Islamic Poetry: The Benchmark of Arabic Eloquence

The Qur’an itself was revealed into a culture that prized oral poetry as the highest form of expression. Pre-Islamic poets such as:

Imru’ al-Qays
Labīd ibn Rabī‘ah
Al-Khansā’
Antarah ibn Shaddād

were considered masters of Arabic eloquence long before Islam.

a. Muʿallaqāt vs. the Qur’an

The Muʿallaqāt—seven (or ten) long pre-Islamic odes—are often cited as the pinnacle of classical Arabic style. Unlike the Qur’an, which uses rhymed prose (sajʿ), the Muʿallaqāt follow a strict metrical and rhyming pattern (qaṣīda form).

Modern Arabists and classical Muslim scholars alike have acknowledged that these odes demonstrate linguistic mastery, and in some cases, superior poetic cohesion.

Labīd, one of the Muʿallaqāt poets, converted to Islam—and famously stopped writing poetry. Muslim tradition takes this as proof of the Qur’an’s supremacy. But critically, it may reflect the social transformation of poetry’s role, not a recognition of divine superiority.

b. Contemporaries of Muhammad

The Qur’an accuses poets of deception and empty speech (Qur’an 26:224–226), yet admits that the poets were producing similar styles:

“It is but poetry of the sort that they invent.” (Qur’an 52:30)

If the Qur’an’s language was instantly and obviously divine, why would it be mistaken for poetry?

Conclusion: The Qur’an was immersed in and competing with a vibrant literary culture. It may have surpassed some poetry in rhetorical impact, but not in form, consistency, or technical rigor.

3. Comparative Literature: Style Does Not Prove Source

Even if we grant that the Qur’an is stylistically unique, the question remains: Does uniqueness or eloquence prove divinity?

a. Other “Inimitable” Texts

Every literary tradition claims its greatest works are “unmatched”:

Shakespeare is considered inimitable in English.
Dante’s Divine Comedy is seen as the highest Italian literary achievement.
Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey were considered sacred by Greeks.
Vedas are seen as divinely inspired in Sanskrit tradition.

If “uniqueness” or emotional power is the standard, every religion’s sacred texts could be declared divine. The Qur’an is not alone in being called inimitable—nor are such judgments anything more than cultural reverence.

b. No Objective Metric for “Best” Language

There is no linguistic test for what makes a language or text “best.” Eloquence is:

Culturally defined
Subjectively experienced
Dependent on reader fluency and background

A non-Arabic speaker cannot independently assess the claim. Most Muslims today do not understand Classical Arabic, and those who do still rely on tradition to tell them what to feel.

4. The Flawed Logic of “Best Arabic = Divine Origin”

Let’s break down the argument:

Premise: The Qur’an is the most eloquent Arabic.
Premise: No human can produce more eloquent Arabic.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Qur’an is from God.

This argument commits several fallacies:

False premise: It assumes no human can match it. That’s never been objectively tested.
Category error: Literary excellence doesn’t imply metaphysical origin.
Circularity: Eloquence is judged by tradition that already believes the text is divine.

Conclusion: Eloquence Is Not Evidence

The Qur’an’s Arabic is rich, poetic, and influential—but calling it the “best Arabic” is a theological assertion, not a linguistic fact. And even if it were proven to be “best,” this would not logically lead to divinity.

Many civilizations have held their sacred texts to be the most beautiful. The Qur’an is no exception. But beauty is not proof—and reverence is not evidence.