If the linguistic inimitability (iʿjāz) of the Qur'an is evidence for Muhammad's prophethood, why are non-Arabic speakers not convinced by it?

This is an important question raised by many: if the Qur'an is linguistically inimitable, why don't those who don't master Arabic perceive it? Doesn't this make the "inimitability" culturally limited?

Inadequate responses to avoid

From some Muslims: "The inimitability is clear to anyone who learns Arabic" is an oversimplification—many Orientalists mastered Arabic and were not convinced. "Non-Arabs cannot understand the inimitability" is an exclusionary position that contradicts the universality of the message. "Translations convey the inimitability" is inaccurate—most scholars believe that linguistic inimitability cannot be translated.

From some critics: "Therefore the Qur'an is not a universal miracle" is a logical leap—historical miracles were also limited in time and place. "Linguistic inimitability is merely a cultural claim" ignores detailed literary arguments. "If it were miraculous, all Arabs would have believed in it" is a historical error—faith is not merely a response to inimitability.

The philosophical nature of the question

The question raises deep epistemological issues: Can a miracle be culturally and linguistically limited yet remain a universal argument? How do we understand the relationship between language and religious truth? Is linguistic inimitability the sole argument or part of a broader system?

Serious positions in the debate

First, the position of "multi-dimensional inimitability." Al-Bāqillānī, al-Jurjānī, and others did not limit inimitability to the linguistic dimension alone. There is: legislative inimitability (a coherent ethical and legal system), alleged scientific inimitability (references interpreted scientifically), psychological inimitability (its effect on listeners), historical inimitability (alleged foretelling of the unseen). Non-Arabic speakers may perceive these dimensions.

Second, the position of "inimitability as a sign for the age." Every prophet came with a miracle suited to his era: Moses with magic in the age of magicians, Jesus with medicine in the age of physicians, Muhammad with eloquence in the age of eloquence. The miracle is primarily directed at those capable of evaluating it. This does not negate the universality of the message, just as Moses's miracles were only witnessed by the Children of Israel.

Third, the position of "transmitted testimony." Even if non-Arabs do not perceive the inimitability directly, the testimony of eloquent Arabs across centuries—Muslim and non-Muslim—to the Qur'an's linguistic uniqueness constitutes an indirect argument. Al-Walīd ibn al-Mughīra, Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Maʿarrī, Ṭaha Ḥusayn—all acknowledged the Qur'an's literary uniqueness despite their different positions.

Fourth, the position of "aesthetic experience transcending languages." Some contemporary thinkers (Navid Kermani in "God is Beautiful") see that Qur'anic beauty—in recitation and rhythm—can be partially perceived even without understanding the meaning. Many non-Arabs are affected by hearing the Qur'an before understanding it.

Historical and contemporary evidence

─ Many non-Arabs throughout history were convinced by Islam without perceiving linguistic inimitability: Persians, Turks, peoples of Southeast Asia.
─ Orientalists who mastered Arabic and acknowledged the Qur'an's uniqueness: A.J. Arberry described an "incomparable rhythm," Montgomery Watt acknowledged "exceptional literary power."
─ Modern translations (M.A.S. Abdel Haleem) attempt to convey something of the Qur'an's beauty, even if they don't convey complete inimitability.

Reframing the question

Perhaps the more precise question is: Is linguistic inimitability the sole or primary argument? Islamic tradition offers multiple arguments: rational (God's existence, possibility of prophethood), historical (Muhammad's biography and truthfulness), ethical (Qur'anic teachings), in addition to linguistic inimitability.

Where we stand in this debate today

Contemporary debate transcends limiting inimitability to the linguistic dimension. Even among Muslim scholars, there is discussion about the nature and scope of inimitability. Some focus on the Qur'an's internal coherence, others on its historical impact, and others on different dimensions.

For non-Arabic speakers, the Islamic argument does not depend on linguistic inimitability alone, but on a system of evidence and experiences. This does not negate the importance of linguistic inimitability as a central argument for the early Arabs and those who master their language.

For advanced reading

─ Intermediate level: The theory of inimitability in ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī
─ Advanced level: Contemporary debate on the "criterion of inimitability" and the possibility of measuring it
─ Navid Kermani, God is Beautiful (Polity, 2015)
─ "Theme: Ijaz" page on the website