From the first centuries of Islam until today, one claim has stood at the center of Muslim apologetics: the Quran is “inimitable.” No human being can match its language, its style, or its arrangement. This claim is called i’jaz al-Qur’an—the alleged incapacity of all humanity and jinn to produce anything comparable. On this basis, Muslims insist that the Quran proves itself divine. You do not need archaeology, fulfilled prophecy, or historical verification; you only need to hear or read its Arabic, they say, and you will know it comes from God.

On paper, it sounds impressive. The Quran contains “challenges” where Allah tells doubters to bring a chapter like it, or even ten chapters, if they think it is from a human prophet rather than from heaven. Islamic preachers repeat this challenge as if no one has ever even tried and as if every neutral expert agrees that the book sits in a category all by itself.

Behind the slogans, the reality looks very different.

Pre-Islamic Arabia already possessed a rich, sophisticated poetic tradition. Master poets such as Imru’l-Qays, Antarah, and Zuhayr composed odes that Arab audiences memorized and recited for centuries. Later classical authors produced prose and poetic works that every educated Arab recognizes as towering achievements. Muslim grammarians and commentators themselves admit that the Quran contains non-Arabic words, irregular grammar, and abrupt transitions that they struggle to explain. And whenever critics or rival writers took up the Quran’s challenge, their work was not calmly weighed and compared; it was banned, burned, or treated as blasphemy.

The Bible never offers this kind of linguistic dare. Jehovah does not say, “Write a chapter with better Hebrew rhythm and you can disprove Me.” Scripture grounds its authority in historical acts of God, fulfilled prophecy, moral purity, and the self-attesting witness of the Spirit through the Word. Style matters, but content and truth matter more. The Quran, by contrast, leans heavily on rhetorical flair and poetic rhythm to cover doctrinal contradiction, historical error, and moral failure.

When we examine the i’jaz claim in the light of actual Arabic literature and honest linguistic scrutiny, the picture becomes clear: the Quran is a strong seventh-century Arabic composition. It is not a linguistic miracle, and it is certainly not the voice of the Creator of the universe.

I’jaz Claims vs. Actual Pre-Islamic Masters (Imru’l-Qays, Antarah, Zuhayr)

At the core of i’jaz stands a simple argument: the Quran’s style is so unique and powerful that no one before or after Muhammad has ever matched it. Therefore, the Author must be divine. To evaluate that, we have to ask: “Compared to what?” If we look only at the Quran and at believers’ praise for it, of course it will appear unparalleled. But if we place it alongside the best of pre-Islamic poetry, the claim begins to crumble.

Before Muhammad, the Arabs treasured long odes known as qasidas. These were not primitive campfire chants. They followed a carefully structured pattern: opening with a nostalgic stop at the abandoned campsite of a beloved, moving through desert journeys, boasting of tribal honor, and ending with moral reflections or praise of a patron. The language was highly concentrated, full of vivid imagery and intricate rhyme. The most celebrated examples, the Mu’allaqat (“the hanging poems”), were reputedly honored by being displayed in the Kaaba itself.

Imru’l-Qays, for example, describes his horse racing through a storm so intensely that later readers feel the spray of rain and the thud of hooves. Antarah, the warrior-poet of mixed heritage, blends love poetry with bold battle scenes and reflections on honor and shame. Zuhayr crafts moral meditations that condemn unjust wars, praise peacemakers, and wrestle with the brevity of life. Their lines compress complex thought into tight, musical Arabic that even modern secular Arab authors revere.

When the Quran appeared, it did not come into a vacuum. The Arabs who first heard it were steeped in this poetic world. Their very accusation that Muhammad was “a poet” and that the Quran was “poetry” and “magic” shows that they recognized it as the same family of rhetorical art, not as something utterly foreign. The Quran itself responds defensively: it says Muhammad is not a poet and that the revelation is not poetry. That exchange makes sense only if listeners had good reason to classify it as such.

Stylistically, the Quran uses saj’—rhymed prose that resembles the utterances of pre-Islamic soothsayers (kahins). Those fortune-tellers delivered oracles in short, rhymed, rhythmical lines. Many early suras sound strikingly similar: brief, pulsing phrases, heavy on oaths by natural phenomena, threatening judgment, and repeating sounds at line endings. The Quran’s later, longer suras move into a mix of prose-like stretches and poetic bursts but never settle into a pattern that no one else knew.

Muslim writers often point to the Quran’s blend of prose and poetry as unique. Yet uniqueness by itself proves nothing. Many authors in any language have personal styles that no one else reproduces exactly. Shakespeare’s mixture of blank verse and prose is distinct, but no one claims that because no one can write exactly like him, his plays must be divine. Originality is not the same as inspiration.

When we compare the Quran’s language with the best pre-Islamic odes, we find overlapping vocabulary, imagery, and rhythm. The Quran certainly has memorable passages, especially in the shorter Meccan suras. But so do the Mu’allaqat. The claim that the Quran towers above all Arabic expression in a way no impartial reader can miss is simply untrue. It is admired most intensely by those who already accept it as holy. Others may acknowledge its power but do not treat it as untouchable.

Jehovah’s Word is rich in style as well—Hebrew psalms, prophetic oracles, and the Greek of the New Testament letters all have beauty. Yet Christians do not build their entire apologetic on style. The Bible stands because Jehovah truly acted in history, inspired prophets, raised His Son from the dead, and preserved His Word. Islam, lacking this foundation, leans hard on i’jaz; once that pillar is examined, it falters.

Sarfa Doctrine: The Convenient “Allah Stopped Everyone Else from Matching It” Excuse

Early Muslims faced an obvious difficulty: if the Quran challenges doubters to produce something like it, and if many Arab poets and prose writers already possessed tremendous skill, why did no one take up the challenge publicly and defeat it? Why did opponents not simply unveil a rival sura and humiliate Muhammad?

Historically, some apparently did produce rival recitations and mock Qurans. But orthodox Islamic history paints them as objects of ridicule, and, more importantly, later political power made possession of such texts dangerous. When the caliphs enforced blasphemy penalties, no one could openly present rival scriptures and survive.

Even within Islamic scholarship itself, some theologians recognized that the “linguistic miracle” claim had problems. Their solution became known as sarfa. According to this doctrine, the Quran is not inherently beyond imitation; rather, Allah intervenes to prevent others from matching it. He “turns away” or “diverts” would-be competitors so they can never equal its style. In other words, the miracle is not in the text alone but in the invisible blockade God places on human ability.

This move unintentionally concedes the main point. If the language were naturally incomparable, there would be no need for Allah to restrain people. Sarfa exists precisely because sharp minds recognized that, given enough effort, skilled Arab poets could craft something very similar. The doctrine functions as a theological escape hatch: when the empirical evidence does not support inimitability, blame an unseen intervention.

Sarfa also empties the Quran’s own challenge of meaning. If Allah has predetermined that no one can meet the challenge, then it is not a genuine open contest; it is a rhetorical trap. Imagine a street preacher who says, “If you do not believe my book is from God, try writing one like it—but God will secretly cripple your mind so you cannot.” That is not proof; it is circular reasoning.

The God of the Bible does not play such games. When He exposes idols in Isaiah, He calls them to foretell the future or explain past events, and then He allows history to expose them as false. Jehovah does not secretly sabotage their prophets so that His case will look stronger. He simply speaks truth, which stands openly against lies.

Sarfa exposes the problem at the heart of i’jaz. If the Quran’s language were self-evidently divine, Muslim scholars would not need to claim that God handicaps everyone else. The very existence of this doctrine shows that honest readers, including some inside Islam, know that the Quran’s Arabic does not carry its own undeniable stamp of deity.

Foreign Words, Grammatical Errors, and Stylistic Flaws Muslim Scholars Quietly Admit

If the Quran were truly the flawless speech of the Creator in perfect Arabic, we would expect it to showcase immaculate grammar, pure vocabulary, and transparent structure. Instead, even classical Muslim scholars have acknowledged elements that break those expectations. They do not deny these issues; they reinterpret them.

Consider vocabulary first. The Quran contains many words that are clearly borrowed from other languages. Terms for religious concepts and objects appear that derive from Hebrew, Aramaic-Syriac, Ethiopic, Persian, and Greek. Examples include the words for Gospel, Torah, paradise, certain garments and materials, coins, and stories. Muslim scholars long ago noticed this and either labeled such terms as “arabized” foreign words or argued that all languages ultimately belong to Allah, so borrowing is no problem.

From a linguistic standpoint, however, this undermines the Quran’s claim to be “clear Arabic.” The presence of loanwords in itself is not unusual—languages constantly borrow from each other. The issue is what it does to the argument that the book’s Arabic is uniquely pure and unparalleled. If it depends on foreign religious vocabulary, that suggests influence from surrounding Jewish and Christian communities, exactly as historical investigation shows.

Grammar provides even sharper examples. In several verses, the expected agreement between adjectives and nouns is broken, case endings shift unexpectedly, or feminine and masculine forms do not match their subjects. Muslim grammarians have written long discussions trying to harmonize such cases, calling them permissible irregularities or “eloquent deviations.” But the very need for such defenses shows that the issues are real.

A famous case appears where a plural feminine participle is followed by a masculine plural adjective, creating a mismatch that commentators must explain away. Another verse uses a singular verb where classical grammar would expect a plural. Elsewhere, sudden shifts in person and number within a single passage make the narrative hard to follow. Readers move abruptly from “they” to “you” to “he” without clear markers, leaving interpreters to reconstruct the implied audience.

Then there is the question of structure. The Quran is not arranged chronologically or by subject. Long suras mix short exhortations, stories, legal rulings, oaths, and threats with abrupt transitions. One moment, the text addresses vague “people”; the next, it speaks to Muhammad directly; then it turns to believers, then to unbelievers, without always distinguishing when the shift occurs. This patchwork quality makes reading difficult. Classical commentators admit that some verses were revealed years apart and later stitched into larger chapters.

Muslim apologists try to turn this into a virtue, speaking of a unique “ring structure” or miraculous coherence detectable only through intricate analysis. Yet when a text requires complex diagrams and decades of study just to trace basic connections, that is not a sign of supernatural clarity. Jehovah’s Word certainly contains deep structures and layers, but it also gives straightforward narratives and teachings that ordinary readers can follow. The Gospels tell the life of Jesus in a recognizable order. The Law presents commandments and case applications in accessible form. Letters move through arguments with logical connectors.

The Quran’s stylistic flaws go beyond complexity. At points, its wording appears to violate its own claim of consistency. Stories are repeated with differing details, sometimes in ways that cannot be harmonized without stretching the text. Numbers change, names are left out or altered, and events known from earlier Scripture are reshaped. When the book narrates historical events, it often compresses or rearranges them to fit rhetorical patterns, then uses those patterns to threaten judgment on those who doubt.

From Jehovah’s standpoint, language serves truth; it does not conceal it. The Bible’s human authors wrote in ordinary Hebrew and Greek, with dialectal variation and personal style, yet under inspiration that preserved them from error in what they taught. By contrast, the Quran, claiming to be the literal dictation of God, stumbles even on grammatical and structural levels. To call such a composition “inimitable” requires intense loyalty, not objective evaluation.

Challenge Accepted: Modern Arabic Attempts That Were Buried or Declared Haram

If the Quran invites humanity to produce something similar as a way of verifying its divine origin, one might expect Muslim scholars to welcome attempts as valuable data. In reality, the opposite has happened. Whenever anyone—Muslim, ex-Muslim, or non-Muslim—has tried to respond to the challenge, the reaction has not been calm comparison but censorship and outrage.

In early Islamic history, some opponents of Muhammad reportedly composed rival verses that mimicked Quranic style but substituted different content, often in a mocking way. Stories circulate of satirical “surahs” about animals or daily life that imitated rhymed prose. Islamic sources preserve fragments of these only to condemn their authors as fools, and later political and religious enforcement wiped out most such material. Once reciting anything like a rival scripture could be punished as apostasy or blasphemy, very few were willing to risk their lives to produce extended works.

In more recent times, some Christian and secular Arab writers have produced texts formatted in surah style, using high-level Arabic, to show that the Quran’s structure can be replicated. Some of these works included moral and doctrinal content drawn from the Bible, exposing the contrast between Christ’s message and Muhammad’s. Reactions throughout the Muslim world followed a predictable pattern: bans from governments, denunciations from clerics, threats against translators and publishers, and in some cases, prosecutions under blasphemy laws.

Even within Muslim circles, proposals that any literary masterpiece might equal or surpass the Quran provoke near hysterical responses. A novelist who hints that a modern work of fiction carries more nuanced psychological insight than many Quranic passages risks accusations of insulting the sacred text. When free discussion is dangerous, genuine literary judgment becomes almost impossible.

This proves something important. The Quran’s challenge is not being “met” or “unmet” on a level playing field. It is guarded by legal and social intimidation. Young Muslims hear all their lives that no one has answered the challenge, but they are seldom allowed to read those who have tried, much less examine their work objectively. They are told that the Quran is peerless, while the very structures of their societies make serious comparison forbidden.

Christianity has no equivalent. Critics have mocked the Bible in every language, rewritten its stories, and created parody “gospels.” While such blasphemy is grievous sin before Jehovah, the church has no divine mandate to silence every literary rival with state power. The Word of God stands confident amid a sea of imitations. Its strength rests not on suppressing competitors but on the reality of Christ’s resurrection, the coherence of biblical theology, and the transforming power of the Gospel.

When a book requires blasphemy codes and censorship to protect its alleged inimitability, it confesses its own weakness. The Quran’s challenge survives not because no one can write anything like it, but because the cost of trying can be severe in many Islamic contexts.

Why No Neutral Linguist Outside the Faith Has Ever Called It the Greatest Arabic Text

Another problem for the i’jaz claim becomes obvious when we ask a simple question: if the Quran is the single greatest piece of Arabic ever composed, recognized as such by any fair expert, where are the neutral linguists who say so?

Arab secular scholars and Western Arabists certainly acknowledge the Quran’s importance. It shaped classical Arabic, influenced grammar and lexicography, and played a major role in the language’s standardization. Many admire its shorter suras for their rhetorical punch. But admiration is not the same as worship, and recognition of importance is not the same as a verdict of inimitability.

Outside Islamic apologetic circles, one finds no consensus that the Quran is uniquely unsurpassable. Some scholars prefer pre-Islamic poetry for its depth of imagery and emotional honesty. Others point to classical prose writers—historians, essayists, and stylists—whose Arabic displays clarity, subtlety, and precision that the Quran often lacks. Grammarians such as Sibawayh, stylists like al-Jahiz, and later masters of maqama prose all contributed to what many consider the high points of Arabic expression.

In modern times, Arabic novels, plays, and poetry collections have won international recognition. Their authors wrestle with modern themes, human psychology, and philosophical questions in ways that many readers find more profound than the Quran’s often repetitive moralizing. Even devout Muslims may admit privately that they enjoy these works more as literature, while still believing the Quran remains sacred. Their religious belief, not neutral aesthetic judgment, keeps the Quran at the top.

If the Quran’s inimitability were obvious, we would expect non-Muslim experts in Arabic to echo that verdict, even if they did not accept its theology. Instead, they treat it as a historically significant text with strengths and weaknesses like any other. Some praise its poetic sections; others criticize its disjointed structure or unclear references. None are compelled by linguistic evidence alone to confess, “This must be from God.”

Jehovah does not need such fragile arguments. The truth of His Word does not depend on a particular theory of literary style. The Psalms are inspired whether or not secular critics like their Hebrew parallelism. The Gospel of Mark is inspired whether or not scholars think its Greek is polished. The authority of Scripture rests on God’s own act of breathing it out, on the testimony of the risen Christ, and on the Spirit’s work through the text.

Islam lacks that anchor. Without fulfilled prophecy about the Messiah, without a sinless Savior, without a real atoning sacrifice, and without a resurrection, it leans on linguistic bravado. Once that bravado is confronted with the full range of Arabic literature and with neutral scholarship, its force evaporates. The Quran remains an important document of seventh-century Arabia, not a universally acknowledged masterpiece of supernatural origin.

Verdict: Superb for Its Time—Divine? Not Even Close

Gathering the threads, the picture is undeniable.

The Quran entered a world that already revered formidable poets like Imru’l-Qays, Antarah, and Zuhayr. Its style, especially in early suras, drew on existing forms of rhymed prose and poetic cadence. The very accusations that Muhammad was a poet and a soothsayer prove that his contemporaries saw continuity, not an alien language from heaven.

As the i’jaz claim developed, Muslim scholars realized that the allegedly inimitable text contained foreign vocabulary, grammatical irregularities, and evident patchwork structure. Some responded with elaborate explanations; others retreated into the sarfa doctrine, claiming that Allah simply blocks all rivals. That move conceded that the Arabic itself is not self-evidently unsurpassable.

Whenever opponents attempted to answer the Quran’s challenge with rival compositions, the reaction was not patient comparison but suppression, whether by ridicule in early sources or by legal punishment in later Islamic empires. Modern attempts have been banned, burned, or shouted down. The “unanswered challenge” survives largely because blasphemy laws and social pressure make answering it dangerous.

Outside the circle of faith, neutral linguists and Arabists do not speak of the Quran as the unsurpassed pinnacle of Arabic expression. They recognize it as central to the history of the language but do not join Muslim preachers in proclaiming its divinity. The i’jaz claim thus becomes a closed loop: Muslims believe the Quran is inimitable because the Quran says so and because they grew up hearing that no one has matched it, while evidence and alternative texts are kept at a distance.

From a Christian standpoint, this should not surprise us. Muhammad was not a prophet of Jehovah; he denied the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, twisted Old Testament history, and taught a salvation by works and warfare that directly contradicts the Gospel of grace. A false prophet can produce impressive rhetoric. False religions can sponsor powerful art. But polished Arabic cannot make error true.

Jehovah’s Word stands on a different foundation. The Bible’s authority rests on God’s own character, on centuries of fulfilled prophecy, on the incarnation, death, and resurrection of His Son, and on the inner witness of the Spirit through the Scriptures. Its languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—serve that message with clarity. Its literary beauty is real but not the ultimate proof. The message itself, centered on Christ’s atoning sacrifice, bears the mark of divine wisdom: it humbles human pride and exalts the cross.

When Muslims say, “No one can produce a sura like the Quran,” the answer is straightforward. First, many have produced Arabic texts with equal or greater literary merit; they are simply not allowed into the discussion. Second, even if the Quran were the finest Arabic ever written, that would not prove it came from God. The true standard is doctrinal and historical truth. On that field, the Quran fails, and the Bible prevails.

So the verdict is clear. The Quran is a remarkable seventh-century Arabic composition, shaped by its time, echoing earlier poetry, and preserved by a religious community that treats it as untouchable. It is not a linguistic miracle. It is not the speech of the holy God who revealed Himself to Abraham, Moses, the prophets, and finally in Jesus Christ. It is superb for its time—divine? Not even close.

You May Also Enjoy

Treaty of Hudaybiyyah: Masterclass in Deceit and Taqiyya (628 C.E.)

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS