The Term Muqāranah in Premodern Arabic Culture

The adjective muqāran (comparative) is derived from the Arabic verb qārana, which generally means “to compare” or “to contrast.” The three-letter root of this verb, قرن (q-r-n), is associated with various idioms that generate multiple meanings related to the act of bringing two different objects together, either literally or metaphorically. For instance, the medieval expression qarana bayna al-zawjayn (قرن بين الزوجين ) means “to bring together the spouses,” and it signifies the act of fostering harmony and closeness between a married couple. Another expression, qarana bayna al-qawl wa-l-ʿamal (قرن بين القول والفعل ), means “to bring together speech with action.” It emphasizes the importance of aligning one's words with one's actions, ensuring consistency between what is said and what is done. Additionally, the expression qarana al-ḥajj wa-lʿumrah (قرن بين الحج والعمرة) refers to combining the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages during the same trip to Mecca (Al-Farāhīdī 382–84). The concept of bringing together two different items can be found in various metaphorical contexts. For example, the verb qarana was used in jinās (artistically employing words with the same letters) with the noun qarn (“horns”) in one of the prophet's speeches:Footnote ¹

In sum, the Arabic root q-r-n encompasses the act of placing two or more elements, such as ideas, objects, or characters, side by side to emphasize their similarities or differences in the recipient's mind. The term muqāranah was not used in premodern Arabic culture to highlight comparative literary interactions. This absence, however, should not lead us to assume, as Ferial Ghazoul does, that premodern writers did not practice comparative literature. Modern scholars of literary criticism and comparative literature tend to emphasize aspects different from those that preoccupied medieval writers. In an article that aptly describes modern trends but does not deeply engage with premodern materials, Ghazoul contends that the notion of comparative literature was introduced to the Arabic world through European influence:

Ghazoul's statement is representative of a broader trend rooted in the later eighteenth-century European definition of literature as belles lettres, a discourse that excluded texts from the literary realm if they had religious or practical functions. This theoretical assumption rooted in Eurocentric genre divisions leads the apparatus of modernity to misrepresent the literary essence of premodern cultures, reducing them to inferior imitations of modern Euro-American theories. Stefan Sperl argues that the Arabic concept of adab (أدب ) is analogous to the literariness of the Prophetic sayings, so that they are “different branches of one literary pursuit sharing the same over-arching Islamic metanarrative, a similar conception of the edifying power of speech, and a similar drive to select the best” (466). Nuha Alshaar explores how the imposition of several Eurocentric concepts, such as belles lettres and a “humanism of the elite,” generates a false dichotomy between sacred and profane writings that belies the conceptual polysemy of premodern Islamic adab (190; see also Hoda El Shakry's essay in this feature). This anachronistic exclusion of literary genres ignores the fact that the Qurʾan and the hadith have been typically regarded as two main pillars of Arabo-Islamic literature alongside poetry. Encompassing the full adab tradition, including the Qurʾan and hadith, in our purview brings to light a substantial body of practical criticism grounded in a comparative approach.

Rediscovering the Comparative Mentality in Premodern Arabo-Islamic Cultures

To uncover the richness of comparative approaches in medieval Arabic literary criticism, it is crucial for modern scholars to acquaint themselves with four factors. First, premodern literary critics did not draw strict boundaries between poetry and prose (Kilpatrick 155; Harb, “Arabic Literary Theory”). The examination of a text to identify what evoked strong reactions in the reader considered both the poetic vocal form and the eloquent content of each literary device, as well as its originality (Grunebaum 336). Second, premodern Arabic literary criticism did not prioritize social, political, and psychological analyses related to the author or the process of authoring. The focus of analysis was instead on various aspects of the text's aesthetics and stylistics, serving educational purposes.Footnote ³ Third, Arabic is considered a sacred language because it is the language of the Qurʾan and the Prophet's speech (hadith). The Qurʾan represents God's revelation, while the hadith contain sayings that were extracted from accounts of the Prophet's daily life and transmitted orally by his companions. This perception of superiority has influenced the content and themes explored in various literary genres, fostering a sense of pride among its native speakers.Footnote ⁴ Fourth, at the core of premodern literary criticism in the Arabo-Islamic world is the discipline of بلاغة (balāghah), a concept that is imperfectly translated as “rhetoric.”Footnote ⁵ Understanding the intricate relationship between vocal form (لفظ; lafẓ) and its content (معنى ; maʿnā) is essential for comprehending how meanings are theorized in Arabo-Islamic balāghah (Larsen 177; see also Jeffrey Sacks's essay in this feature). Balāghah played a pivotal role in the creation and reception of literary works in Arabic, Persian, and Turkic languages, and it was central to the concept of adab, which includes various genres such as the Qurʾan, the hadith, poetry, religious exegesis, philosophical treatises, animal fables, encyclopedic texts, and proverbs (Allan 175).Footnote ⁶

By taking these four factors into account, modern scholars can identify multiple forms of premodern comparative approaches and grasp the rationale behind their comparisons. I discuss here two distinct comparative methodologies to investigate how premodern critics read diverse facets of Arabic literature. In his book titled رسالة في التفضيل ما بين بلاغتي العرب والعجم (Risālah fī al-tafḍīl bayna balāghat al-ʿArab wa-al-ʿAjam; An Epistle on Favoring between the Eloquence of Arabs and ʿAjam), the renowned Persian scholar Abū Aḥmad al-ʿAskarī (d. 993), who was famous for his thorough knowledge of Arabic philology and hadith, acknowledges the importance of engaging respectfully with non-Arabic literary stylistic systems, namely Persian and Greek. This manuscript is vital for rewriting the premodern history of Islamic comparative poetics.Footnote ⁷ In his introduction, al-ʿAskarī compares definitions of balāghah drawn from different literary traditions:

Al-ʿAskarī identifies الإيجاز (al-ījāz; “concision”), the expression of meaning using minimal words, as the core element of Arabic balāghah.Footnote ⁸ In order to explore the various aspects of this literary device, he conducts a comparative, crosslinguistic analysis of proverbs and sayings from notable figures such as the Persian king Anūshīrwān, the Greek king Alexander, and the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. These sayings and proverbs had already been skillfully translated into Arabic and had become an integral part of the Arabic poetic tradition.Footnote ⁹ In his interpretation of a statement by Socrates, al-ʿAskarī indicates the philosopher's exceptional conciseness, his skill in conveying multiple meanings with a few carefully chosen words:

This analysis places Socrates's statement within the framework of the Arabic concept of ījāz. Al-ʿAskarī examines it in comparison with other concise expressions that he formulates himself (“just as a building indicates the builder and a book indicates the writer”), rooted in the same logical principles as Socrates's original statement. Al-ʿAskarī employs these concise expressions, in turn, to illuminate Islamic values intricately linked with Arabo-Islamic philosophy.Footnote ¹⁰ These values revolve around acknowledging the existence of a singular creator and recognizing the various elements of the universe as indications of His presence. This analysis serves to emphasize the art of omitting superfluous details in order to convey profound ideas effectively.

The Eurocentric understanding of comparative literature generally involves the comparison of two distinct languages rather than the exploration of comparative approaches and methodologies within a single language. The Arabic language boasts a long written tradition spanning approximately twelve hundred years, surpassing that of modern European languages. In the case of languages with such an extensive relatively continuous history, the field of comparative literature needs to reevaluate the traditional French paradigm that was imposed on Euro-American comparatists, encouraging them to prioritize comparisons between literatures of different European languages in order to gain acceptance and recognition within the mainstream of comparative literary studies.Footnote ¹¹ In the premodern Arabo-Islamic world, the process of writing relied heavily on multiple layers of comparison, oscillating between the works of revered ancestors (al-awā'il) and the contemporaneous medieval and premodern authors (al-muḥdathūn). This long history of written Arabic, coupled with its sacred status, endowed premodern writers with a distinct privilege, fostering the development of numerous methodologies firmly grounded in what we now refer to as intertextuality.

Let us consider an illustrative example that sheds light on the diverse facets of intertextuality present in premodern Arabic prose and poetry, bringing to the forefront a comparative practice that has often been overlooked: the transformation of literary prose into poetry. In his book titled مجازات الآثار النبوية (Majāzāt al-āthār al-nabawiyyah; The Allegories of Prophetic Narrations), al-Sharīf al-Raḍī (d. 1016)Footnote ¹² analyzes 360 hadith with a focus on the topic of مجاز (majāz), figurative language or allegory, in premodern Arabic poetics. The book highlights the significance of metaphorical language in Arabic literature. In several instances, al-Raḍī draws comparisons between the hadith and verses extracted from poetry or the Qurʾan that employ the exact words or meaning of the majāz under study. For example:

In this instance, al-Raḍī engages in a comparative (though not crosslinguistic) analysis to trace how a single hadith influenced three poets to transform its fundamental meaning into poetry. Modern readers may argue that poets can enhance the linguistic beauty and musicality of the hadith by rendering it in verse. The poets achieved this by employing various interconnected poetic devices, including rhythmic patterns and lyrical qualities, which evoke emotions and create a more captivating experience for the reader or listener. However, it is worth noting that al-Raḍī vehemently asserted, as is evident in this passage, that the hadith he cites possesses in its literary prose an exceptional quality that “surpasses all that has been said” in poetry subsequently.Footnote ¹³

While premodern Arabo-Islamic scholars and writers may not have explicitly used the term comparative literature and its Arabic equivalent (al-adab al-muqāran) in the manner in which we understand it today, they actively engaged in comparative studies of literature. Their aim was to explore similarities and differences among themes, motifs, and narrative techniques of literary works across different cultures and times. Muslim literary critics often found inspiration in and made references to multilingual literary and philosophical works from diverse cultural contexts, including Greek, Indian, and Persian. The translation process between Arabic and other languages has given rise to distinct premodern comparative approaches (Abdelmessih 197). These premodern translations deserve reevaluation as an integral component of the exchange of literary values. As Shaden Tageldin persuasively contends, “Comparative literature is not confined to a single place or time, nor does it exist in a realm devoid of geopolitical affiliations. Instead, it emerges through the uneven translation of literary worth across continents and time zones, firmly within the sphere of the geopolitical” (419).

The translation of Arabic sacred texts served as a vital conduit, facilitating effective communication among speakers of different languages and fostering the exchange of ideas, knowledge, and cultural values across diverse Islamic nations throughout different historical periods. The premodern Islamic world boasted a rich linguistic tapestry; countries typically harbored their own official language or languages alongside regional languages like Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, and Turkish, as well as various minority languages or dialects. Bilingualism and multilingualism naturally emerged as the norm, reflecting the diversity of religious communities, social structures, economic activities, and cultural interactions of the Islamic world (see Zadeh; Bsoul; and Gutas). Translation played a pivotal role in disseminating scholarly works and educational materials across linguistic boundaries, thereby contributing to the intellectual vibrancy of premodern Islamic societies.

The Qurʾan and hadith served as a wellspring of inspiration for several generations of writers spanning more than twelve hundred years, who drew on the shared meanings embedded in the collective memory of their public. As is clear from the example of al-Raḍī, comparative analysis served as a tool to convey complex concepts and ideas to readers. Al-Raḍī extracts three passages of poetry and compares them with the hadith that originally inspired their creations to illustrate shared meanings or principles. By drawing parallels between poetry and hadith, he aimed to make his explanation more accessible and relatable to a broader audience, both in his time and for future generations. Medieval writers were aware that not all their readers were well versed in the complex terminology and concepts of theology and balāhghah. It can be argued that this comparative approach served as a pedagogical tool to teach their own students complex theological or philosophical arguments by drawing on familiar literary examples. This comparative methodology provided a bridge between sacred texts and secular poetry—in other words, between religious and literary contexts—suggesting a harmonious coexistence of knowledge.

The process of transforming the literary prose of hadith into poetry can also be found in the Persian-speaking world. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Jāmī (d. 1492), a scholar and poet known for his works of mystical and epic poetry,Footnote ¹⁴ composed a book titled الأربعين (al-Arbaʿīn; The Forty). In this book, Jāmī selects forty hadith and presents them in the form of two-couplet Persian verses (known as dū-baytī). Through his paraphrasing of Arabic hadith into Persian poetry, Jāmī confirms that his aim is to promote the understanding and memorization of the hadith (26). Where Arabic is not the native tongue, this educational process allows individuals to understand and practice their faith more effectively. The complexities of the translation of hadith into poetry enrich the comparative mentality of Islamic scholars by enabling them to explore a wide range of interpretations, linguistic nuances, and cultural contexts.

This comparative approach allowed medieval readers to connect with the hadith on a deeper level and facilitated a better understanding of the hadith's intended message. In general, the comparative practice of medieval scholars, exemplified by the example of al-Raḍī, evinces their dedication to rendering knowledge accessible and relevant to their readers, while upholding the significance of religious and intellectual traditions. There is currently a dearth of research within the Euro-American field of comparative literature and comparative poetics that explores the influence of hadith on the works of Muslim writers from diverse backgrounds, including poetry, stories, proverbs, epistles, and political speeches composed in the various languages of the Islamic world.

These instances demonstrate the existence of comparative approaches to literature in the premodern Arabo-Islamic world, albeit with methods and terminology that differ from those of modern academic practices. Premodern Muslim writers and literary critics developed a multitude of literary terms to engage with intertextuality. A comprehensive examination of these terms will empower contemporary scholars to rediscover a web of concepts that underscores the comparative mindset of premodern Islamic writers. These include terms such as sariqāt (“theft”), muwāzanah (“balancing”), ighārah (“raiding”), mufāḍalah (“trying to surpass”), muʿāraḍah (“emulation”), insijām (“fluency”), wasāṭah (“mediation”), ikhtilās (“stealthy plagiarism”), taḍmīn (“inclusion”), and so on. Numerous studies have been conducted on these terms; however, they have not been regarded as pivotal tools in establishing the discipline of comparative Islamic literature.Footnote ¹⁵ Through a comprehensive exploration of these terms, contemporary scholars have the opportunity to redefine diverse comparative approaches grounded in Arabo-Islamic poetics. This, in turn, sheds light on how various cultures and languages within the Islamic world have historically activated a comparative mindset as an educational tool to comprehend both secular and religious texts.

However, modern scholars face a dilemma when attempting to translate these terms into European languages. They must either find an approximate equivalent, often borrowed from ancient Greek or Anglo-American cultures, which may not fully capture the original intention, or sacrifice certain nuances in favor of readability for nonspecialist readers. Literary terms are not simply interchangeable with equivalent terms in other languages, as each language possesses its own unique concepts, idiomatic expressions, and cultural connotations. This nonequivalence presents a particular challenge to the Eurocentric notion of universality and complicates any attempt to convey the precise meaning, tone, and literary significance of Arabo-Islamic terms in English, especially considering the vast differences between the literary and philosophical cultures in which they originate and those of ancient Greek, Latin, and modern European languages (Rashwan, “Arabic Jinās” 344–48). Within the Euro-American context, a dictionary that examines four hundred terms deemed untranslatable challenges the scholarship that promotes universalism and generalizations of philosophical and literary terms. This endeavor aims to probe the differences in philosophical concepts across European languages. It provides a platform for each European culture to express its viewpoints using its unique terminology and concepts (Cassin et al.). The field of premodern Islamic studies, with its literary and philosophical terms, warrants a comparable dictionary that not only delineates distinctions but also underscores their untranslatable essence.

By acknowledging non-European terms and concepts within their indigenous literary cultural framework, scholars can revitalize the discipline of comparative literature in a manner that is ethically attuned to linguistic and cultural differences. Discovering conceptual disparities among literary terms in each language should not deter specialists who advocate for the advantages of multiculturalism. As Emily Apter contends, “[t]he focus on the untranslatable might serve to wean comparative literature from a soft international diplomacy model and from its tendency to search for similarity and identity, screen out disagreement, and avoid direct encounters with insecurable knowledge” (61).

Rachel Harrison and Geir Helgesen have argued persuasively for the importance of allowing each language and culture to express its differences authentically, free from preconceptions rooted in Eurocentric methodologies. They caution modern scholars to be vigilant against the pitfalls of “exoticizing difference and Orientalizing Otherness,” both of which have historically plagued the field of translation and comparative studies. They emphasize the imperative for scholars in area studies to collaborate with their counterparts in comparative studies, aiming to forestall the inadvertent production of scholarship that might misrepresent the studied culture for Euro-American readers. These collaborative initiatives have the potential to disrupt long-standing Euro-American scholarly practices that cater to the sensibilities of their readers by imposing Eurocentric terms, concepts, and methods. Instead, Harrison and Helgesen encourage a more faithful representation, allowing the culture to articulate itself using its own terms and concepts:

There are compelling reasons to examine what premodern Islamic writers conveyed to their readers by juxtaposing various literary texts and languages to explore the poetics of a single subject. The comparative approaches employed by premodern Arabo-Islamic scholars deserve serious discussion and deliberation to challenge the modern misconception that their theoretical foundation and logical inquiry were primitive or insufficiently coherent. By studying how medieval writers juxtaposed literary works from different eras to highlight the continuity and diversity of the stylistic aspects of literary texts, scholars of comparative literature can gain insight into the Arabo-Islamic comparative mindset. This, in turn, will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the global literary landscape of the Islamic world.