Downloaded from Brill.Com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM Via Free Access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 171

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies 15 (2017) 170-192 brill.com/jqhs

Ara⁠ʾaytum: The Exegetical Implications of a Qurʾānic Stance Marker

Emad Mohamed Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington [email protected]

Abstract

Discourse markers are lexical items that play the role of conveying the speaker’s attitude towards the topic of conversation. Although discourse markers have this function, they have little semantic content, yet their importance for understanding (oral) discourse can hardly be overestimated. As such, they have been widely studied in English. While the Qurʾān has a number of these discourse markers, none of them seem to have been properly noticed, let alone studied, by Arabic linguists and Qurʾān commentators. This article introduces what I believe to be the most frequent of these in the Qurʾān: ara‌ʾaytum (literally: “have you seen?”) in its various morphological mani- festations. This article uses concepts from historical linguistics, pragmatics, and corpus linguistics – and in particular lexical co-occurrences – to examine the development of this form from a sense verb that simply means “to see” to a pragmatic attitudinal marker that is semantically vacuous and whose main function is to express the speaker’s dissatisfaction with, resentment at, or disapproval of the topic of conversation. While the analysis provided in this article is mainly linguistic, the findings will affect the way we read the Arabic-Islamic heritage, especially as regards the authenticity of what are known as the Satanic Verses, also known as the episode of the High-Flying Cranes (Qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq). This article also provides suggestions for the translation of this discourse marker.

Keywords stance marker – lexical analysis – grammaticalization – Ġarānīq – Satanic Verses – High-Flying Cranes

* Date of Submission:13/06/2016; Date of Acceptance: 25.06.2017.

1 Introduction

The story of the High-Flying Cranes (Qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq) has always been a con- troversial one. Before discussing it, I will first present the story, as summarized by Reynolds:1

Muhammad had grown increasingly depressed by the hard-heartedness of the Quraysh – his own people – and he meditated often on how he might convince them to accept Islam. He was in this state of longing when God revealed the first part of chapter 53 in the Qurʾan, up to the verses (19-20) that mention the pagan goddesses of the Meccans: “Have you considered al-Lat and al-ʿUzza, and Manat the third, the other?” However, Satan too was meditating, and this was the moment he chose to act, whispering to the Prophet a false revelation: “These are the exalted cranes, whose intercession is approved”. The Quraysh heard the Prophet praise their goddesses and bowed down in prostration with the Muslims. But the angel Gabriel intervened, declaring to the Prophet, “What have you done, Muhammad?” (Ibn Isḥaq, 166). Muhammad realized his mis- take and repented. He retracted the message that had come from Satan, and God gave him new verses in its place.

While the majority of Muslim scholars categorically reject the historicity of the Satanic Verses incident on the bases of its defective isnād and its contra- diction of the ʿiṣma (Divine protection) of prophets, it has been accepted by some notable thinkers. One such scholar was Ibn Taymiyya (d. 726/1328), who maintained that while prophets can make mistakes, this is inevitable and not harmful (lā maḥḏūra minh), and that what ʿiṣma refers to is God not approving of such mistakes.2 What happened in this incident, declared Ibn Taymiyya, is that “he [the Prophet] accidentally said something [wrong], then God rescind- ed and nullified it”.3 In Shahab Ahmed’s analysis, Ibn Taymiyya viewed this as evidence of the Prophet’s veracity. Later, Ibn Ḥaǧar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) reviewed several opinions on the authenticity of the story and, using the criterion of multiple attestation, concluded that in spite of the fact that all the sources of the story are questionable if examined individually, the fact that so

1 Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Emergence of Islam, Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 2012, p. 24. 2 Ibn Taymiyya, Minhāǧ al-sunna al-nabawiyya fī naqḍ kalām al-šī⁠ʿ⁠⁠a al-qadariyya, Ǧāmiʿat al- Imām Muḥammad ibn Suʿūd al-Islāmiyya, 1986, part 1, p. 471. 3 Ibid., part 2, p. 409.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 172 Emad many people narrated it through diverse isnāds proves that “the story has an origin [in an historical event]”.4 To this day, the episode still arouses some controversy, and Muslims continue to ask their scholars about it. The IslamWeb Fatwa Center, probably the most important online fatwa portal, has ten questions about the story of the High-Flying Cranes. IslamWeb keeps a count of how many people have visited each page, and the ten fatwas on this topic have been visited 117,993 times, which indicates that there is significant interest in it. IslamQA, the second most import fatwa website, has five questions on the story.5 IslamWeb’s position is that the story is not authentic since its isnād is weak, it cannot reasonably have happened, “and even if it has some authenticity, it can be said that it was the Devil who uttered the extra phrases”,6 not the Prophet. IslamQA, on their part, are more inclined to believe the story since “its authenticity is more in line with scientific investigation”.7 By “scientific investigation”, they also seem to mean the criterion of multiple attestation. Among modern Western scholars, some, like Watt and Muir, have accepted the story as historical,8 while others have rejected it. Droge states that “this story is probably a fiction invented to explain an otherwise puzzling text”.9 Sinai rejects the authenticity of the story based on his observation that the proposed verses cannot fit in the verses of Sūrat al-naǧm.10 In this article, I argue that such a story is very unlikely to have happened. The evidence comes from the linguistics of the form afaraʾaytum‌ . I argue that this form is a stance marker of objection and disapproval, and that the focus of disapproval (i.e. the thing of which the speaker disapproves) is the syntactic

4 Ibn Ḥaǧar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-bārī Šarḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī, Beirut, Dar al-maʿrifa, 1379/1959- 60, part 8, p. 439. 5 There is evidence that online fatwa portals are becoming the main source of knowledge for many Muslims, IslamWeb’s Fatwa Center receives 8.5 million visitors a day while IslamQA receives 8 million. The Egyptian Dar al-ifta, in contrast, receives an average of only 150,000 online everyday (all data from Alexa.com). 6 Islamweb Fatwa Center, “Buṭlān Qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq”, http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/ index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=28282. 7 IslamQA, “Izālat al-labs ʿan Qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq wa-masʾalat ʿiṣmat al-anbiyaʾ”,‌ https:// islamqa.info/ar/177218. 8 William Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 61, and John Burton, “Those are the High-Flying Cranes”, Journal of Semitic Studies, 15 (1970), p. 246-65. 9 A. Droge, The Qurʾan: A New Annotated Translation, Sheffield, Equinox, 2013, p. 361. 10 Nichola Sinai, “An Interpretation of Sūrat al-Najm (Q. 53)”, Journal of Qurʾānic Studies, 13/2 (2011), p. 1-28.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 173 object of the linguistic form which has lost its semantic content. When the speaker utters this form, he expresses dissatisfaction with the topic of conversation (and possibly, by extension, with the addressee as well). I also argue that the nature of the relationship between this disapproval form and the literal form that gave rise to it is that of grammaticalization, a process well-docu- mented in language change. If this analysis is correct, it would not seem likely that praise (of the high-flying cranes) would follow disapproval.

2 What is a Stance Marker?

A stance marker is, linguistically speaking, a discourse-level adverbial with an illocutionary, rather than propositional, meaning. “Attitudinal adverbials are those, like unfortunately, happily, sadly, luckily, which do not name a speech act but indicate the speaker’s attitude to the statement she makes”.11 When one says “The project is, unfortunately, done”, or “The project is, fortunately, done”, the project is done in either case. The only change is in how the speaker con- siders that this state of affairs has affected them emotionally. Stance markers, and discourse markers in general, have various linguistic structures: prepositional phrases (e.g. “in fact”), subject + verb (e.g. “I believe”), adverbs (e.g. “ideally”), and “to-infinitives” (e.g. “to be frank”), and this is by no means an exhaustive list.12

3 The Form

The stance marker in question occurs 28 times in the Qurʾān, in five different forms (ara‌ʾytaka, ara‌ʾytakum, ara‌ʾytum, afara‌ʾayta, afara‌ʾaytum), all of which share the same basic morphological structure: the question particle ʾ + the verb raʾā‌ in the perfect form + a second-person verbal suffix. Sometimes an infix kāf is inserted after the subject pronoun, and all the forms can be literally be translated as “Have you seen?”:

11 Elly Ifantidou-Trouki, “Sentential adverbs and relevance”, Lingua, 90/1-2 (June 1993), p. 69-90. 12 Randolph Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, second edition, London, Longman, 1985, p. 1112.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 174 Emad

InterrogativePerfect Verb Second Person Subject Pronoun

Morphological structure of araʾayta

InterrogativePerfect Verb Second Person Subject ? Pronoun

Morphological structure of araʾaytaka

Figure 1 Morphological structure of two different variations of the form.

An examination of the contexts in which this form is found reveals that in most, if not all of them, the form is used when the speaker expresses disapproval of the addressee or the topic of discourse. The form occurs 28 times in the Qurʾān. The discourse contexts of these occurrences are, in general: the threat of some sort of Divine chastisement (Q 6:40; 6:46; 6:47; 10:50; 17:62; 19:77; 26:205; 28:71; 28:72; 41:42; 56:58; 56:63; 67:28; 67:30); blaming the disbelievers for various acts (Q 10:59; 11:28; 11:63; 11:88; 26:75); and contempt of the disbelievers and their actions (Q 35:40; 39:38; 45:23; 46:4; 46:10; 53:19; 53:33). It may be worth noting that all the Qurʾān chapters (sūras) in which the form ara‌ʾayta is used are Meccan (using Nöldeke’s order). Nöldeke’s order is being used since there is

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 175 no agreed-upon order in the Islamic sources.13 The 28 instances in which these forms are used generally criticize the disbelievers for their disbelief, a topic more relevant to Meccan Islam. The negated form alam tara ilā أconceptually �ل ت� � ل .to be discussed below, is used in both Meccan and Medinan Qurʾān ,( م ر إى)

Table 1 Example verses. The translations provided are from Arberry

Verse Arabic English

Q 17:62 qāla araʾaytaka‌ haḏā allaḏī He said, araʾaytaka‌ this whom Thou hast karramta ʿalayya la‌ʾin honoured above me – if Thou deferrest me aḫḫartani ilā yawmi al-qyāmti to the Day of Resurrection I shall assuredly la-aḥtanikanna ḏurriyyatahu master his seed, save a few. illā qalīlā 6:47 qul araʾaytakum‌ in atākum Say!: araʾaytakum‌ if God’s chastisement ʿaḏābu allahi baġtatan aw comes upon you, suddenly or openly, shall ǧahratan hal yahliku illā al- any be destroyed, except the people of the qawmu al-ẓālimūn evildoers? 67:30 qul araʾaytum‌ in aṣbaḥa Say!: araʾaytum‌ if in the morning your māʾukum ġawran fa man water should have vanished into the earth, ya‌ʾtīkum bi-māʾin maʿīn then who would bring you running water?

Table 1 presents some examples of the use of this form in the Qurʾān (with translations by Arberry, which will be reviewed later, in section 5). In all of these examples, I have left the focus-word untranslated for the purpose of il- lustration. In Q 17:62, Iblīs objects to Adam being honoured over him; in Q 6:47, Allah commands His Messenger to threaten the disbelievers with chastisement; and in Q 67:30, Allah commands His Messenger to remind (or threaten) the disbelievers that He could deprive them of water. In these three verses, as well as in the others in which this form occurs, there is a pattern of blame, threatening, and belittling.

13 Muḥmmad Maǧlī Aḥmad Rabāīʿa, “Tafsīr al-Qurʾan al-Karīm ʿalā tartīb al-nuzūl: Manbaʿuhu wa-fawʾidhu, dirāsāt ʿulūm al-šaraīʿa wa al-qānūn”, Journal of Law Studies, 37/1 (2010), http://journals.ju.edu.jo/DirasatLaw/article/viewFile/104/102.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 176 Emad

If we take these contexts into account, and if we believe that “[y]ou shall know a word by the company it keeps”,14 it is tempting to treat the form as a single pragmatic unit. The form actually seems to be more of an idiom or a fixed expression. This semantic change from the literal (content) meaning of “have you seen” to the functional “I condemn you” may have come about through a process very similar to that of grammaticalization. This is common with “phrasal discourse markers that show some degree of fusion (fossilization and routinization)”.15

4 Grammaticalization

Grammaticalization is generally seen as a “process whereby a lexical item, with full referential meaning (i.e. an open-class element), develops grammatical meaning (i.e. it becomes a closed-class element); this is accompanied by a reduction in or loss of phonetic substance, loss of syntactic independence and of lexical (referential) meaning”.16 An example of this is the English “Let’s”, which was originally “Let us” (meaning “allow us”), but the expression has lost its meaning of “allow” and is generally used to make a suggestion rather than to ask for permission. Other examples include the English future auxiliary “will”, which grammaticalized out of the old English verb “willan” (“to want”),17 and the French negative particle pas, which can be traced back to the content word “pas” (“a step”).18 Grammaticalization theory thus has the role of explaining “how grammatical forms and constructions arise and develop through space and time, and to explain why they are structured the way they are”.19 The process of grammaticalization involves three agreed-upon and interrelated mech- anisms: semantic bleaching, decategorialization, and erosion.20

14 John R. Firth, “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930-1955”, in Studies in Linguistic Analysis, ed. John R. Firth, Oxford, Blackwell, 1957, p. 1-32. 15 Laurel J. Brinton and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Lexicalization and Language Change, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.136. 16 Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, eds., Pathways of Change: Grammaticalisation in English. Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 2000. 17 Paul J. Hopper and Elizabeth Closs Traugott, Grammaticalization, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 92. 18 Hopper and Traugott, Grammaticalization, p. 58. 19 Philipp Strazny, Encyclopedia of Linguistics, third edition, London, Routledge, 2013, p. 402-3. 20 Strazny, Encyclopedia of Linguistics, p. 403.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 177

4.1 Semantic Bleaching Semantic bleaching is the loss of semantic content. Some linguists view semantic bleaching as a prerequisite for or a cause of grammaticalization,21 some claim that semantic bleaching happens only in the latter stages of grammaticalization,22 and others do not see a link between the two processes.23 It is clear that the form in the Qurʾān is semantically bleached, as it does not contribute any propositional meaning to the sentences/discourses in which it occurs. Semantically speaking, the form can be removed from the verses without any loss of semantic content at all. Consider, for example, Q 17:62, in Table 1 above, repeated here:

qāla araʾaytaka‌ haḏā allaḏī He said, “araʾaytaka‌ this whom Thou karramta ʿalayya la‌ʾin aḫḫartani hast honoured above me – if Thou ilā yawmi al-qyāmti la- deferrest me to the Day of aḥtanikanna ḏurriyyatahu illā Resurrection I shall assuredly master qalīlā his seed, save a few”.

The semantic content of this utterance, attributed to the Devil (Iblīs), is not affected by the removal of the word in bold, which is there for emotional reasons only. Iblīs not only relates facts or plans, but his attitude towards the object of the discourse, Adam, too. He wants to show that he is better than the man, and thus uses a stance marker of belittling/disapproval/threat to impart the pragmatic part of the message. It is also important to note that the form, albeit its interrogative form, is not interrogative in meaning. In not a single occurrence of this form in the Qurʾān is an answer expected. In fact, the form co-occurs with other question words when a question is intended (e.g. Q 6: 47; 67:30). The notion that this form is not interrogative has always been realized. In their interpretations of Q 6:40, the first occurrence in the standard order of the Qurʾān, al-Ṭabarī and al-Zamaḫšarī agree that the form means “tell me”. I do, however, find this interpretation to be unsatisfactory. If these really were synonyms, then it would be

21 Joan Bybee, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca, The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1994. 22 Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Ekkehard König, “The Semantics-Pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited”, in Approaches to Grammaticalization, ed. Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1991, vol. I, p. 189-218. 23 Olga Fischer, “The Development of Quasi-Auxiliaries in English and Changes in Word Order”, Neophilologue, 78 (1994), p. 137-64.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 178 Emad possible to substitute one for the other, but this does not seem to be the case, at least not in all the instances in which this form occurs:

qāla araʾaytaka‌ haḏā allaḏī He said, “What thinkest Thou? This karramta ʿalayya la‌ʾin aḫḫartani ilā whom Thou hast honoured above yawmi al-qyāmti la-aḥtanikanna me – if Thou deferrest me to the ḏurriyyatahu illā qalīlā Day of Resurrection I shall assuredly master his seed, save a few”. qāla aḫbirnī haḏā allaḏī karramta He said, “Tell me. This whom ʿalayya la‌ʾin aḫḫartani ilā yawmi Thou hast honoured above me – al-qyāmti la-aḥtanikanna if Thou deferrest me to the Day ḏurriyyatahu illā qalīlā of Resurrection I shall assuredly master his seed, save a few”.

Using the suggested meaning would render the sentence strange, to say the least (possibly in English too). In fact, the form is neither interrogative nor im- perative; instead, the grammatical category to which this form belongs seems to be adverbial. The pragmatic meaning of belittling is witnessed in some Qurʾānic exege- ses. In his commentary on Q 17:62, Abū Zahra (d. 1974),24 while not stating the grammaticalization issue explicitly, explains:

The meaning of this utterance is “Tell me: is that the one you honoured above me?”. This has a connotation of belittling Adam, and showing pride over him. It is as though Iblīs had said Adam was too inferior to him to be honoured. Iblīs says “I’m the one worthy of honour”. He had the illu- sion that his being made out of fire would make him nobler than the one made out of clay.

Abū Zahra’s interpretation seems to be the closest to what I am claiming in this article.

4.2 Decategorialization Decategorialization is the loss of some or all morphosyntactic properties. The lexical item (noun or verb) loses the features characteristic of nouns and verbs and gains features characteristic of particles.

24 Muḥammad Abū Zahra, Zahrtau al-tafāsīr, Beirut, Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī, 1987, p. 4415.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 179

It may be difficult to see how this applies to ara‌ʾayta, as this still has its clausal components, yet things may become clearer if we consider the forms in which the letter kāf is added (ara‌ʾaytaka – ara‌ʾaytakum). In his Qurʾān commentary, in the context of Q 6:40, al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) cites many different analyses of the form ara‌ʾaytakum. He notes especially that the letter tā within it is vowelled with a fatḥa, despite the fact that it is a plural (the plural-form tā is normally with a ḍamma, the equivalent sound to “u” in “put” while the singular form normally has the equivalent sound to “u” in “but”). He then indicates that this form, while conjugated for the second-person masculine plural, can also be used with feminine and singular addressees to mean “tell me”. It is unlikely that the kāf is pronominal since the form already has a subject pronoun and a sentential object. Al-Ṭabarī concludes that this kāf has no syntactic function and that it is instead merely an addressee marker, like the kāf in the demonstrative ḏāka. If this is true, then we have a case in which the addressee kāf, which is associated with particles, especially demonstratives, is used with a verbal form, which indicates decategorialization towards particles. This is further empha- sized by the fact that one form, the second-person masculine plural, can be used with other types of addressees, in a clear loss of gender and number specifications. While the kāf has no syntactic function (meaning it is a mere inflection), this person-inflected kāf, when used in demonstratives, signifies distance.25 While ḏā is the unmarked demonstrative, ḏāka is used when the person referred to is far away. This distance could be physical or emotional, and this may be the reason why kāf is used in the warning particle iyyāka, which can basically be analyzed as commanding the addressee to keep their distance from the thing being warned against. It may be that the same emotional distance lies behind the attachment of the kāf to ara‌ʾaytaka, with the speaker distancing themself emotionally from the discourse topic. When Iblīs says to God ara‌ʾaytaka haḏā allaḏī karramta ʿalayya, not only does he object to Adam being honored above him, he also expresses the attitude that he is far too important to be associated with Adam. This is a pragmatic function. Other indications can be gleaned from the negative form alam tara ilā (literally: “have you not seen to …?”). This negative form occurs 16 times in similar contexts to those in which the interrogative form appears, and shows the same desemanticization. One feature specific to the negative form is loss of transitivity. While the verb raʾā‌ is transitive, in this form it is not. This

25 Abū Muḥmmad Badruddīn al-Murādī, al-Ǧanā al-dānī fī ḥurūf al-maʿānī, ed. Faḫruddīn Qabāwa and Aḥmad Nadīm Fāḍil, Beirut, Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 1992.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 180 Emad decategoricalization towards the intransitive is semantically justified: the verb no longer assigns agent and patient26 roles to its arguments, and has thus lost its case-assignment power. The syntactic patient is now only accessible through the preposition ilā. In their study of foregrounding (the main events in discourse) and backgrounding (the background, comments) across multiple languages, Hopper and Thompson (1980) found that “[t]he grammatical and semantic prominence of Transitivity is shown to derive from its characteristic discourse function: high Transitivity is correlated with foregrounding, and low Transitivity with backgrounding”.27 It is thus natural for a stance marker, which is basically a comment marker, to be in the background and intransitive. I have considered alam tara ilā, rather than alam tara, to be the negated form since the latter does not clearly pragmatically match the stance marker profile, and its use may be more metaphorical than grammaticalized.

4.3 Erosion Phonological erosion (attrition, reduction) is a little more difficult to prove than semantic attrition, as the form does not have any reduced morphemes. However, if we consider the possibility of variation, or substitution, we can see that there are two particles for yes/no questions in Arabic: hal and ʾ. Not even once does hal occur in place of ʾ. As such, between the two alternatives, only the reduced question form, a dependent morpheme, is used. The independent morpheme that serves the same function is completely excluded. The bound interrogative morpheme has thus become obligatory (a phenomenon called obligatorification28).

4.4 Fronting Analysing ara‌ʾayta as a discourse marker, or a stance adverbial, shows that it does not play an actual syntactic role in the sentence in which it occurs. Being there for pragmatic reasons only, it is not an essential part of the sentence can be shown when the form is followed by the conditional نstructure. This :which is the case in 42% of cases in the Qurʾān ,(�إ�) particle in

26 In linguistics, the grammatical patient is the Noun Phrase (NP) affected by the verb, and the agent is the initiator or the doer. These are semantic relations that are not necessarily equivalent to the grammatical object and subject. 27 Paul J. Hopper and Sandra A. Thompson, “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”, Language, 56/2 (June 1980), p. 251-99. 28 Christian Lehmann, Thoughts on Grammaticalization, Munich, Lincom Europa, 2002, p. 124.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 181

Table 2 Discourse markers do not affect the structure

6, 40 araʾaytakum‌ in atākum ʿaḏābu allahi aw atatkum al-sāʿatu aġayra allhi tadʿūna in kuntum ṣādiqīn 10, 50 arʾaytum in atākum ʿaḏābuhu bayātan aw nahāran māḏā yastaʿǧilu minhu al-muǧrimūn 28, 71 arʾaytum in ǧaʿala allahu ʿalaykum al-layla sarmadan ilā yawmi al-qiymati man ilāhun ġayru allāhi ya‌ʾtīkum biḍiya‌ʾin a-fa-lā tasmaʿūn

In each of the sentences in Table 2, the deletion of the discourse marker, in bold, does not in any way affect the syntactic structure of the sentence. The discourse marker is a mere adverbial that carries pragmatic and attitudinal, rather than semantic, meaning, and is not necessary syntactically. However, the majority of cases are not followed by a conditional, and there are many cases in which this form behaves in the same way as ordinary transitive verbs, as evidenced by their assigning an accusative case to a nominal object:

Table 3 Examples of the form not followed by conditionals

35, 40 araʾaytum‌ šurakāʾakum allaḏīna tadʿūna min dūni allāhi arūnī māḏā ḫalaqū min al-arḍi am lahum šrikun fī al-samāwāti am ātaynāhum kitāban fa hum ʿlā bayyinatin minhu bal in yaʿidu al-ẓālimūna baʿḍuhum baʿḍan illā ġurūran 19, 77 afarʾayta allḏī kafara bi-ayātinā wa-qāla la-ūtayanna mālan wa-waladā aṭṭalaʿa al-ġayba am attaḫaḏa ʿinda al-raḥmāni ʿahdā 25, 43 araʾayta‌ man ittaḫaḏa ilāhahu hawāhu a-f-anta takūnu ʿalayhi wakīlā

In each of these cases, the form, in bold, can be deleted without affecting the structure of the sentence (although this will require case reassignment). Although the remaining sentences, after deletion, are most probably gram- matically correct, there is something peculiar in each sentence that would probably render the whole unacceptable. In Q 35:40, the predicate is an imper- ative verb; in Q 19:77, the predicate is a question word, which has precedence over all other sentence elements in Arabic and should not be placed after the

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 182 Emad subject; and in Q 25:43, the predicate again starts with the question prefix ʾa, which has precedence, and should not appear in a non-initial position. The reason for this is that the form araʾayta‌ also acts as a focus particle. While its main pragmatic function is to draw attention to something the speaker per- ceives objectionable, it also changes the structure of the sentence to bring its focus object to the front. In Table 4, the sentences are re-phrased as:

Table 4 Fronting as a major function of arʾayta

Verse Fronted structure Non-fronted structure

35, 40 araʾaytum‌ šurakāʾakum allaḏīna arūnī māḏā ḫalaqa šurukāʾukum tadʿūna min dūni allāhi arūnī allaḏīna tadʿūna min dūni allhi min māḏā ḫalaqū min al-arḍi am al-arḍ lahum šrikun fī al-samāwāti am ātaynāhum kitāban fa-hum ʿlā bayyinatin minhu bal in yaʿidu al- ẓālimūna baʿḍuhum baʿḍan illā ġurūran 19, 77 afarʾayta allḏī kafara bi-ayātinā aṭṭalʿa allaḏī kafara bi-ayātinā wa-qāla wa-qāla la-ūtayanna mālan la-ūtaynna mālan wa-waladan al-ġayba wa-waladā aṭṭalaʿa al-ġayba am am attaḫaḏa ʿinda al-raḥmāni ʿahdā ittaḫaḏa ʿinda al-raḥmāni ʿahdā 25, 43 araʾayta‌ man ittaḫaḏa ilāhahu a-fa-anta takūnu wakīlan alā man hawāhu a-f-anta takūnu ʿalayhi ittaḫaḏa ilhahu hawāhu wakīlā

It seems that the syntactic object could, originally, have been of any syntactic function: for example, a subject (Q 35:40; 19:77; 46:4); a prepositional object (Q 25:43; 10:59); a muḍāf ilayhi (Q 17:62); or an object (Q 45:23). But the possibility that this stance marker is a fronting agent is not the only possible analysis. The reason the constituent is fronted may also have syntactic grounds. In his study of word order in Arabic, Mohamed concluded that the constituent’s size, be it an object, subject, or prepositional phrase (PP), plays a key role in where the constituent is placed in the sentence. According to Mohamed, heavier constituents are more likely to come after lighter

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 183 ones,29 where heavy and light may be measured in terms of the number of words, or the complexity of the syntactic structure. This may be a universal phenomenon. One example of this is the following English sentence, from George Orwell’s Animal Farm:30 “Snowball had found in the harness-room an old green tablecloth of Mrs. Jones’s”. Here, the object, which is longer and thus heavier, follows the shorter, lighter, prepositional phrase. This may be viewed in the tradition of sentence processing, which attributes the delay of the longer constituents to constraints placed on the speaker to accommodate the needs of the hearer, who finds it difficult to process large objects in the middle of the sentence.31 So, in Q 46:4, the fronted utterance, as it appears in the Qurʾān, is perceived to be easier to process than the non-fronted one because, in the fronted one, the verb is closer to the prepositional phrase while referring back to the subject through a resumptive pronoun (the plural waw). In the non-fronted sentence, however, there is a significant distance between the verb and the prepositional phrase. ن ن ّٰ أ ن ذ �م�ا ت��د �ع �م� ن د ا �ل��ل�ه � � �م�ا � ا و� أ� و� ر و ي� mā tadʿūna min dūni illāhi arūnī خ ق ن ض māḏā ḫalaqū min al-arḍi ��ل��وا �م�� ال�ر�� ٰ ذ خ ق ت ن ن ن ّ ن �م�ا � ا ��ل� �م�ا ��د �عو� �م� د و� ا �ل��ل�ه �م� māḏā ḫalaqa mā tadʿūna min أ ض � � ال�ر�� dūni llāhi min al-arḍi

The fronting solves this problem by moving the verb closer to its dependent prepositional phrase, thus making it easier for the hearer to process the sentence. This is especially important for the Qurʾān, which was meant primarily to be encountered aurally.

29 Emad Mohamed, “Object and Subject Heavy-NP Shift in Arabic,” Research in Corpus Linguistics 2 (2014), p. 23-33. 30 This example was cited in: Lynne M. Stallings and Maryellen C. MacDonald: “It’s not Just the ‘Heavy NP’: Relative Phrase Length Modulates the Production of Heavy-NP Shift”, Journal of Psycholinguist Research, 40/3 (June 2011), p. 177-87. 31 Thomas Wasow, “Remarks on Grammatical Weight”, Language Variation and Change, 9 (1777), 81-105, and George A. Miller and Noam Chomsky, “Finitary Models of Language Users”, in Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, ed. D. Luce, New York, John Wiley & Sons, 1963, p. 419-92.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 184 Emad

5 The Form in Non-Qurʾānic Sources

In spite of the title of this article, the form not only occurs in the Qurʾān. There is ample evidence in the ḥadīṯ literature for the function of arʾayta as an objection marker. In this section, I will list some of these, without any analysis, as I believe the examples are illustrative enough:

While the Prophet was in his deathbed, people asked ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib: “How is the Prophet doing now?”, and ʿAlī said “He is doing well”, then al-ʿAbbās took ʿAlī’s hand and said, “arʾaytak, the Prophet will die in this illness, and you will be the slave of the next ruler, so let’s go to the Prophet and ask him who should take over after him”.32

And there is another ḥadīṯ, in which al-Muġira ibn Šuʿba narrates:

The Prophet sent me to Nağrān, then they said to me “araʾayta‌ what you read in the Qurʾān (Oh Sister of Harūn), while Moses lived so long a time before Jesus”. I then went to the Prophet, who said “Why did you not tell them that they used to name their people after the prophets and the righteous?”33

5.1 Re-Reading the Heritage Now that the linguistic basis for our claim that the form under discussion is a pragmatic unit acting as a discourse marker for attitude has been examined, it will be useful to re-examine the form’s occurrences in the Arabic tradition. Starting with the verses with which this study was introduced (Q 53:19-22), it is clear that they follow the same fronting pattern as above. The noun-phrase al- Lāt wa al-ʿUzzā wa-Mnāta al-ṯāliṯata al-uḫrā served, in the non-fronted version, as an appositive for al-unṯā. The speaker finds it important to name the deities, and so puts them in focus, and thus foregrounds them and precedes their names with afaraʾaytum‌ . The syntactic object of the form is now the most salient element in the structure.

32 Al-Buḫari, al-Adab al-mufrad, ḥadīṯ no. 1112, https://library.islamweb.net/ḥadīṯ/display_ hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=97391&bk_no=141&startno=1. 33 Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, ḥadīṯ 18201, in Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, ed. Šuʿayb al-Arna‌ʾūṭ et al., al-Risāla Publishers, 2001, p. 14716. I have used the version digitized by the Shamela Library: http://shamela.ws/browse.php/book-25794#page-14716.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 185

Fronted Non-fronted afaraʾaytum‌ allāt wa al-ʿUzzā wa- alakum al-ḏakaru walahu al-unṯā – allāt Mnāta al-ṯāliṯata al-uḫrā a-lakum wa al-ʿUzzā wa-Mnāta al-ṯāliṯata al-uḫrā? al-ḏakaru wa-lahu al-unṯā tilka tilka iḏan qismatun ḍīzā iḏan qismatun ḍīzā

A context-aware examination of the additions, those talking about the High- Flying Cranes, suggests that the purpose of the verses added is to praise al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā, two of the idols of the Qurayš, yet the language of the introduc- tory verses does not support this idea. The structure is one of objection and ridicule, not of praise. While we have no access to the event as it really happened, the linguistic evidence in the verses suggests that it is very unlikely that praise of the deities would follow a form of condemnation. This is linguistic evidence, which can only be couched in probabilistic, rather than in absolute terms, but there does not seem to be a more plausible explanation, and we may conclude that the story of the High-Flying Cranes is most probably a later fabrication. This analysis applies to every occurrence of this form in the Qurʾān; while it seems to occur more often in the Qurʾān than in other sources of the period, it is not an isolated phenomenon within the book. If the controversy around the authenticity of the ḥadīṯ tradition is put aside, it is likely that applying the same principles to the ḥadīṯ could yield fruitful insights. Take, for example, the ḥadīṯ narrated by Ibn ʿAbbās in the context of Q 26:214:

When the verse “And warn your nearest kinsfolk” came down, the Prophet went up the Ṣafa mountain and started calling the clans of Qurayš until they assembled. Some came by themselves, while others sent messen- gers to see what was going on. The Prophet then said: “araʾaytakum‌ if I told you that there was cavalry readying themselves to attack you, would you believe me?” They said: “yes, we have seen you tell nothing but the truth”. He said: “I’m a warner to you of imminent severe punishment”. Abū Lahab then said, “Is this why you called us, may your hands be ruined”, then it was revealed: “The hands of Abū Lahab have been ruined, and so has he. His wealth has not helped him, and he has not gained” (Q 111; my translation).

Ibn ʿAbbās, who was just 13 when the Prophet died and could not, therefore, have witnessed any of this himself, narrates that the Prophet started address- ing his people with araʾaytakum‌ , and states that this was the first time he had

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 186 Emad declared his prophethood to the Qurayš. If we believe the form used here to be a discourse marker of reproach, then it makes sense to assume that this was not the first time the Prophet had addressed them, or, alternatively, this was in the middle of the dialogue and not the very beginning of his declaration of prophethood. That the narrator is Ibn ʿAbbās may corroborate this finding (since he probably did not witness the incident, and may thus have narrated just part of it), and the reply by Abū Lahab may do so further. When Abū Lahab says, “Is it for this purpose you have gathered us?”, it suggests that Abū Lahab was already fully aware of the message and had his own objections well before the Prophet spoke. This may, again, prove that it was not the first encounter. Another example is the ḥadīṯ in which the Prophet urges his companions to perform the five daily prayers:

It was narrated by Abū Hurayra that the Prophet said: “araʾaytum‌ if there was a river by your door in whose water you wash five times a day, will that leave any of your dirt?” They said “No, it won’t leave any dirt”. Then he said: “So are the five prayers. Allah erases sins with them”.

This prophetic tradition is routinely used to encourage Muslims to perform the five daily prayers. While this ḥadīṯ serves its purpose well, we know almost nothing about the circumstances in which this dialogue took place. The ḥadīṯ is simply without context. If we take the form araʾaytum‌ as a stance marker of disapproval, we may then infer that the Prophet was reproaching the addressees, who must have been (some of) his Companions, apparently for not being committed enough to their prayers. As with all the other examples cited here, the form can be removed without affecting the semantic content, and it is there only for pragmatic reasons.

6 Note on Translations

If what I have claimed so far is true, and I have no reason to conclude it is not, then the translation of the verses with this form must be updated to reflect their real meanings. It is likely that the majority of people receive their knowledge of the Qurʾān from English translations, especially as most Muslims do not speak Arabic as their first language, if at all. In this section, I briefly examine how translators have handled the form under discussion in their rendering of the Qurʾān. To illustrate, consider Q 17:62, as found in eight commonly-used translations:

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 187

Table 5 Translations of Q 17:62

Q 17:62 qāla araʾaytaka‌ haḏā allaḏī karramta ʿalayya la-in aḫḫartani ilā yawmi al-qiyāmati la-aḥtanikanna ḏurriyyatahu illā qalīlā Arberry He said, “What thinkest Thou? This whom Thou hast honoured above me – if Thou deferrest me to the Day of Resurrection I shall assuredly master his seed, save a few”. Sahih [Iblees] said, “Do You see this one whom You have honored above International me? If You delay me until the Day of Resurrection, I will surely destroy his descendants, except for a few”. Muhsin Khan [Iblis (Satan)] said: “See? This one whom You have honoured above me, if You give me respite (keep me alive) to the Day of Resurrection, I will surely seize and mislead his offspring (by sending them astray) all but a few!” Pickthall He said: Seest Thou this (creature) whom Thou hast honoured above me, if Thou give me grace until the Day of Resurrection I verily will seize his seed, save but a few. Yusuf Ali He said: “Seest Thou? This is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway - all but a few!” Shakir He said: Tell me, is this he whom Thou hast honored above me? If Thou shouldst respite me to the day of resurrection, I will most certainly cause his progeny to perish except a few. Ghali Said he, “Have You seen? This, whom you have honored above me, indeed in case you defer me to the Day of the Resurrection, indeed I will definitely bring his offspring under my subjection [Literally: under my palate; i.e., between my jaws] except a few”. Abdel-Haleem … and [then] said, “You see this being You have honoured above me? If You reprieve me until the Day of Resurrection, I will lead all but a few of his descendants by the nose”.

It is worth noting that only one of these translations (Shakir) renders the form as “Tell me”, which is the default interpretation in most, if not all, traditional Qurʾān commentaries. This may indicate that the translators did not find the default interpretation to be one that best carries the meaning over to another language, despite the fact that the concept of telling is almost exactly the same in both languages.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 188 Emad

All the translations above, except Arberry’s, opt for literal translations, as they use the verb “see”, which indicates a physical sighting that could be meta- phorically extended to mental perception. None of them seem to pay attention to the grammaticalized meaning of the idiom. Arberry, on the other hand, is more inclined towards providing a pragmatic translation. His rendering of ara‌ʾayta is either “What think you?” or “Have you considered?”, both of which give the feeling of a discourse marker in action. Arberry, along with some others, realized that the syntactic objects may not be actual objects, and this shows in his use of punctuation. No translation evidently or consistently presents the grammaticalized meaning of the idiom. I am not a native speaker of English, and my judgments may be flawed. I will, nonetheless, try to contribute a better translation of the verses where this idiom occurs. I suggest that the idiom may be translated into a sentence paren- thetical (e.g. “I warn you”), or a sentence adverbial, or exotically:

qāla araʾaytaka‌ haḏā allaḏī karramta ʿalayya la-in aḫḫartani ilā yawmi al-qiyāmati la-aḥtanikanna ḏurriyyatahu illā qalīlā I warn you! This one whom You have honored above me, I will surely master his seed, except a few. This one whom You have honored above me, I will, I warn you, surely master his seed, except a few. This worthless one whom You have honored above me, I will, I warn you, surely master his seed, except a few.

And for Q 53:19-22, I suggest the following translations:

afaraʾaytum‌ allāt wa al-ʿUzzā wa-Mnāta al-ṯāliṯata al-uḫrā a-lakum al- ḏakaru wa-lahu al-unṯā tilka iḏan qismatun ḍīzā I warn you against al-Lāt and al-ʿUzzā, and Manāt, the third of them. Are yours the male and His the female? That is then an unjust division. Are yours the male and His the female – the despicable al-Lāt and al- ʿUzzā and Manāt, the third of them? This is then an unjust division.

An examination of the sentences above, and elsewhere in the Qurʾān, reveals that in the non-fronted sentences the constituent is to be fronted sig- nificantly heavier than the other verb dependants. Since the Qurʾān is oral in nature, intended as a discourse between interlocutors, the solution was to divide the sentences into two or more utterances and to maintain the link between the different parts: a pronoun, which can viewed as a resumptive pronoun, is placed in the later reference for the purpose of cohesion.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 189

Fronting is thus for a processing reason. In either case, whether the form under discussion is the reason behind the fronting or not, it is obviously correlated with it.

7 Conclusion

This article has shown that araʾayta‌ , in its various morphological forms, is a semantically empty – though pragmatically functional – discourse marker used to express a negative attitude towards its syntactic object, and that it also serves as a focus marker, highlighting its object to the reader. I have suggested that adopting such a reading makes the historicity of the story of the High- Flying Cranes very unlikely, and also requires a re-evaluation of our understanding of the contexts of the occurrence of this linguistic form. This analysis is not without problems, though. Perhaps one of the issues is that in an examination of the corpus of pre- Islamic poetry, I have found only one occurrence of the form that seems to conform to the general understanding outlined in this article. It occurs in an ode by al-Nabiġa al-Ḏubyānī. In this ode, al-Nabiġa ridicules his opponent who could not even get close to him in the battle:

ara‌ʾayta yawma ʿUkāẓa ḥīna laqītanī taḥta al-ʿaǧāǧi fa mā šaqaqta ġubārī

araʾayta‌ on the day of ʿUkaẓ, when you met me, then you did not even penetrate my dust (my literal translation)

In this, it can be seen that the adjunct, yawma ʿUkāẓa, has been fronted for purposes of focus, and that the form araʾayta‌ has no real syntactic or semantic contribution. This fits the pattern introduced above, and thus most likely falls in the same category. However, I have searched quite a large corpus of ʿAbbāsid and Islamic poetry, but have found no other instances of the form used in the Qurʾānic style. The ones that I have found are few, and are used in the literal sense of “vision”.34 One reason this form is not common outside the Qurʾān and the ḥadīṯ is that it is dialogical in nature. It requires two or more people to use a discourse marker of objection, and the morphology assumes that there is an addressee

34 I used the website www.adab.com as my corpus. This website includes over a million lines of Arabic poetry, categorized in different ways. I used my own search scripts that handle vocalization and encoding since searching the website directly is not very useful.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 190 Emad engaged in the conversation. The Qurʾān is an oral text in nature,35 and this is where discourse markers thrive. Some evidence for this may come from the ḥadīṯ. In a book collecting the ḥadīṯs agreed upon by the two prominent scholars Buḫarī and Muslim (al-luʾluʾ wa al-marǧān fī mā ittafaqa ʿalayhi al-šayḫān), I found 24 instances of the form as focus-fronting, all of them dialogical, and most of them explicitly showing an attitude of objection. Another, related issue may be that the early commentators did not view this as a discourse marker of attitude. Perhaps the form had fallen out of use when such a major Qurʾānic commentary like that of al-Ṭabarī was being written, but then we have the task of explaining the absence/rise/absence of the form in such a relatively short period. Treating the form as Qurʾān-specific might solve this issue, especially since an examination of a relatively large corpus of the post-Islamic literature revealed that the form, in its functional usage, did not seem to be particularly common. This question is not easy to answer, especially as we lack the resources necessary for a complete analysis of the Arabic linguistic heritage of the period. Hopefully, this will be available one day, which would be very helpful in solving these, and other, questions.

Bibliography

Abū Muḥammad Badruddīn al-Murādī. al-Ǧanā al-dānī fī ḥurūf al-maʿānī. Edited by Faḫruddīn Qabāwa and Aḥmad Nadīm Fāḍil. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmiyya, 1992. Abū Zahra, Muḥammad. Zahrtau al-tafāsīr. Beirut: Dār al-fikr al-ʿarabī, 1987. Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Edited by Šuʿayb al-Arnaʾūṭ‌ et al. Beirut, Lebanon. al-Risāla Publishers, 2001. Ahmed, Shahab. “Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic Verses.” Studia Islamica 87 (1998): 67-124, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595926. Akimoto, Minoji. “How far has far from become grammaticalized?” Historical Linguistics 1999 (2001): 1-11. Andres, Edna. “Seeing is Believing: Visual Categories in the Russian Lexicon.” In Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory, edited by Ellen Contini- Morava and Barbara Sussman Goldberg, with Robert S. Krisner, 363-77. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995.

35 N.A. Qureshi, “Spoken Scripture: Insights Gained by Reading Mark and the Qurʾan in Tandem Through an Oral Lens”, MA diss., Duke University, 2012, p. 9, retrieved August 31, 2015, http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5469/Qureshi_duke_ 0066N_11338.pdf.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access Araʾaytum: a Qurʾānic Stance Marker 191

Brinton, Laurel J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. al-Buḫari. al-Adab al-mufrad. Online version last accessed: 12/06/2016 https://library .islamweb.net/ḥadīṯ/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=97391& bk_no=141&startno=1. Burton, John. “Those Are the High-Flying Cranes.” Journal of Semitic Studies 15, no. 2 (1970): 246-64, https:doi.org/10.1093/jss/15.2.246. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Droge, Arthur J. The Qurʾan. A New Annotated Translation. Sheffield: Equinox, 2013. Firth, John R. “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930-1955.” In Studies in Linguistic Analysis, edited by John R. Firth, 1-32. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. Fischer, Olga. “The Development of Quasi-Auxiliaries in English and Changes in Word Order.” Neophilologue 78 (1994): 137-64. Fischer, Olga, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein, eds. Pathways of Change: Grammati- calization in English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. Harris, Alice, and Lyle Campbell. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Hawting, G.R. The Idea of Idolatry and the Emergence of Islam: From Polemic to History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse.” Language 56, no. 2 (June 1980): 251-99. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth Closs Traugott. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1993. Ibn Ḥaǧar al-ʿAsqalānī. Fatḥ al-bārī Šarḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Buḫārī. Edited by Muḥammad Fuād ʿAbd al-Bāqī. Beirut: Dar al-maʿrifa, 1379/1959-60. Ibn Taymiyya. Minhāǧ al-sunna al-nabawiyya fī naqḍ kalām al-šīʿa al-qadariyya. Edited by Muḥammad Rašād Sālim. Ǧāmiʿat al-Imam Muḥammad ibn Suʿūd al-Islāmiyya, Rhiyad, Saudi Arabia, 1986. Ifantidou-Trouki, Elly. “Sentential Adverbs and Relevance.” Lingua 90, nos. 1-2 (June 1993): 69-90. IslamQA. “Izālat al-labs ʿan qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq wa-masʾalat ʿiṣmat al-anbiyaʾ.”‌ Last accessed September 3, 2017. https://islamqa.info/ar/177218. Islamweb Fatwa Center. “Buṭlān Qiṣṣat al-ġarānīq.” Last accessed September 3, 2017. http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId& Id=28282. Lehmann, Christian. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa, 2002.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪth Studies Downloaded15 (2017) from 170-192 Brill.com10/03/2021 12:59:24AM via free access 192 Emad

Miller, George A., and Noam Chomsky. “Finitary Models of Language Users.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, edited by D. Luce, 419-92. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1963. Mohamed, Emad. “Object and Subject Heavy-NP Shift in Arabic.” Research in Corpus Linguistics 2 (2014): 23-33. Nicholas, Nick. “The Story of pu: The Grammaticalisation in Space and Time of a Modern Greek Complementiser.” PhD diss., University of Melbourne, 1998. Quirk, Randolph, et al. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, second edition. London: Longman, 1985. Qureshi, N.A. “Spoken Scripture: Insights Gained by Reading Mark and the Qurʾān in Tandem Through an Oral Lens.” MA diss., Duke University, 2012. Rabāīʿa, Muḥmmad Maǧlī Aḥmad. “Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm ʿalā tartīb al-nuzūl: Manbaʿuhu wa-fawʾiduh, dirāsāt ʿulūm al-šaraīʿa wa al-qānūn.” Journal of Law Studies 37, no. 1 (2010): 255-268 http://journals.ju.edu.jo/DirasatLaw/article/view File/104/102 Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Emergence of Islam. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Sinai, Nicolai. “An Interpretation of Sūrat al-Najm (Q. 53).” Journal of Qurʾānic Studies 13, no. 2 (2011): 1-28. Stallings, Lynne M., and Maryellen C. MacDonald. “It’s Not Just the ‘Heavy NP’: Relative Phrase Length Modulates the Production of Heavy-NP Shift.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40, no. 3 (June 2011): 177-87. Strazny, Philipp. Encyclopedia of Linguistics, third edition. London: Routledge, 2013. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. “On the Rise of Epistemic Meanings in English: An Example of Subjectification in Semantic Change.” Language 65, no. 1 (March 1989), 31-55. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Ekkehard König. “The Semantics-pragmatics of Grammaticalization Revisited.” In Approaches to Grammaticalization, volume 1, edited by Elizabeth C. Traugott and Bernd Heine, 189-218. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1991. Wasow, Thomas. “Remarks on Grammatical Weight.” Language Variation and Change 9 (1997): 81-105. Watt, William Montgomery. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Al-BayĀn – Journal of QurʾĀn and ḤadĪthDownloaded Studies from 15 Brill.com10/03/2021 (2017) 170-192 12:59:24AM via free access