Narrative Voice in the Qur'an
The frequent shifts in grammatical person in the Qur'an: a bug or a feature?
“But,” — they say — “a confused medley of dreams; but he has invented it; but he is a poet. So let him bring us a proof like that sent to the former peoples!”
(21:5)
Background
The Qur’an evinces what one might term a shifting narrative voice:
Descriptions of God are found in He, We, and I — and sometimes in all three within close proximity to each other.
The Addressee (i.e. the one spoken to) seems to wander in and out of You (plural) and Thou (singular), apparently without distinction.1
There are frequent and abrupt changes in named Addressee.
One may choose to believe that these characteristics are a feature of the Qur’an’s intrinsic inimitability, or that they are a feature of the Arabic extant at the time of revelation (either conviction frequently assumed as grounds to excuse the text from objective analysis). Or one can, as do the Qur’an’s critics, cite them in support of the assertion that the text is deficient.
What we have attempted to do, both in this article and across our broader work, is to treat sometimes challenging facets of the Qur’anic text — to use a term common among nerds — not as bugs but as features, and to infer and then to demonstrate the purposes of those features.
We have dedicated some considerable time to the attempt to understand the present problem in a systematic way, and we present our current findings in what follows.
As is frequently the case, while we can hope for some success in the demonstration of our findings, we readily acknowledge our inability to explain according to a left-brain, bottom-up process how we reached those findings, and have explained the reasons for this elsewhere.2
What follows, then, is a summary of some weeks of thought, reflection, experiment, and plain old-fashioned work. And while we may review some details of this presentation, we wish to present our initial findings and elicit feedback here.
In order to make the subject as accessible as possible, I have resorted to a certain amount of repetition and the use of a number of simple, even trite, comparisons to explain concepts. In cases such as this, one is inevitably trapped between the rock of patronising the reader on the one hand and the hard place of bewildering him on the other. I ask the readers’ forbearance at the outset for where I fail to strike the right balance.
I am publishing this on Substack with a view to soliciting intelligent feedback. I appreciate that an unprepared encounter with this information requires a certain level of attention and would hope that if those who are kind enough to point out any lapses in logic or clarity on my part would apply themselves to its substance before sharing those criticisms. This approach will optimise the chances of improving the final output.
Overview
Before launching into details, it will be helpful to provide a short introduction.
This analysis detects a number of features in the Qur’anic text which allow us to identify up to three Addressees at any point in the text, the function of which we understand as Narrative Witnesses. And while, naturally, the entire text of the Qur’an is intended to be read, understood, and applied by any who wish so to do, it is a fact that understanding a text’s operative Narrative Witnesses provides colour, context, and contour to any reading.
To take a secular example of what we mean by Narrative Witness: while the Gettysburg Address may be said to stand on its own merits, it is undeniable that an understanding of the speaker, the time in history, and the fact that Lincoln delivered his adddress during the Civil War at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery provides both a fuller context and the possibility to grasp more fully what the words he spoke meant then and what they might mean now. Lincoln as speaker, the audience on the day, and even the first graves at the cemetery serve in that context in the capacity of what we are calling here Narrative Witnesses. And while awareness of such dynamics will do nothing to help one incapable of broader reflection to understand Lincoln’s speech better, it will allow those with the ability to do so to be enriched by engagement with the text of Lincoln’s speech on a level deeper than would otherwise be possible.3
In the case of the Qur’an, the mechanics of the narrative framework we identify here are established at al fātiḥah,4 and these principles extend to the end of the text. That framework leverages what we call the unmediated vocative (by which term we simply mean named appeals in which there is no verb of speech), and what we call switches (by which term we mean grammatical changes in the text which signal a switch from one Narrative Witness to another).
We will look at the details of what we have summarised above in situ.
While verses are taken from my own translation, the analysis is in no way dependent on that fact.
As readers of my broader work will know, I do not assume the conclusions of what I call brand Islam. Hence, I do not import ideas about the supposed order of revelation taken from external sources into my analysis of the Qur’anic text; rather, I take the order of the text as presented as both intended and significant.5
The We | Thee narrative dynamic
As with much of my work, vital initial insights were gained by closely considering the opening surah of the Qur’an, al fātiḥah.
For the purposes of following this analysis, it is necessary for the reader to join me in a thought experiment. In it, we assume nothing; we begin with no knowledge, and piece things together as we go.
To proceed:
In the name of God, the Almighty, the Merciful.
(1:1)
Considering the text purely on narrative terms,6 within the framework of our thought experiment it is impossible to identify at 1:1 either who is speaking or to whom what is said is addressed. That is, to this point we have no Speaker and no Addressee.
We note also that what is said refers to a third party — that is, to one who is grammatically in the third person (e.g. He / Him).
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of All Creation,
(1:2)
The Almighty, the Merciful,
(1:3)
Master of the Day of Judgment.
(1:4)
While verses 1:2-4 expand upon 1:1, grammatically nothing has changed:
There is no Speaker.
There is no Addressee.
Everything thus far is expressive of the third person (He).
For comparison, consider this nursery rhyme:
Little Miss Muffet she sat on her tuffet, eating her curds eating and whey
Along came a spider who sat down beside her
And frightened Miss Muffet away.
From a narrative point of view, these are simply statements about two third parties: Miss Muffet (She) and the spider (He / It).
The situation which follows is entirely different:
Hush, little baby, don’t say a word,
Papa’s gonna buy you a mockingbird.
While in the couplet above the second line refers also to third persons (He, It), the first line demonstrates the existence of both a Speaker and Addressee.
To return to the Qur’an: in verses 1:1 through 1:4, we are in territory consonant with Little Miss Muffet. Like Little Miss Muffet, the text thus far is void of Speaker and Addressee, and, again, is grammatically entirely in the third person.
We hope we have not over-explained this point, but since it is central to what follows we wanted make it as clearly as possible.
The image below summarises the state of affairs at this juncture. The columns named Speaker, and Addressee remain blank for the reasons given above — namely, that they are void. (We employ the Narrative Code column later in this presentation.)
At the following verse, however, the narrative condition changes from what we might call a narrative-person void to one in which we can place both Speaker and Addressee:
Thee alone do we serve, and from Thee alone do we seek help.
(1:5)
The Speaker, then, is established by the first appearance of the grammatical first person (here: We) and the Addressee by the appearance of the grammatical second person (here: Thee).
This change provides the first of what we are calling here narrative dynamics (in this case, the narrative dynamic is We | Thee).
In addition, — and this is vital — this inflection point is attached to the vocative at 1:5 (which we signal in English by means of Thee alone).
The vocative is the grammatical term for the act of calling someone, often by name. In some languages, such as Arabic, this requires the addition of a particle; in Russian, for example, it requires a shortening and modification of the name itself; in Modern English there is no change.7
In this case, the vocative particle which attaches to Thee is in Arabic إِيَّا (transl.: iyyā).
We note also that 1:5 is what we term here unmediated — a further important concept in our analysis.
By unmediated we mean that the words are unaccompanied by any verb of speaking. For example, the words at 1:5 are not prefaced by And let the believers say. Rather, they appear without the mediation of a verb indicating an act of speaking.
To illustrate this point, below are two representations of the familiar children’s story The Little Red Hen:
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who lived on a farm. Early one morning she woke up and went outside. There she found some corn, after which she met the pig, the cat, and the rat.
“Who will help me plant the corn?” said the little red hen.
“Not I,” said the pig.
“Not I,” said the cat.
“Not I,” said the rat.
“Then I shall plant the corn myself,” said the little red hen – and so she did!
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who lived on a farm. Early one morning she woke up and went outside. There she found some corn, after which she met the pig, the cat, and the rat.
Who will help me plant the corn?
Not I.
Not I.
Not I.
Then I shall plant the corn myself.
And so she did!
All attachment to verbs of speaking (represented by said and speech marks in the first version) is absent in the second. While we can still work out what is happening in the second version, we do so without the mediation of any verb of speech. The spoken words simply appear; they are not a function of an act of speech by any party.
This is what we mean by unmediated speech. And, again, the distinction between mediated and unmediated speech is taken here as an intentional feature of the text.
We present now verses 1:5-7 in full:
Thee alone do we serve, and from Thee alone do we seek help.
(1:5)
Guide Thou us on the straight path,
(1:6)
The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not of those who incur wrath, nor of those who go astray.
(1:7)
To summarise, then, at 1:5-7 we find the following features:
The first instance of a Speaker (first person: We).
The first instance of an Addressee (second person: Thee).
The first instance of unmediated speech.
The first instance of the vocative.
We note that the operative instruments here are first-person and second-person verbs and objects only; possessive adjectives (mine, ours, yours, etc.) play no part in the surah, and we disregard the third person for the reasons given.
We understand these phenomena to be crucial to identifying and tracking operative Narrative Witnesses in the Qur’an, and in what follows we hope to illustrate why this is so.
The image below demonstrates the findings thus far:
Above, we see that as a function of the appearance of both Speaker (We) and Addressee (Thee) clarity on the identity of the Addressee (here: God) is achieved.
We note also that the appearance of what we are calling the We | Thee narrative dynamic serves as the “switch” from what we have described as narrative-person void (cf. Little Miss Muffet) to narrative-person clarity (cf. Hush, Little Baby).
Again, this phenomenon attaches to the first appearance of the vocative, and we have listed the identity of that Addressee in Column A under that vocative and marked it accordingly in the Narrative Code column.
And again, where what we are calling the switch occurs, the speech itself is unmediated.
Finally, we see also that the We | Thee narrative dynamic remains constant to the end of the surah.
These, then, are the principal textual phenomena that drive our analysis.
We will now expand on what we mean by switches.
Switches
By switch we mean a transition from one narrative dynamic to another.
Currently, we have only one Addressee option: Column A. And given that the We | Thee narrative dynamic is the sole one operative to this point, we know it to attach to Column A.
In other words, when the We | Thee narrative dynamic is operative, the principal Narrative Witness indicated in Column A will be operative.
Again, neither the grammatical third person (He, They, etc.) nor possessive adjectives (My, Mine, Your, Our, etc.) act as switches (see 1:1-4). Thus, there exist precisely four possible switch variations between Speaker and Addressee expressed by verb or object: the grammatical first-person singular and plural Speakers and the grammatical second-person singular and plural Addressees.8
These options are listed below:
I | Thee
I | You
We | Thee (as initiated at 1:5)
We | You
We assume any narrative dynamic to be operative until and unless switched by a grammatical change of the type listed above. Thus, the We | Thee narrative dynamic is operative until, let’s say, You (as a verb or object) is introduced where the narrative dynamic switches to We | You.
To summarise: the change of either a grammatically first-person Speaker (from singular to plural or from plural to singular) or of a grammatically second-person Addressee (from singular to plural or from plural to singular) operates as a switch — changing the operative Narrative Witness — and impacts all that follows until the next switch.
Here is a further way of understanding the same concept. Let’s say we have the following options: A and B on the one hand, 1 and 2 on the other:
A | 1
A | 1
A | 2
A | 2
B | 2
B | 2
B | 1
B | 1
B | 1
A | 1
The appearance of 2 at line 3 signals the first switch in the sequence. The appearance of B at line 5 signals the second switch. The appearance of 1 at line 7 signals the third switch. The appearance of A at line 10 signals the final switch.
To summarise: in the context of our analysis, a switch is signalled by a shift in either the Speaker (from I to We or from We to I), or in the Addressee (either from Thee to You or from You to Thee).
And this shift must be unmediated — that is, unattached to a verb of speaking.
We repeat: nothing else operates as a switch, not the third person (He, They) nor possessive adjectives (His, Mine, My, Our, etc.), just verbs and objects in either the grammatical first person or grammatical second person.
These are the essentials. It is hoped that further demonstration will clarify any questions.
Building on the principles of al fātiḥah
We turn now to what immediately follows al fātiḥah.
alif lām mīm
(2:1)
That is the Writ about which there is no doubt, a guidance to those of prudent fear:
(2:2)
Those who believe in the Unseen, and uphold the duty, and of what We have provided them they spend;
(2:3)
And those who believe in what was sent down to thee, and what was sent down before thee, and of the Hereafter they are certain:
(2:4)
We present verses 2:1-4 again below within their broader context:
While the identity of the only possible addressee has shifted (from God to Muḥammad), we see that the form of both the Speaker and Addressee has remained constant (i.e. we are still within the We | Thee narrative dynamic because no switch has occurred).
Thus, we are still correctly attached to Column A.
The We | Thee narrative dynamic then remains constant until 2:21, to which verse we now turn.
The We | You narrative dynamic
O mankind: serve your Lord who created you, and those before you, that you might be in prudent fear;
(2:21)
We have italicised the parts of the verse above which mark it as a switch to the We | You narrative dynamic.
The shift from the grammatically second-person singular Addressee (Thee) to the grammatically second-person plural Addressee (You) is a switch, and the first to occur since the We | Thee narrative dynamic is established at 1:5.
Simultaneously, verse 2:21 presents a new vocative.
Importantly, the vocative employed here differs from that at 1:5. In Arabic it is يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا (transl. yāayyuuhā). Since this is a new vocative and is intrinsic to the appearance of the the We | You narrative dynamic we are confident in attaching Column B to the We | You narrative dynamic.
Thus, verse 2:21 comprises the following features:
The appearance of a new narrative dynamic (here: We | You).
The appearance of a new vocative.
We note also that the substance of the verse is, again, unmediated (i.e. no verb of speaking is supplied such as God says to you).
The image below presents 2:21 in context:
Operative columns replace each other
Verses 2:21-24 are in the We | You narrative dynamic, and at verse 2:25 there is a switch back to the We | Thee narrative dynamic:
And bear thou glad tidings to those who heed warning and do righteous deeds, that they have gardens beneath which rivers flow; whenever they are provided with the fruit thereof they say: “This is what we were provided with before”; and they are given thereby a likeness; and they have therein purified spouses; and they abide therein eternally.
(2:25)
We have italicised the part of the verse above which marks it as a switch back to the We | Thee dynamic.
At 2:28 there is a switch again from the We | Thee narrative dynamic back to the We | You narrative dynamic:
How can you deny God? When you were dead, He gave you life; then will He give you death; then will He give you life; then to Him will you be returned.
(2:28)
We have italicised the parts of the verse above which mark it as a switch back to the We | You dynamic.
The image below places both processes in context:
This brings us to the question of how operative Columns work. The options are:
Each Column once activated remains operative until cancelled by a later event (in which case activate, uncancelled Columns must accumulate).
Each operative Column is replaced by another at each subsequent switch.
Happily, we can know that the latter is the case, which clarification we derive from 2:28:
How can you deny God? When you were dead, He gave you life; then will He give you death; then will He give you life; then to Him will you be returned.
(2:28)
We assume here that the reader can follow why this marks a switch back to the We | You dynamic, and have italicised those parts of the verse which are pertinent to what follows.
Careful consideration of the substance of the verse when correlated with the mechanics of the system we are presenting here shows it to supply the solution to the question of which options listed above is correct (and which question has at this point in the text become pressing).
The facts are these:
In the image above we see that the Mankind Addressee is introduced at 2:21.
We see also that between 2:25-27, Column A is operative.
Looking ahead: Mankind in Column B is operative again between 2:28-39.
Looking ahead: Mankind in Column B is inoperative between 2:40-48.
Looking ahead: Mankind in Column B is operative again between 2:49-103.
Looking ahead: At 2:104 Mankind in Column B is replaced by a new Addressee.
We now consider how the content of 2:28 corresponds with these facts:
The Mankind Addressee is originally “dead” (being nonexistent prior to 2:21).
The Mankind Addressee is given “life” at 2:21.
The Mankind Addressee is later given “death” between 2:40-48 (but — and this is important — only if it is understood there to be inoperative).
The Mankind Addressee is again “given life” between 2:49-103 (where it becomes operative again).
The Mankind element is entirely replaced (cf. “returned to Him”) by a new Narrative Addressee at 2:104.
Thus, if — and only if — the Mankind element (Column B) is understood to be “dead” (i.e. inoperative) at section 2:40-48 (which is in the as-yet unseen I | You narrative dynamic) does what is expressed at 2:28 hold true.
On this basis, we understand each switch to replace and make entirely inoperative (i.e. render “dead”), any preceding operative Column.
The I | You narrative dynamic
Narrative Codes A and B alternate until 2:40 where we encounter the next unmediated vocative statement:
O children of Israel: remember My favour wherewith I favoured you; and fulfil the covenant with Me, and I will fulfil the covenant with you; and Me — be you in fear of Me.
(2:40)
The verse above comprises the first instance of the I | You narrative dynamic to this point in the text, the features of which we have marked in italics.
Importantly, we encounter here the third vocative in the text. And, equally as importantly, this vocative is distinct also from those which precede it.
While in English translation no distinction is made from the previous vocative, in the Arabic the words O children of Israel employ an entirely new vocative particle: يَـٰٓ (transl. yā).
We recognise also a further familiar characteristic in that the statement at 2:40 is entirely unmediated.
As the third of three distinct unmediated vocatives arising simultaneously with the third of three narrative dynamics, we are able to attach the I | You narrative dynamic to the column we create now for this vocative: Column C.
The image below places the details of this switch in context.
The I | You narrative dynamic then remains in force until 2:49 where the resumption of We marks the switch from C to B.
And when We delivered you from the house of Pharaoh: they were afflicting you with an evil punishment, slaughtering your sons and sparing your women; and in that was a great trial from your Lord.
(2:49)
Multiple operative columns
Having established the core principles of this system, before we look at the fourth, remaining I | Thee narrative dynamic it would be helpful to summarise certain implicit extensions to what we have seen thus far.
Verse 2:144 below, for example, contains both We | Thee and We | You narrative dynamics. Accordingly, both Narrative Code A and B attach to this verse.
Meanwhile, at 2:132 for example, the Narrative Witness at C is identified as Sons of Abraham & Jacob on the basis of the unmediated C-type vocative يَـٰٓ (transl. yā) while the operative dynamic narrative is We | You (i.e. B).
Accordingly, both Narrative Code B and C attach to this verse.
The two features above, then, are means implicit to the mechanics of this system whereby more than one Column may be operative at a time.
The I | Thee narrative dynamic
The three narrative dynamics we have met to this point are relatively straightforward, and given our understanding of how this mechanism works overall, we proceed now in expectation of addressing the fourth and remaining narrative dynamic in I | Thee.
In view of what we have seen to this point, one would expect the same components:
A new vocative;
Unmediated speech;
A clear declaration of the identity of a new Narrative Witness.
And we would expect to find all points above located within the I | Thee narrative dynamic.
While what we find clearly deviates from the expected pattern, our understanding of the mechanism to this point is sufficient to form an educated assessment of what these deviations mean.
The next vocative that we meet in the order of the text is formed from the word rabb (meaning Lord). But — and this is important — this vocative is mediated by a verb of speaking, and this fact renders the verse invalid from the perspective of the mechanism under consideration:
And when Abraham said: “My Lord, make Thou this a secure land, and provide Thou its people with fruits, whoso among them believes in God and the Last Day,” He said: “And whoso denies, him will I let enjoy a little, then will I drive him to the punishment of the Fire; and evil is the journey’s end.”
(2:126)
The verses immediately following 2:126 then present the same basic vocative (here in plural form) meaning our Lord in رَبَّنَا (transl. rabbanā), none of which is mediated:
And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the house: “Our Lord: be Thou accepting of us; Thou art the Hearing, the Knowing.
(2:127)
“Our Lord: make Thou us submitting to Thee, and of our progeny a community submitting to Thee; and show Thou us our rites, and turn Thou towards us; Thou art the Accepting of Repentance, the Merciful.
(2:128)
“Our Lord: raise Thou up among them a messenger from among them who will recite to them Thy proofs, and teach them the Writ and wisdom, and increase them in purity; Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”
(2:129)
So, while 2:126 is mediated by a verb of speaking (see: And when Abraham said) an attentive reading of the text shows the occasion at 2:127 to be different (consider the introduction: And when Abraham and Ishmael raised the foundations of the house). Without this introduction one could argue at 2:127 in favour of a continuation of the exchange between God and Abraham at 2:126; with it, however, it is clear that at 2:127 not one but two persons are speaking, and speaking on a new occasion.
It is clear also that the form of the vocative in every case precludes association with a human Narrative Witness (cf. O Mankind for example) by virtue of the fact that it attaches to a title for God (rabb).
Meanwhile, the content of the unmediated verses at 2:127-129 serves as a switch, placing them under the existing Column A.
The facts, then, are these:
The fourth “unseen vocative” encounter in the text consists of four vocatives in rabb, one invalid (since it is mediated), three valid (unmediated).
It is impossible by definition to attach this vocative to a human Narrative Witness.
The valid vocative statements attach to an existing narrative dynamic (We | Thee / Narrative Code A).
In order to attempt to place verses 2:126-129 into a context we can more easily grasp vis-à-vis what has preceded, we will think of Narrative Codes A, B, and C as round pegs in round holes.
The series of four rabb vocative statements, however, presents us with:
A single square peg with no hole (2:126).
Three further round pegs in square holes (2:127-129).
In the context of what we have learned about this system to this point, I conclude that Narrative Code D, does not attach to a Column, neither does it entail Narrative Witnesses; rather, where the remaining narrative dynamic in I | Thee occurs, it serves as a means by which to activate all the existing three Columns A, B and C (i.e. the three round pegs in round holes).
This conclusion is both consonant with the mechanisms we have demonstrated to this point, and expressive of the manifest contrast between the genesis of A, B and C on the one hand, and of D on the other.
The first instance of the I | Thee narrative dynamic in the text of the Qur’an occurs some sixty verses later:
And when My servants ask thee concerning Me: “I am near.” I respond to the call of the caller when he calls to Me. So let them respond to Me, and let them believe in Me, that they might be guided.
(2:186)
We have italicised the parts of the verse above which mark it as a switch to the I | Thee narrative dynamic.
We place 2:186 in part of its broader context in the image below:
Conclusion
The mechanism we have outlined in this article is derived from a close accounting of the narrative dynamics operative at surah 1.
As with much of our analysis, the conclusions are inferred on the basis of the preponderance of data. It is up to the individual to decide whether, and at what point, the weight of that evidence is, for him, compelling.
Separately, we have applied this methodology to the entire text of the Qur’an (for details of which see below) and have come to the view that it supplies a matrix which allows one to benefit from awareness of Narrative Witnesses at any point in the text.
On the basis of this work I regard the shifting narrative voice which readers correctly identify in the Qur’an to be — to return to the nerdy vernacular with which we opened — a feature, not a bug.
Next steps
I intend to open my application of this process to the full body of the Qur’anic text to one or two trusted people for the purposes of checking and refining those findings, and to ensure that all switches have been correctly identified.
The resultant mapping of Narrative Witnesses will then form the basis for further analysis of the narrative structure of the Qur’an, which itself is a prerequisite for engagement in the task which drives this project: to present an objective assessment of how the Qur’an should be viewed with regard to earlier writings.
At some point, I intend to release the work on Narrative Witnesses for the entire corpus of the Qur’an as part of a print publication.
As with the rest of my work, that publication will be made available also in an electronic form in full and for free.
Feedback
As always, I am appreciative to have any fact-based or logic-based errors pointed out to me, along with the inevitable lapses in clarity, grammar, or spelling. I will update this article on the basis of such feedback submitted here.
In the interests of consistency, we capitalise all personal pronouns in this analysis.
Despite the analytical nature of much of my written output, the vital parts of my process are not analytical as understood by moderns. As I have explained elsewhere (The Mysterious Letters of the Qur’an: A Complete Solution), I achieve most breakthroughs by means of intellective insights, and I freely admit that I do not myself understand how these come about. I therefore simply present the definition I have reached and its textual and rational supports without claiming logical inevitability to drive all aspects of my process. I sympathise to some degree with those habituated to the idea that all conclusions should have their origins in the counting of beans (i.e. that is is necessary to begin with little things in order to build bigger things, and that these bigger things can only emerge from a process of calculus applied to groupings of little things), but since this is not my experience, I am unable to provide a description of how such a process might have worked here.
This is, of course, what the Traditionalist claims for his insertion of an extra-Qur’anic literature into the text. We have treated of this usurpation process in detail elsewhere and will not be drawn into such secondary matters here.
I.e. surah 1.
I frequently describe my approach as comparable to imagining that one found the Qur’an buried in a cave and treating it on that basis. This helps one mentally to extricate it from the cultural, civilisational, and other accretions which have accrued to it over time.
By this I mean in terms of the words on the page, not as necessarily as scripture.
However, in older versions of English it was expressed by O, as in O John.
We understand, of course, that Arabic expresses the dual and feminine plurals for example. However, by plural here we mean not singular.
Dear Sam
This is such a welcome piece of education. Thank you. I will need to read this a few times for the understanding to sink in.
I had learned a while back (through your Youtube work) that the Qur'an can only be understood when studied with great care, rather than simply read as a book.
I read each verse extremely slowly and out loud, and then read it for a second time and third time. This helps to identify the "narrative voice" with a higher degree of accuracy and meaning.
The above piece is therefore very helpful. I will use it as a cross referencing tool during Qur'anic study. Needless to say, after three months of regular study, ( including notes, alternative translations and addendum) I am still at Surah 2. Yet the insights I am gaining, at such an early stage of the text, are extraordinarily powerful.
I wonder whether you have come across Neil Douglas Klotz, who explains the richness of expression of the Aramaic language (Qura'nic Arabic is a sister language)? He explains that each statement of Aramaic text must be examined from at least three points of view; the intellectual, the metaphorical and the universal (mystical). He says that there are several possible literal translations, which awaken our poetic sensibilities (through metaphor) and even encourage us to embrace the wordless experience (universal).
I point this out because when you say "I achieve most breakthroughs by means of intellective insights, and I freely admit that I do not myself understand how these come about", I am immediately reminded of this book.