Yet this abundance makes an ancient distinction more urgent, not less: Information is not knowledge, and possessing an answer is not the same as knowing how to inquire.
The educational challenge of our time is therefore not simply how to acquire information, but what to do with it: how to observe, question, compare, distinguish assertion from evidence, analyze relationships, synthesize ideas, evaluate interpretations, and use what is known to investigate what remains unknown.
Arabic offers a particularly revealing language through which to explore this process. Its root-and-pattern morphology generates families of related words, making relationships among meanings unusually visible. Linguistic and psycholinguistic scholarship has established the centrality of morphological structure to Arabic word formation and lexical processing (Boudelaa & Marslen-Wilson, 2001; Ryding, 2014). Something still more intriguing happens when Arabic and English are placed beside one another.
The bilingual ear may notice phonological correspondences at points where the mind simultaneously recognizes semantic ones. I call these convergences Arabic–English phonological-semantic resonance: an approach that begins by noticing correspondences of sound and meaning and turns the observation into inquiry. What conceptual relationship appears? What linguistic or historical evidence might explain it? What becomes visible when two languages are allowed to illuminate one another?
The method itself performs the intellectual movement this article proposes:
notice → compare → question → investigate → evaluate → interpret
The appropriate place to begin is with the language of knowledge itself.
Knowledge Begins with What We Do Not Know
The first command traditionally associated with Qur’anic revelation, beginning in 610 CE, is striking:
“Read” (iqraʾ — اقْرَأْ).
It does not begin with “Believe.”
It begins with “Read.”
The distinction is intellectually significant. The opening movement is toward reading, learning, and inquiry:
“Read in the name of your Rabb (رَبّ), conventionally translated as ‘Lord,’ who created; created the human being from a clinging form. Read, and your Rabb is al-Akram (الْأَكْرَم), ‘the Most Generous,’ who taught by the pen, taught the human being what the human being did not know.”
اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَقَ خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ
(Qur’an 96:1–5)
Three expressions establish an extraordinary epistemological sequence: read; taught by the pen; taught the human being what the human being did not know.
The last is crucial:
“what the human being did not know” (mā lam yaʿlam — مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ).
The unknown is not the failure of knowledge. It is where inquiry begins.
Equally significant is who is taught. The verse does not say the Muslim, the believer, the Arab, or the scholar. It says “the human being” (al-insān — الْإِنسَان).
Knowledge is thus presented in universal human terms. Learning is not linguistically restricted to a particular religious, ethnic, cultural, or intellectual identity.
That universality becomes still more significant in al-Akram (الْأَكْرَم), “the Most Generous”—a generosity that, within the Qur’anic worldview, exceeds ordinary human measures of reciprocity. The Creator sustains human life and its capacity for learning whether or not the human being acknowledges Him.
The gift precedes the response.
This yields a powerful educational principle: knowledge should not become the privilege of an identity. Intellectual rigor and educational equity are not opposites. Every human being should have the opportunity to develop the capacities through which knowledge is pursued.
Rabb: More Than “Lord”
The word Rabb (رَبّ), conventionally translated as “Lord” in English, demonstrates why a translation can make one meaning accessible while leaving relationships within a larger semantic field less visible.
Classical Arabic lexicography associates Rabb not only with authority and governance but with sustaining, nurturing, fostering, regulating, and bringing something progressively toward development (Lane, 1863–1893).
That semantic field remains recognizable in educational vocabulary:
education/cultivation — tarbiyah (تَرْبِيَة)
educator/nurturer — murabbī (مُرَبِّي)
The relationship is conceptually important. Education is not merely the transmission of information. It is cultivation and development of human capacity.
Thus another Qur’anic expression becomes particularly meaningful:
“My Rabb—my Sustainer and Nurturer—increase me in knowledge” (Rabbi zidnī ʿilman — رَبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا). (Qur’an 20:114)
The prayer does not ask merely for more information. It asks for continued intellectual development.
Another verse establishes the corresponding epistemic humility:
“You have been given only a little knowledge” — وَمَا أُوتِيتُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا. (Qur’an 17:85)
Together they establish a philosophy of inquiry: knowledge can increase, but the unknown remains.
A dissertation does not finish a field. A scientific theory does not end investigation. A book does not have the last word on its subject.
Knowledge has no last page.
Listen to the Language of Knowledge
Arabic makes this generativity visible within words themselves:
to know — ʿalima (عَلِمَ)
knowledge — ʿilm (عِلْم)
to teach — ʿallama (عَلَّمَ)
to learn — taʿallama (تَعَلَّمَ)
scholar — ʿālim (عَالِم)
scholars — ʿulamāʾ (عُلَمَاء)
sciences/fields of knowledge — ʿulūm (عُلُوم)
These are not isolated vocabulary items. They constitute a morphological and conceptual network.
Knowing becomes knowledge; knowledge can be taught; teaching enables learning; learning produces knowers; knowers constitute scholarly communities; and knowledge develops into disciplines.
Morphology becomes an epistemological map.
Now listen comparatively:
ʿālim — ʿulamāʾ — ʿulūm
and:
alumnus — alumna — alumni
Then place beside them another word associated with knowledge:
illuminate.
The documented histories of alumnus and illuminate lead through Latin. Phonological-semantic resonance asks a different, additional question: what becomes visible when cross-linguistic comparison attends simultaneously to sound, semantic field, conceptual development, intellectual contact, and historical transmission?
That question is itself an invitation to research, not a substitute for it.
The conceptual resonance of illumination is immediately recognizable. To illuminate is to bring something into light. An explanation illuminates when it makes the obscure understandable. A scholar “sheds light” on a problem. Someone understands and says:
“I see.”
Teaching moves the learner from what was unknown toward what can be known.
It illuminates.
The Pen: Inquiry Made Visible Through Writing
The opening revelation places another word at the center of knowledge:
“the pen” (al-qalam — الْقَلَم).
“He taught by the pen” (ʿallama bil-qalam — عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ).
Writing is not merely what happens after knowledge has been acquired. It participates in the process through which knowledge is investigated, analyzed, constructed, tested, and revised.
Here the bilingual ear encounters another striking resonance. Arabic qalam means “pen”; in its indefinite nominative form:
“a pen” — qalamun (قَلَمٌ)
Place it beside:
qalamun — column
English column comes through Old French from Latin columna, “pillar.” The architectural term later developed the meaning of a vertical division of a written page and, subsequently, the written material occupying that space. A columnist writes a column.
The convergence is intriguing:
qalamun — an instrument of writing
column — a structure carrying written material
columnist — one who produces that writing
A physical column supports a structure; a written column carries thought; the qalam gives thought written form.
Writing becomes a form of intellectual architecture.
More importantly, writing makes inquiry visible.
Research begins with something not yet known, sufficiently understood, or adequately explained. A question identifies that gap. The researcher observes and investigates, gathers information and evidence, analyzes distinctions and relationships, compares sources, evaluates competing interpretations, synthesizes findings, and constructs an argument that contributes something new.
The movement is:
unknown → question → observation → investigation → evidence → analysis → synthesis → evaluation → interpretation → writing and revision → new knowledge → new inquiry
For students, the distinction is essential: gathering information is not yet creating knowledge. Knowledge emerges through what we do intellectually with information.
The Qur’anic sequence expresses this movement with remarkable economy:
“He taught by the pen” — عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ
followed by:
“He taught the human being what the human being did not know” — عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ
The pen and the unknown stand beside one another.
From Sight to Insight
How does inquiry begin?
Often, by learning how to see.
English provides an intuitive example:
sight → insight
Sight remains present within insight, while physical perception becomes intellectual perception.
Arabic makes a comparable relationship visible through its morphological system:
sight — baṣar (بَصَر)
insight/discernment — baṣīrah (بَصِيرَة)
sights/visions — abṣār (أَبْصَار)
The forms belong to the same Arabic root family. This gives the English reader a particularly accessible illustration of Arabic morphology: a semantic core remains recognizable while morphological development enriches and extends its field of meaning.
Physical sight becomes insight.
And here the bilingual ear may notice another phonological-semantic resonance:
abṣār — observe / observer
The audible correspondence meets a semantic convergence around seeing and observation. Rather than ending the inquiry, the resemblance begins one: What might explain it? What evidence would establish or reject a historical relationship? What does the conceptual parallel reveal even before that historical question is resolved?
This is phonological-semantic resonance performing the work of inquiry.
More importantly, Arabic and English share a striking conceptual metaphor: knowing is seeing.
“I see what you mean.”
“Look at the evidence.”
“She has insight.”
The Qur’an turns that metaphor into intellectual practice:
“Return your vision: do you see any flaw?” — فَارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ هَلْ تَرَىٰ مِنْ فُطُورٍ
Then:
“Return your vision again.” — ثُمَّ ارْجِعِ الْبَصَرَ كَرَّتَيْنِ
(Qur’an 67:3–4)
Look. Then look again.
The first observation is not automatically the final interpretation. Observation becomes re-observation; perception is tested; conclusions remain answerable to evidence.
Sight becomes insight.
Bring Your Evidence
But neither observation nor interpretation alone establishes truth.
The Qur’an therefore presents another intellectual challenge:
“Bring your evidence” (hātū burhānakum — هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ). (Qur’an 2:111)
A claim creates an obligation:
show what supports it.
The language encountered throughout the article now forms a coherent epistemological process:
Read. Recognize what you do not know. Observe. Look again. Question. Compare. Analyze. Distinguish. Bring evidence. Evaluate. Synthesize.
Interpret. Create new knowledge. Ask again.
This is not a language of passive information.
It is a language of inquiry.
The Question We Need in the Age of AI
We have returned to where we began.
Artificial intelligence can increasingly provide answers. Education must therefore become even better at teaching human beings how to question them.
What is the evidence? What assumptions produced this conclusion? What relationships have been overlooked? What does a word reveal within its larger semantic field? What has translation made accessible—and what relationships has it made less visible? What happens when we look again?
What alternative interpretation better fits the evidence? What would cause us to revise our conclusion?
And ultimately:
What do we still not know?
These questions belong neither to Arabic nor English, neither to one religious community nor another. They belong to the human being (al-insān — الْإِنسَان).
The opening revelation did not begin with “Believe.”
It began with:
“Read.”
And it did not say:
“He taught the believer.”
It said:
“He taught the human being what the human being did not know.”
عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ
Knowledge, in this vision, should enlarge rather than divide humanity.
And because no person, language, discipline, or generation can exhaust it, the appropriate response to knowledge is neither intellectual arrogance nor passive ignorance.
It is inquiry.
“My Rabb—my Sustainer and Nurturer—increase me in knowledge.”
رَبِّ زِدْنِي عِلْمًا
The prayer does not ask for knowledge to be finished.
It asks for knowledge to increase.
That may be precisely the lesson an age overflowing with information most needs to recover.
References
Boudelaa, S., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2001). Morphological units in the Arabic mental lexicon. Cognition, 81(1), 65–92.
Lane, E. W. (1863–1893). An Arabic-English lexicon. Williams and Norgate.
Ryding, K. C. (2014). Arabic: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press.
* The writer is a Professor of English at Rutgers University. She is the Founding Director of the Arabic Program at Vanderbilt University and formerly served as Professor of Advanced Arabic in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University.
Short link: