The question/claim: "The Qur'an repeatedly praises and treats its own Arabic as a deliberate choice (12:2, 43:3, 26:195), and its first address is explicitly Mecca and its Arab environs (42:7, 'the Mother of Cities'). Why would a book that claims to be universal descend in the language of one single people and exalt that language? Isn't this an Arab-centrism later stretched into a universal claim?"
Context — the text really does foreground Arabic
The objection's starting point is correct: the Qur'an names its own language many times.
"Indeed, We sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, that you may reason." (12:2)
"We made it an Arabic Qur'an, that you may understand." (43:3)
"In a clear Arabic tongue." (26:195)
The concreteness of the first audience is equally explicit:
"…We revealed to you an Arabic Qur'an so that you may warn the Mother of Cities (Mecca) and those around it…" (42:7)
Two readings
The classical exegetical line (Ibn Kathīr, al-Ṭabarī and their followers): reads "Arabic Qur'an" not as the superiority of the language but as a rationale of intelligibility/reasoning. Ibn Kathīr glosses 42:7 as "We revealed to you this Arabic Qur'an so that you may warn Mecca and those around it," stressing that the first audience is the Arab milieu. Mawdūdī (Tafhīm al-Qur'an, 12:1-6) sums it up: "Even a universal book must necessarily be expressed in some language; those who speak it understand first, then carry the message to others" (interpretation). Fuṣṣilat 41:44 is taken as evidence on the same line:
"Had We made it a non-Arabic Qur'an, they would surely have said, 'Why are its verses not explained? A non-Arabic (book) for an Arab?'…" (41:44)
So, on the classical view, the choice of language is to remove the denier's excuse; Arabic is the means, guidance is the aim, and translation/exegesis is obligatory for non-Arabs (interpretation).
The Qur'an-centred / modern reading (e.g. the line of M. Okuyan): answers "why Arabic?" from the Qur'an's own principle:
"We sent no messenger except in the language of his own people, so that he might make (things) clear to them…" (14:4)
On this reading there is no privilege peculiar to Arabic, but a general divine law valid across the whole history of revelation; the choice of Arabic is not "Arab superiority" but the natural consequence of the first audience's language being Arabic (interpretation). The emphasis in 12:2 and 43:3 — "that you may reason" (la'allakum ta'qilūn) — shows the function of language is to be understood. Universality, meanwhile, is defined not by language but by the target audience:
"We have sent you only as a bringer of good news and a warner to all mankind (kāffatan li'n-nās)…" (34:28)
"…that he may be a warner to the worlds…" (25:1)
"We have sent you only as a mercy to the worlds." (21:107)
That is: the language of descent is local, the target audience is global; translation and exegesis are the carriers of that universality (interpretation). The "clear Arabic" of 26:195 foregrounds the language's clarity, not a claim of linguistic superiority (interpretation).
Honest limit
Where the objection is right: the text does name Arabic, again and again, as a choice (12:2, 43:3, 26:195), and the first address is plainly Mecca and its Arab surroundings (42:7 'Mother of Cities'; also 6:19, 'this Qur'an was revealed to me that I may warn you and whomever it reaches'). The critical reading takes 41:44 together with 14:4 to argue that the message's primary, natural context is the Arab people, and that the universality verses (34:28, 21:107) are a later broadening (interpretation). (Historical note: most of these universality verses — 34:28, 21:107, 25:1 — belong to the Meccan period, so the claim that they were 'broadened later / in Medina' is itself chronologically contestable.)
What is certain in the text vs. contested in interpretation: what is certain is that the Qur'an simultaneously contains both local-language/concrete-audience statements (14:4, 42:7) and global-target statements (34:28 'to all mankind', 25:1 'to the worlds'). Hence a "purely Arab-centric" reading leaves out the universal-address verses, and a "purely universal" reading leaves out the local-context verses. Which one predominates is an interpretive choice, not the text's single obligatory reading. The honest conclusion: local language and universal target stand side by side in the Qur'an; the answer most faithful to the text is "because the first audience was Arab, and the message descended in their tongue so that it would be understood first" (interpretation).
Related articles
- Does the Qur'an regard itself as sufficient?
- Was the Qur'an preserved?
- The Qur'an's emphasis on reason
- What does obeying the Messenger mean?
Source: Qur'anic verses (M. Okuyan meal). Presented soberly and respectfully, with a text/interpretation distinction.