This paper engages the Qur??n’s attitude toward poetic inspiration in the light of Plato’s Ion. In S?rat al-Shu?ar??, the poets are attacked for their character--their roaming idleness in search for inspiration, and the fact that their words do not match their deeds--but it is still strongly implied that they receive their inspiration extrinsically from “daimonic powers” (shay???n) that “descend upon” them (26:221). In casting the poets as vessels for external inspiration, the Qur??n conception of poetry diverges from that of the tightly controlled tékhn? reflected in the later classical definition of kal?m mawz?n muqaff? (metered/balanced speech with a rhyming scheme). In other words, the primary difference between Qur??nic and poetic speech is not at all technical, but strictly inspirational; Mu?ammad, like Homer, receives his speech from a supreme divine force, not minor daimons. The connotations of “reason” and “deliberation” elicited by the word “mawz?n,” should further tip us to the fact that the Qur??n, like Plato’s Ion, well-recognizes the notion of poetic composition as an act of madness. Hence, the non-believers in S?rat al-?af?t ae reported to say: “Are we to leave our gods to a mad poet (sh??ir majn?n)” (37: 36). The adjectival use of the word mad (majn?n) in the latter phrase renders it almost interchangeable with poet (sh??ir). Then again, the Qur??n does not absolutely refute the charge of madness, but ennobles it: Mu?ammad should be believed because it speaks the truth (al-?aq), not because his inspiration could be accounted for by reason. To this end, nominalism becomes the principal tool by which the Qur??n validity as a legal code is upheld in the classical age. The Qur??n becomes separated from poetry insofar as poetry becomes increasingly conceptualized in terms of technicalities. Meanwhile, the madness is shocked back to sense through the teleological apologia of interpretation (t??w?l) and exegesis (tafs?r). Ultimately, this paper questions whether the pronounced metapoeticism of modern Arabic poetry is truly self-reflective of the poetic medium or, as it is, has ever been deeply entangled in the nominalist webs of ?Abb?s?d literary criticism. As the illustrious virtuosos of contemporary Arabic verse set on their paths crafting theorizing poetry that draws on Nietzsche’s subjectivity and Pound’s novelty, one cannot but wonder about the limits of their insight--if they ever saw Nietzsche, Pound, or even Mu?ammad?