What the Qur’an means by “mubīn” (clear) has fascinated many Qur’anic scholars, such as Claude Gilliot, Pierre Larcher, and Stefan Wild, especially in the Qur’anic self-reference as being in clear Arabic, “bi-lisān ʿarabī mubīn” (i.e., Q. 26:195). Angelika Neuwirth also highlights the problem of an unanswered contradiction within the Qur’an in her reading of Q. 3:7 that states that there are “mutashābihāt” (usually understood as ambiguous) verses in the Qur’an, while other parts of the Qur’an suggest that it is “mubīn” (clear). She rhetorically asks that if the Qur’an self-proclaims to be “mubīn” (clear), “why should there be ambiguous verses.” This ambiguity of what the Qur’an means by “mubīn” has sparked a scholarly debate not only to define or redefine its meaning, but also what the Qur’an means by “ʿarabī,” if it is the Arabic language, and if so which specific dialect or even dialects of Arabic. The Qur’an explicitly highlights the key to its own understanding is linguistic, emphasizing its language as the key to unlocking its code (e.g., Q. 12:2). Nonetheless, the Qur’an provides us with an enigma: while on one hand, it is in a language that is “ʿarabī” and “mubīn” (assumed to mean clear Arabic) (i.e., Q. 26:195), it still challenged its own audience to grasp its meaning, stating that God places veils (akinnah) in people’s hearts so that they would not comprehend it (e.g., Q. 17:46). So, is the Qur’an in clear Arabic, or is it veiled and, by definition, obscured and unclear? A possible solution to this apparent paradox is recognizing the linguistic dichotomy between a word (the signifier) and its meaning (the signified), as emphasized by Ferdinand de Saussure. While a word (the signifier) can be very clear, its meaning (the signified) can be unclear. In other words, the language of the Qur’an, which is made of signifiers, is clear, including the disjointed letters (muqaṭṭaʿāt). For example, “alif-lām-mīm” is clear. The “alif” is clearly “alif”. However, what it is signifying (i.e., the signified) may be unclear. Thus, the language of the Qur’an, which is made up of signifiers is clear (mubīn), but what it means when using such clear (mubīn) signifiers is perhaps unclear or veiled (maknūn). As such, the Qur’an’s self-referentiality is not necessarily a paradox, but is nuanced in its use of language with its signs and symbols recognizing the dichotomy between the signifier and the signified.