Debates on Istiʿāra in Classical Arabic Rhetoric: The Case of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī

Süleyman Can

Article Details

Debates on Istiʿāra in Classical Arabic Rhetoric: The Case of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī

Authors:

Süleyman Can

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 49, pp.1-18

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001290137

pISSN:

2791-6812

Keywords:

Abstract:

 In Islamic history, language studies began immediately after the time of the Holy Prophet PBUH to facilitate the interpretation and better understanding of the Holy Qurān, and sciences related to rhetoric and its sub-branches emerged during this process. Rhetoric became an independent science when ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī d. 4711078 wrote his works on rhetoric in the 5th century AH. Following al-Jurjānī, al-Sakkākī d. 6261229 offered new definitions and rules in rhetoric in his work Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Although it is said that he combined the disciplines related to Arabic with philosophy and logic, al-Sakkākī was criticized for his Persian style, due to various reasons, including his non-Arab origin. Al-Qazwīnī d. 6261229, who was born forty years after the death of al-Sakkākī, first wrote Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and then al- Īdāḥ and corrected what he considered incomplete and erroneous in Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Al-Qazwīnī, who wrote many works outside the field of Arabic language and rhetoric, generally followed al-Sakkākī in terms of content and method in Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and al-Īdāḥ. However, he introduced innovations in classification, definition, and terminology related to the disciplines of maʿānī and bayān. The present study aims to reveal the reasons for the disagreement between al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī about istiʿāra by citing various rhetoric scholars. First, it discusses the different views of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī on the definitions of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah and majāz al-lughawī, which are subjects of bayān. Then, it examines al-Qazwīnīs criticisms of al-Sakkākī on istiʿāra, istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya, and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya, which are categories of metaphor. Afterwards, the views of the rhetoric scholars who followed al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are presented and their reasons for favouring these two scholars are discussed. In the present study, first, the relevant chapters in the books of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are analyzed, and then the views of different rhetoric scholars who support these two scholars are investigated. This study discusses not all of al-Qazwīnīs objections to al-Sakkākī in the field of rhetoric but some of his objections on certain issues related to the science of bayān. It is apparent in al-Qazwīnīs book al-Īdāḥ that he criticises al-Sakkākīs Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm on numerous issues, but the most prominent of these objections is istiʿāra and types of istiʿāra, one of the categories of metaphor. Al-Qazwīnī objected to al-Sakkākī in two instances in the definition of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah, which is one of the subjects of the science of bayān. He states that some of the expressions that al-Sakkākī included in the definition are unnecessary, while some missing expressions constitute a deficiency, and he expresses the reasons for his objection. The views of both al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are evaluated together with the views of rhetoric scholars who agree with them. Then, the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī is analyzed in the same way, and the views and justifications of the two scholars are discussed. Al-Qazwīnī also objected to the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī in two instances. He stated that an expression in al-Sakkākīs definition was meaningless, and he considered the absence of another expression, which was present in his own definition, as a flaw. It is observed that al-Qazwīnīs objections regarding these two definitions are related to istiʿāra. After discussing the definitions, al-Qazwīnī raised his objections to al-Sakkākī about istiʿāra in general and the types of istiʿāra in particular: istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The reasons and justifications for these objections were explained by many scholars. Although there is a general agreement that istiʿāra is a type of metaphor, there has been a disagreement as to the category of metaphor istiʿāra belongs to. Two different views have been put forward as to whether istiʿāra is al-majāz al-lughawī or al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. While al-Sakkākī argued that it is al-majāz al-lughawī, al-Qazwīnī claimed that it is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Likewise, the disagreement concerning al-istiʿāra al- takhyīliyya was because al-Sakkākī viewed it as al-majāz al-lughawī, whereas al-Qazwīnīs viewed it as al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Al-Sakkākīs and al-Qazwīnīs explanations of al-istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya reveals that al-Sakkākī considers al-istiʿāra al-tabaiyya and al-istiʿāra al-makniyya to be the same. Al-Qazwīnī , on the other hand, argues that istiʿāra al-makniyya is a presumption for istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The most important reason for this disagreement is that al-Sakkākī considers al- istiʿāra as al-majāz al-lughawī, while al-Qazwīnī rejects this view and claims that al- istiʿāra is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī.

 İslâm tarihinde Kuran-ı Kerimin tefsiri ve daha iyi anlaşılması için Hz. Peygamberden a.s. hemen sonra dil çalışmaları başlamış, bu süreçte belâgat ve belâgatın yan dallarıyla ilgili bilimler ortaya çıkmıştır. Hicrî beşinci asırda Abdülkâhir el-Curcânînin öl. 4711078 belâgatla İlgili eserlerini yazmasıyla belâgat ilmi müstakil bir ilim olmuştur. Curcânînin ardından Sekkâkî öl. 6261229, Miftâḥul-ulûm adlı eseriyle belâgat alanında yeni tanım ve düzenlemeler yapmıştır. Arap diliyle ilgili bilimleri felsefe ve mantıkla birleştirdiği söylense de Sekkâkî, Arap asıllı olmaması gibi birtakım sebeplerle üslubunun acem üslubu olması yönünde eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Sekkâkînin ölümünden kırk sene sonra dünyaya gelen Kazvînî öl. 6261229 ise önce Telḫīṣül-miftâḥ, daha sonra da el-Îḍāḥ adlı eserlerini yazmış; Miftâḥul-ulûmda eksik gördüklerini tamamlamış ve hatalı gördüklerini de tashih etmiştir. Arap dili ve belagatı alanının dışında da birçok eser yazan Kazvînî, Telḫīṣül-miftâḥ ve el-Îḍāḥta içerik ve yöntem konusunda genellikle Sekkâkîyi takip etmiştir. Bununla beraber meânî ve beyan ilmiyle ilgili tasnif, tanım ve başlıklandırma gibi konularda yenilikler yapmıştır. Bu araştırma, farklı belâgat âlimlerinin görüşlerine de başvurarak Sekkâkî ve Kazvînînin istiâre konusuyla ilgili ihtilaf sebeplerini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmanın konusu, öncelikle beyan ilminin konuları olan hakikat-ı lugaviyye ve mecaz-ı lugavînin tanımları ile ilgili Sekkâkî ve Kazvînînin farklı görüşleridir. Sonra, mecazın kısımlarından olan istiâre, istiâre-i tahyîliyye ve istiâre-i tebeiyye konularında Kazvînînin Sekkâkîye yönelttiği eleştirilerdir. Daha sonra da Sekkâkî ve Kazvînîyi takip eden belâgat âlimlerinin görüşlerine yer verilerek onların bu iki âlimi tercih etme sebeplerinin ortaya konulmasıdır. Çalışmada, önce Sekkâkînin ve Kazvînînin kitaplarındaki konuyla ilgili bölümler incelenmiş daha sonra da bu iki âlimle aynı fikirde olan farklı belâgat âlimlerinin görüşleri araştırılmıştır. Araştırmada, Kazvînînin belâgat alanında Sekkâkîye yaptığı itirazların tamamı değil de beyân ilmiyle ilgili bazı konulardaki itirazları ele alınmıştır. Kazvînînin el-Îḍāḥ kitabında, Sekkâkînin Miftâḥul-ulûmuna birçok konuda itirazının bulunduğu ancak bu itirazlar içinde en çok yer tutan konunun mecazın kısımlarından birisi olan istiâre ve istiâre türleri olduğu fark edilmektedir. Kazvînî, beyân ilmi konularından olan hakikat-ı lugaviyyenin tanımında Sekkâkîye iki yerde itiraz etmiştir. O, Sekkâkînin tanıma koyduğu bazı ifadelerin gereksiz olduğunu; tanıma koymadığı bir kısım ifadelerin ise eksiklik olduğunu söylemiş ve itiraz gerekçelerini dile getirmiştir. Bu konuda hem Sekkâkî hem de Kazvînînin görüşleri, kendileriyle aynı fikirde olan belâgat âlimlerinin görüşleriyle beraber değerlendirilmiştir. Daha sonra mecaz-ı lugavînin tanımı aynı şekilde incelenmiş, iki âlimin görüşleri ve gerekçeleri ele alınmıştır. Kazvînî, mecaz-ı lugavînin tanımında da iki yerde itirazda bulunmuştur. O, Sekkâkînin tanımındaki bir ifadenin anlamsız olduğunu söylerken kendi tanımında yazılı olan başka bir ifadenin Sekkâkînin tanımında bulunmayışını ise kusur olarak görmüştür. Kazvînînin bu iki tanımdaki itirazlarının istiâre ile ilgili olduğu görülmektedir. Bu iki tanımdan sonra genel olarak istiâre, özel olarak da istiâre türleri olan istiâre-i tahyîliyye ve istiâre-i tebeiyye hakkında Kazvînî tarafından Sekkâkîye itirazlar ileri sürülmüştür. Bu itirazların sebep ve gerekçeleri birçok âlim tarafından izah edilmiştir. İstiârenin bir mecaz türü olması konusunda genel bir ittifak olsa da istiârenin mecazın hangi kısmından olduğu konusunda ihtilaf olduğu görülmüştür. İstiârenin mecaz-ı lügavî mi yoksa mecaz-ı aklî mi olduğu konusunda iki farklı görüş ileri sürülmüştür. Sekkâkî, istiârenin mecaz-ı lugavî olduğunu savunurken Kazvînî ise mecaz-ı aklî olduğunu iddia etmiştir. İstiâre-i tahyîliyyedeki ihtilâf da aynı şekilde Sekkâkînin istiâreyi, mecaz-ı lugavî kabul ederken Kazvînînin ise mecaz-ı aklî sayması çerçevesinde olmuştur. Sekkâkî ve Kazînînin İstiâre-i tebeiyyede hakkındaki açıklamaları dikkate alındığında Sekkâkîye göre istiâre-i tebeiyye ve istiâre-i mekniyye aynıdır. Kazvînî ise istiâre-i mekniyyenin istiâre-i tebeiyyeye karine olduğunu söylemektedir. İstiâre konusundaki bu ihtilafın en önemli sebebi Sekkâkînin istiâreyi mecaz-ı lugavî olarak görmesi, Kazvînînin de bu görüşü reddederek istiârenin mecaz-ı aklî olduğunu iddia etmesidir.

 In Islamic history, language studies began immediately after the time of the Holy Prophet PBUH to facilitate the interpretation and better understanding of the Holy Qurān, and sciences related to rhetoric and its sub-branches emerged during this process. Rhetoric became an independent science when ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī d. 4711078 wrote his works on rhetoric in the 5th century AH. Following al-Jurjānī, al-Sakkākī d. 6261229 offered new definitions and rules in rhetoric in his work Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Although it is said that he combined the disciplines related to Arabic with philosophy and logic, al-Sakkākī was criticized for his Persian style, due to various reasons, including his non-Arab origin. Al-Qazwīnī d. 6261229, who was born forty years after the death of al-Sakkākī, first wrote Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and then al- Īdāḥ and corrected what he considered incomplete and erroneous in Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Al-Qazwīnī, who wrote many works outside the field of Arabic language and rhetoric, generally followed al-Sakkākī in terms of content and method in Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and al-Īdāḥ. However, he introduced innovations in classification, definition, and terminology related to the disciplines of maʿānī and bayān. The present study aims to reveal the reasons for the disagreement between al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī about istiʿāra by citing various rhetoric scholars. First, it discusses the different views of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī on the definitions of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah and majāz al-lughawī, which are subjects of bayān. Then, it examines al-Qazwīnīs criticisms of al-Sakkākī on istiʿāra, istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya, and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya, which are categories of metaphor. Afterwards, the views of the rhetoric scholars who followed al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are presented and their reasons for favouring these two scholars are discussed. In the present study, first, the relevant chapters in the books of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are analyzed, and then the views of different rhetoric scholars who support these two scholars are investigated. This study discusses not all of al-Qazwīnīs objections to al-Sakkākī in the field of rhetoric but some of his objections on certain issues related to the science of bayān. It is apparent in al-Qazwīnīs book al-Īdāḥ that he criticises al-Sakkākīs Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm on numerous issues, but the most prominent of these objections is istiʿāra and types of istiʿāra, one of the categories of metaphor. Al-Qazwīnī objected to al-Sakkākī in two instances in the definition of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah, which is one of the subjects of the science of bayān. He states that some of the expressions that al-Sakkākī included in the definition are unnecessary, while some missing expressions constitute a deficiency, and he expresses the reasons for his objection. The views of both al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are evaluated together with the views of rhetoric scholars who agree with them. Then, the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī is analyzed in the same way, and the views and justifications of the two scholars are discussed. Al-Qazwīnī also objected to the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī in two instances. He stated that an expression in al-Sakkākīs definition was meaningless, and he considered the absence of another expression, which was present in his own definition, as a flaw. It is observed that al-Qazwīnīs objections regarding these two definitions are related to istiʿāra. After discussing the definitions, al-Qazwīnī raised his objections to al-Sakkākī about istiʿāra in general and the types of istiʿāra in particular: istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The reasons and justifications for these objections were explained by many scholars. Although there is a general agreement that istiʿāra is a type of metaphor, there has been a disagreement as to the category of metaphor istiʿāra belongs to. Two different views have been put forward as to whether istiʿāra is al-majāz al-lughawī or al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. While al-Sakkākī argued that it is al-majāz al-lughawī, al-Qazwīnī claimed that it is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Likewise, the disagreement concerning al-istiʿāra al- takhyīliyya was because al-Sakkākī viewed it as al-majāz al-lughawī, whereas al-Qazwīnīs viewed it as al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Al-Sakkākīs and al-Qazwīnīs explanations of al-istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya reveals that al-Sakkākī considers al-istiʿāra al-tabaiyya and al-istiʿāra al-makniyya to be the same. Al-Qazwīnī , on the other hand, argues that istiʿāra al-makniyya is a presumption for istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The most important reason for this disagreement is that al-Sakkākī considers al- istiʿāra as al-majāz al-lughawī, while al-Qazwīnī rejects this view and claims that al- istiʿāra is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī.

 In Islamic history, language studies began immediately after the time of the Holy Prophet PBUH to facilitate the interpretation and better understanding of the Holy Qurān, and sciences related to rhetoric and its sub-branches emerged during this process. Rhetoric became an independent science when ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī d. 4711078 wrote his works on rhetoric in the 5th century AH. Following al-Jurjānī, al-Sakkākī d. 6261229 offered new definitions and rules in rhetoric in his work Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Although it is said that he combined the disciplines related to Arabic with philosophy and logic, al-Sakkākī was criticized for his Persian style, due to various reasons, including his non-Arab origin. Al-Qazwīnī d. 6261229, who was born forty years after the death of al-Sakkākī, first wrote Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and then al- Īdāḥ and corrected what he considered incomplete and erroneous in Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm. Al-Qazwīnī, who wrote many works outside the field of Arabic language and rhetoric, generally followed al-Sakkākī in terms of content and method in Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and al-Īdāḥ. However, he introduced innovations in classification, definition, and terminology related to the disciplines of maʿānī and bayān. The present study aims to reveal the reasons for the disagreement between al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī about istiʿāra by citing various rhetoric scholars. First, it discusses the different views of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī on the definitions of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah and majāz al-lughawī, which are subjects of bayān. Then, it examines al-Qazwīnīs criticisms of al-Sakkākī on istiʿāra, istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya, and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya, which are categories of metaphor. Afterwards, the views of the rhetoric scholars who followed al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are presented and their reasons for favouring these two scholars are discussed. In the present study, first, the relevant chapters in the books of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are analyzed, and then the views of different rhetoric scholars who support these two scholars are investigated. This study discusses not all of al-Qazwīnīs objections to al-Sakkākī in the field of rhetoric but some of his objections on certain issues related to the science of bayān. It is apparent in al-Qazwīnīs book al-Īdāḥ that he criticises al-Sakkākīs Miftāḥ al-ʿUlūm on numerous issues, but the most prominent of these objections is istiʿāra and types of istiʿāra, one of the categories of metaphor. Al-Qazwīnī objected to al-Sakkākī in two instances in the definition of ḥaqīqat al-lughawiyyah, which is one of the subjects of the science of bayān. He states that some of the expressions that al-Sakkākī included in the definition are unnecessary, while some missing expressions constitute a deficiency, and he expresses the reasons for his objection. The views of both al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī are evaluated together with the views of rhetoric scholars who agree with them. Then, the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī is analyzed in the same way, and the views and justifications of the two scholars are discussed. Al-Qazwīnī also objected to the definition of al-majāz al-lughawī in two instances. He stated that an expression in al-Sakkākīs definition was meaningless, and he considered the absence of another expression, which was present in his own definition, as a flaw. It is observed that al-Qazwīnīs objections regarding these two definitions are related to istiʿāra. After discussing the definitions, al-Qazwīnī raised his objections to al-Sakkākī about istiʿāra in general and the types of istiʿāra in particular: istiʿāra al-takhyīliyya and istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The reasons and justifications for these objections were explained by many scholars. Although there is a general agreement that istiʿāra is a type of metaphor, there has been a disagreement as to the category of metaphor istiʿāra belongs to. Two different views have been put forward as to whether istiʿāra is al-majāz al-lughawī or al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. While al-Sakkākī argued that it is al-majāz al-lughawī, al-Qazwīnī claimed that it is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Likewise, the disagreement concerning al-istiʿāra al- takhyīliyya was because al-Sakkākī viewed it as al-majāz al-lughawī, whereas al-Qazwīnīs viewed it as al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Al-Sakkākīs and al-Qazwīnīs explanations of al-istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya reveals that al-Sakkākī considers al-istiʿāra al-tabaiyya and al-istiʿāra al-makniyya to be the same. Al-Qazwīnī , on the other hand, argues that istiʿāra al-makniyya is a presumption for istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya. The most important reason for this disagreement is that al-Sakkākī considers al- istiʿāra as al-majāz al-lughawī, while al-Qazwīnī rejects this view and claims that al- istiʿāra is al-majāz al-ʿaqlī.

Article Details

Debates on Istiʿāra in Classical Arabic Rhetoric: The Case of al-Sakkākī and al-Qazwīnī

Authors:

Süleyman Can

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 49, pp.1-18

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001290137

pISSN:

2791-6812

Arabic Language and Rhetoric

al-Sakkākī

al-Qazwīnī

Miftāḥ al-ʿulūm

al- Īḍāḥ

IstiʿāraArap Dili ve Belâgati

Sekkâkî

Kazvînî

Miftâḥu’l-ulûm

el-Îḍâḥ

İstiâre

Issues

Article Details

Authors: Süleyman Can

Publisher: Harran University

Main Topics: Din Araştırmaları

Journal: Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 49, pp.1-18

Document Type: Article

Publication Date: 6/2023

Document Language: Turkish

Document ID (Org No.): 2001290137

pISSN: 2791-6812

Issues

Authors:

Süleyman Can

Publisher:

Harran University

Main Topics:

Din Araştırmaları

Journal:

Harran İlahiyat Dergisi Issue 49, pp.1-18

Document Type:

Article

Publication Date:

6/2023

Document Language:

Turkish

Document ID (Org No.):

2001290137

pISSN:

2791-6812