Harran Ilahiyat Journal

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 Qur’ān, 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. 471/1078) wrote his works on rhetoric in the 5th century AH. Following al-Jurjānī, al-Sakkākī (d. 626/1229) 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. 626/1229), who was born forty years after the death of al-Sakkākī, first wrote Telkhīṣ al-miftāḥ and then al- Īḍāḥ 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-Īḍāḥ. 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-Qazwīnī's 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-Qazwīnī's 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-Qazwīnī's book al-Īḍāḥ that he criticises al-Sakkākī’s 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-Sakkākī's 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-Qazwīnī's 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-Qazwīnī's viewed it as al-majāz al-ʿaqlī. Al-Sakkākī’s and al-Qazwīnī's explanations of al-istiʿāra al-tabaʿiyya reveals that al-Sakkākī considers al-istiʿāra al-taba'iyya 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.