American Journal Of Philological Sciences
356
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue05 2025
PAGE NO.
356-362
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue05-96
The Influence of Al-
Jurjani On Sakkaki’s Scholarly
Activity
Olimjon Obidjonovich Abdullayev
Senior Lecturer, School of Hadith Studies, Samarkand Region, Uzbekistan
Received:
31 March 2025;
Accepted:
29 April 2025;
Published:
31 May 2025
Abstract:
Abu Ya‘qub Sakkaki is regarded as one of the prominent scholars who left a profound impact on both
classical and modern linguistic studies. His significance lies in the distinctive nature of his approach, which
diverged from traditional methodologies. His work is marked by precise linguistic organization, a departure from
conventional authorial styles, and a logical structure influenced by philosophical reasoning. Drawing upon the
insi
ghts of earlier scholars most notably ‘Abd al
-Qahir al-
Jurjani and his theory of naẓm (systematic composition)
Sakkaki’s Miftaḥ al
-
‘Ulum (The Key to the Sciences) rose to prominence as a foundational text in the field of Arabic
linguistics. This work continues to hold a lasting place in the history of scientific linguistic inquiry in the Arabic
language.
Among the critical issues in which Sakkaki followed Jurjani are the concepts of meaning, the meaning of meaning,
and the challenges related to reception and semantic indication.
Keywords:
Sakkaki, Jurjani, theory of naẓm, science of rhetoric, meaning, meaningfulness, semantics,
interpretation.
Introduction:
Abu Ya'qub al-Sakkaki based his studies
on rhetoric and linguistics on the theory of nazm
proposed by al-Jurjani. This theory was originally
developed to uncover the essence of the Qur'an's
miraculous nature by highlighting the lofty features of
the divine text through its eloquence, style, and
secrets. In this theory, al-Jurjani focused on the stylistic
expression, arrangement, and artistic structure of
Qur'anic verses, striving to analyze the key aspects of
its inimitability (i‘jaz). Through this approach, he
illuminated the Qur'an’s choice of words, its elegant
composition, and the aesthetic features of its rhetorical
style. He also examined the structural composition of
the Qur'an that is, its nazm and analyzed how certain
grammatical and rhetorical tools affect the text.
However, as ‘Abdullah Sula emphasized, al
-Jurjani
concentrated more on form that is, the external
expressive tools while overlooking the original spiritual
and moral content of the verses, their impact on human
life, and their social-ethical dimensions. In other words,
instead of highlighting how the Qur'anic verses brought
about moral reform for humanity, he centered his
attention on their artistic expression.
It was precisely this issue the connection between
rhetoric (balagha) and speech that became a turning
point in al-
Sakkaki’s rhetorical research. By linking
rhetoric to speech, he began to systematize its
components with a unique order and structure. In this
process, he integrated generalization and classification.
Through the concept of nazm (speech composition), he
activated mechanisms of definition and organization.
Muḥammad Abid al
-
Jabiri described Miftaḥ
al-Ulum as
an “organon” (i.e., a logical instrument) for the Arabic
rhetorical systems. He explained it as follows:
“Sakkaki's connection to Aristotle lies in the fact that,
just as Aristotle systematized Greek philosophy,
Sakkaki sought to systematize and codify the Arabic
rhetorical sciences.” Based on this, the main purpose
behind Sakkaki’s writing of Miftaḥ al
-
‘Ulum was to
avoid linguistic errors, facilitate language learning,
protect the Qur'an, and ease the processes of
understanding and composing texts and speeches. To
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
357
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
this end, he categorized the causes of speech errors
into three types:
the individual word (mufrad),
the compound structure (ta’lif), and
the semantic appropriateness of composition
(mutabaqa) that is, the alignment of speech with its
intended meaning. This necessitates analysis of error
from the level of individual words to complex
expressions.
Thus, he considers the science of ṣarf (morphology) to
be a discipline that serves to correct speech errors
related to individual words (mufrad). Meanwhile, he
understands the science of naḥw (syntax) as one aimed
at correcting errors in compound expressions (taʾlif).
Later on, he turns to the sciences of maʿani and bayan,
describing them as disciplines that ensure the semantic
appropriateness of complex expressions that is, their
contextual suitability.
Moreover, al-Sakkaki includes other auxiliary fields
alongside these core disciplines, such as taʿrif
(definition), istidlal (deduction), and khiṭaba (rhetoric).
He states:
"I devoted full attenti
on to the science of naḥw, but
realized that its perfection cannot be complete without
the sciences of maʿani and bayan. With the help of
Allah, I gained complete benefit from these two
sciences. Then, understanding that the completeness
of maʿani also depends on the sciences of taʿrif and
istidlal, I found it appropriate to include them as well."
As for the issue of the miraculousness of the Qur’an, as
Abdullah Sula described, it is a complex and central
matter that has led to a diversity of opinions among
people. This is because the Qur’an does not contain a
specific verse that clearly states it is miraculous due to
its eloquence, unique style, or artistic inimitability.
Allah the Exalted describes the Qur’an as “the most
beautiful speech” and as “a marvelous book.”
However, He does not specify exactly what aspect of
the Qur’an constitutes its inimitability whether it lies in
its style, wording, content, narratives, moral ideas, or
perhaps a combination of all these elements.
Nevertheless, one thing is cert
ain: the Qur’an is a book
of reformation. It is a divine message intended to
provide answers to the community, resolve disputes,
and fundamentally transform human life. Therefore,
the Qur’an is not only a text of beautiful expression and
literary eloquence but also a powerful tool for
transforming souls and reforming society.
His use of the science of rhetoric (khiṭaba), his
definitions of rhetorical concepts, and his approach in
classifying them into chapters and sections added a
level of organization and logic that was absent in many
earlier studies. On the other hand, his reliance on
rhetorical principles also influenced his style his
expressions are concise but carry profound meaning.
His words demand re-reading and focused attention,
and at times, even require consulting other works for
clarification. His Miftaḥ al
-
ʿUlum is among the most
extensively interpreted, explained, and analyzed works
in the field.
Sakkaki’s Study of Rhetoric and His Reliance on the
Works of Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani
Relying on the
conclusions presented in Dala’il al
-
Iʿjaz
and Asrar al-Balagha, Sakkaki absorbed many of Abd al-
Qahir al-
Jurjani’s views in the fields of rhetoric,
grammar (naḥw), and logic (manṭiq). In particular, he
adopted
Jurjani’s
ideas
on
maʿani
al
-
naḥw
(grammatical meanings), closely following his approach
in this domain.
One of the key points where Sakkaki aligns with
Jurjani’s thought is the issue of “meaning” (maʿna) and
the “meaning of the meaning” (maʿna al
-
maʿna).
Sakkaki expresses this concept through the term istidlal
(inference/deduction). This term has been widely
discussed by scholars active in the fields of knowledge
and epistemology. Indeed, the pursuit of meaning is the
primary activity of human thought. Thus, this concept
has been interpreted by thinkers and scholars to serve
their own intellectual, philosophical, and scientific
goals. This phenomenon, much like the concepts of
“literal” and “figurative” (ḥaqiqah and majaz), or
“evidence” and “analogy” (dalil and qiyas), constitutes
one of the foundational ideas in understanding,
expressing, communication, and interpretation. On this
basis, the art of rhetoric is recognized as the foundation
of effective communication.
In this context, Sakkaki proposes a unique perspective
on the concept of istidlal. He integrates a logical
approach with grammatical terminology. On this
foundation, he attempts to explain the eloquence
(balagha) of speech, not merely as the external
ornamentation of rhetorical art (i.e., stylistic
embellishment), but as a process of deduction based on
reasoning, by which affirmation or negation is
achieved. This process does not occur at the level of a
single sentence, but rather through a composition of
interconnected sentences. Sakkaki states:
“This is the act of affirming or not affirmi
ng a predicate
to a subject, and it is realized through compound
sentences.”
Thus, according to Sakkaki, istidlal is not something that
occurs within a simple sentence; rather, it takes place
through structures composed of multiple sentences.
He also states:
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
358
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
“By saying ‘through compound sentences’, I oppose
those specialists in this field who consider a single
sentence to be a proof or inference, because in such
cases, affirmation or negation is simply assumed.”
The “structures” referred to here differ in i
stidlal and in
ʿilm al
-
maʿani (the science of meanings): in the science
of meanings, these structures serve to construct
utterances that convey clear denotations, while in
inference, they serve the purposes of affirming or
prioritizing testimony that is, of affirming or denying a
claim.
Sakkaki’s understanding of the concept of the
grammatical agent (ʿamil) significantly diverges from
that of his predecessors. The grammatical agent is one
of the most extensively studied concepts in Arabic
grammar. Some grammarians even consider it a
theoretical foundation for explaining case endings
(iʿrab). In other words, the ʿamil is viewed as a key tool
for explaining the structural and syntactic relationships
between lexical units within a sentence.
Sakkaki uses this co
ncept (the “amil” or “governing
element”) to explain the relationships in language,
from the smallest units of a sentence to complex
syntactic structures. Some grammarians have even
described this factor as the very reason for the
grammatical art whether t
he ʿamil is explicit (i.e., visibly
clear), implicit (i.e., assumed to exist but not stated), or
elided (i.e., replaced by another element). They
analyzed the relationship between the ʿamil and the
maʿmul (i.e., the element governed by the ʿamil) based
on philosophical principles. One of their famous sayings
is: “Had it not been for ellipsis and implied
interpretation,
grammar
would
have
been
incomprehensible.”
Thus, the ʿamil is considered the mechanism that
regulates the structure of linguistic components the
interrelations between words, the arrangement of
sentences, the signs of inflection (ʾiʿrab), and syntactic
functions. Early grammarians used this concept as a
theoretical tool to define the meanings of linguistic
units. According to them, this tool enabled the analysis
of the phonetic and morphological forms of Arabic
language structure.
With the concept of the ʿamil, the structure of all Arabic
language constructions can be explained and
generalized through a small number of rules. This is
because the main goal of a grammarian is to control the
vast number of linguistic units, to classify them, and to
develop general rules based on them. From this
perspective, Sakkaki introduced the concept of the
grammatical “ʿamil” (the operative element). In his
view, this concept serves as a mechanism that
organizes all inferential structures. This is achieved
through attributional (isnadi) relationships, i.e., the link
between a subject and what is attributed to it.
For example, attributing a predicate to a subject:
through this, something can be affirmed or denied.
However, this view applies only to declarative
structures, not to imperative (commands) or
interrogative (questions) constructions, because such
sentences do not reach the level of affirmation or
denial in other words, they cannot serve as a basis for
logical inference. Therefore, not every phrase can fulfill
the function of inference.
Specifically, the predicative (isnad) connection
between the subject (mubtada) and the predicate
(khabar) appears in two forms:
When the predicate is attributed to the subject in a self-
evident manner, either in the form of affirmation or
negation:
In the case of affirmation: In the sentence “Man is an
animal.”
In the case of
negation: In the sentence “Man is not a
horse.”
When information is given about something in a
sentence (which is the predicate), this information is
not always clearly and directly connected to the initial
word in the sentence (i.e., the subject). To make the
relationship between them understandable, a third
element
—
a linking idea or medium
—
is needed.
Example:
"The world was created."
In this sentence:
Subject
–
The world
Predicate
–
was created
However, this predicate is simply stated. Is it true or not
—
it is unclear. Because the state of the “world” being
“created” is not explicitly demonstrated. Therefore, we
need an additional idea that helps us understand this
predicate.
Third factor (linking idea):
If we say:
"The world is a friend of what is created."
Here, the word “created” refers to “friend”. Logically,
we then understand:
If the friend is created, then the one close to it (i.e., “the
world”) also has a connection to being created.
In this case, to fully understand the predicate, a two-
part idea is formed:
Friend
–
is created
The world
–
is close to that friend
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
359
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Thus, in order to understand the connection between
the predicate and the subject, a third idea that
establishes a logical link is required.
Another simple example:
"The sun is shining." This is a clear sentence because
shining is characteristic of the sun.
Let’s consider the following sentence:
“Whatever the sun shines on has a shadow.”
Here, we are talking about the shadow, but in order to
connect it to the sun, we understand it through the fact
that the sun shines on something. That is, the
connection is not direct
—
there is an intermediary (the
thing being illuminated). Thus, in some sentences,
understanding the message correctly requires an
intermediate connecting idea. This makes the sentence
complete, comprehensible, and logically sound.
According to al-Sakkaki, meaning is formed on three
levels:
Letter level
–
this is the smallest unit, formed through
letters.
Word level
–
words are made from letters, and each
word has its own specific meaning.
Sentence (propositional) level sentences are formed
from words. These words may sometimes be explicit,
and sometimes hidden. In fact, sometimes only one
letter is visible, while the rest is implied (such as the
imperative “f” in Arabic verbs).
The meaning of sentences depends on how they are
used. This usage may be:
Based on the original meaning of each word, Through
the grammatical connection between words in the
sentence, or Dependent on the context in which the
sentence is spoken.
Depending on the context, this usage may sometimes
correspond to the literal/original meaning, and
sometimes it deviates from the grammatical form to
express a secondary or figurative meaning.
In his work Miftaḥ al
-Ulum, al-Sakkaki classifies word
meanings into two types: ration
al (ʿaqliy) and
contextual (wujudiy).
He considers it correct when a word is used in a way
that expresses its own inherent meaning, that is, its
original or basic meaning, with no need for it to be
explained through other things.
If the meaning of a word depends on another concept,
then this is a case of rational meaning (or
potential/inferable meaning).
According to al-
Jurjani’s explanation, meaning refers to
the word’s specific, inherent meaning, which is called
contextual (wujudi) meaning, i.e., the simple, direct
meaning. For example, in the sentence "The man ate an
apple," each word is used in its literal sense: "the man"
is capable of eating, "apple" is something that can be
eaten, and "to eat" is an action associated with the
man's nature. But if we say, "The man ate the earth,"
the meaning becomes incorrect, as a person cannot eat
earth. In such a case, we must move away from the
literal meaning and understand it through an
intellectual or metaphorical meaning such as "to
cultivate the land" or "to work the soil."
Here, the metaphorical meaning replaces the literal
one and creates a new understanding based on the
context. In this phrase, "The man ate the earth," the
verb "to eat" does not convey its direct meaning (i.e.,
consuming food) but instead implies an action carried
out through an instrument or means namely, the earth.
That is, the verb is attributed not to a direct, but to a
mediated or instrumental action.
Additionally, the third component namely, the object
(maf‘ul) is used metaphorically thr
ough intellectual
reasoning to shift the verb from its literal meaning to a
different interpretation. In this case, "earth"
metaphorically refers to its produce, fruits, or harvest.
Therefore, "The man ate the earth" comes to mean
"The man ate the produce or fruit of the earth," which
is a metaphorical expression understood by reason.
In al-
Sakkaki’s theory, the term bayan maqam (level of
expression) refers to speech composed of words
(phrases or expressions). The compatibility of words in
terms of their meanings forms a coherent sentence. It
is through such sentences that communication with
various purposes is carried out. Properly selecting and
placing words and organizing them in relation to other
elements in speech results in two types of structure:
the first is used to convey the basic (literal) meaning,
and the second to express a secondary meaning that
deviates from the original.
The literal meaning is not only determined by word
order but is also bound by grammatical (syntactic)
rules, and its correctness or incorrectness is assessed
through syntax. For this reason, al-Sakkaki defines
syntax (nahw) as follows: “Knowing how to construct
the structure between words, and thereby absolutely
conveying the original meaning, is all done based on
rules derived
from Arabic expressions.” These rules
help prevent errors in speech. In this regard, he agrees
with al-Jurjani: syntax serves as a tool to understand
the interconnection between words.
Grammar (nahw) rules are strict, and they guarantee
the correct expression of the core meaning and the
achievement of important communicative goals.
According to classical scholars, the science of grammar
studies the structural conditions of Arabic speech.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
360
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
Through this, it becomes possible to determine
whether a statement is linguistically correct or
incorrect. Nahw primarily focuses on the structure and
intonation of sentences and pays particular attention
to i‘rab (the changes at the ends of words indicating
grammatical roles). These grammatical rules serve the
purpose of conveying the intended meaning
accurately. This is where the science of eloquence
(balagha) begins.
Al-Sakkaki considers these two sciences grammar
(nahw) and rhetoric (bayan) to be interconnected.
Grammar studies the relationships and forms between
words, while rhetoric analyzes the structure and
deeper purpose of speech. Through this connection,
bayan the process of understanding and making
understood is fully realized. According to Sakkaki,
moving from the primary meaning to reach various
secondary meanings is essential. This process is not
limited to lexical rules but is also dependent on the
contextual (siyaq) placement of words.
These meanings, which are subject to context, cannot
be enumerated definitively they can only be identified
through the intended purpose of speech. However, all
these multiple meanings remain linked to the original
(primary) meaning. The primary meaning here serves
as a foundation for understanding other meanings. The
science of grammar defines this original meaning
through its rules, and the science of rhetoric builds on
it to identify additional meanings.
The Science of Bayan (Elucidation) Studies Eloquence in
Two Directions:
One of them is the appropriateness of speech to the
listener’s state and the context in which it is spok
en a
concept that al-
Jaḥiẓ referred to as “suitability to the
situation.” That is, there are specific modes of
expression appropriate for each situation, and taking
the listener’s state into account requires expressing
speech in various styles. This is because not every
listener has the same level of knowledge or linguistic
literacy, and they also differ in their capacity to
understand or grasp the message. In this regard,
Abdulaziz Atiq classifies people into three categories:
First situation: The listener is completely unaware of
the content of the message.
In this case, the speech should not be expressed with
any form of emphasis (i.e., using assertive means).
Second situation: The listener is aware of the message
but denies or refuses to accept it.
Here, the speech should be expressed with emphasis,
in order to eliminate doubt and ensure the listener
believes in the truth of the message.
Third situation: The listener knows the message but has
a stronger inclination toward denial. In this situation,
the message should be delivered with even stronger
emphasis the degree of emphasis increases according
to the degree of the listener’s denial. Al
-Jurjani, in his
Asrar al-Balagha, narrates an incident between Abu al-
ʿAbbas the grammarian and the philosopher al
-Kindi, as
related by Ibn al-
ʿAbbari. The philosopher al
-Kindi came
to Abu al-
ʿAbbas and said:
“I think there is confusion in the speech of the Arabs.”
Abu al-
ʿAbbas asked him: “In what situation did you
observe this?”
Al-
Kindi replied: “The Arabs say: ‘ʿAbdullah is standing’,
then they say: ‘Indeed, ʿAbdullah is standing’, and then:
‘Yes, indeed, ʿAbdullah is standing.’ The words are
repeated, but the meaning seems the same.”
Abu al-
Abbas responded: “No, the meanings are
different. ‘ʿAbdullah is standing’ is
a simple statement.
‘Indeed, ʿAbdullah is standing’ is an answer to
someone’s question. ‘Yes, indeed, ʿAbdullah is
standing’ is a response to someone’s denial.”
Thus, emphasis (taʾkid) is not the main goal of speech
but is used in response to specific circumstances. It is
employed to remove denial. Just as there are degrees
of denial, there are also degrees of emphasis. The
excessive use of emphatic devices can indicate either
the listener’s strong denial, the speaker’s weak use of
linguistic tools, or the
speaker’s ignorance of the
listener’s condition. This creates a discrepancy
between the speech that should be appropriate for the
situation and the speech that is actually being delivered
on the surface.
According to al-
Sakkaki: Considering the Listener’s
State Taking the listener into account is one of the key
factors in making a speech successful. This ensures that
the recipient correctly understands the meaning and
does not reject it due to misunderstanding or
ignorance.
On this topic, Abu al-Faraj al-
Iṣfahani narrates from
Aḥmad ibn Khallad, who reports from his father the
following incident:
“I said to Bashshar ibn Burd: ‘Sometimes you say very
strange things.’ He asked, ‘What kind of things, for
example?’ I replied: ‘At times, you recite poetry so
powerful that it shakes the heart and astonishes
people. For example, these lines:
We endured the deadly wind,
Eyes flashed with rage, stars went dark.
Peace and blessings be upon the noble Messenger in
the face of danger,
He saved us from weakness and elevated us to honor.
But at other times you say things like:
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
361
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
A hen laid eggs inside a cage,
Clucking loudly, in a sweet voice.
Moreover, the eggs were of a unique shape,
And the hen ran after the chicks.
Then Bashshar responded: ‘Every word has its place
and situation. The first lines carry a serious meaning.
The second ones were dedicated to my neighbor
Robaba. I do not buy eggs from the market.
Robaba herself keeps ten hens and one rooster. She
collects the eggs for me and stores them. That’s why,
to me, those verses are more valuable than even Imru’
al-
Qays’s famous lines “Qifa nabki” (“Stop, let us
weep…”).’”
Taking the Listener’s Condition into Account
Taking the listener's condition into account also
requires that the content of the speech be adapted to
suit the listener’s needs and intellectual level whether
that means making it concise or detailed.
An intelligent listener can grasp hints and allusions, so
when speaking to such an audience, it is appropriate to
use a concise style (al-jazl). This is because they
understand quickly, their minds are sharp, and they are
capable of deeply perceiving words and meanings,
understanding the connections between them, and
drawing conclusions. On the other hand, elaboration
(al-itnâb) becomes necessary for those who
comprehend slowly or deliberately pretend not to
understand. In such cases, meanings must be clarified,
supported with evidence, and reinforced with
explanations. This may sometimes be required to
satisfy them, or to overcome their stubbornness and
prove the truth to them.
The Second Persuasive Aspect of Bayan Science
The second persuasive aspect of the science of bayan is
the study of meanings that are indirectly derived from
speech through context and evidences (qara’in).
Speech conveys meaning with its original, lexical usage,
but at times it departs from this original meaning and
takes on new meanings understood through context. In
such cases, these meanings can be grasped through
various clues and evidences.
There are many purposes for this, but the primary goal
of a statement is either to convey a judgment or to
make that judgment known to the listener. For
example, if you say, “In the Middle Ages,
America paid
taxes to the Algerian ships to pass through the
Mediterranean,” this conveys previously unknown
information to the listener
—
namely, the strength of
the Algerian navy in the Mediterranean. This is referred
to as the “benefit of the statement” (faʾidat al
-khabar).
If you say, “I heard your lecture at the university
yesterday,” it does not provide new information to the
listener, because they are already aware of the event.
However, through this statement, you are informing
them that you were aware of the event. This is known
as the “necessity of informative benefit” (lazim al
-
faʾidah). These are the basic functions of speech.
Yet, sometimes speech goes beyond these two levels
and expresses new goals understood through context,
such as pride, admiration, criticism, reproach, advice,
guidance, and others. In such cases, words depart from
their literal meaning and express other eloquent
intentions aligned with the speaker’s purpose. For
instance, if someone says to a person who has
committed oppression:
“The consequences of oppression will return to the
oppressor,”
they are not simply trying to report an event but rather
aim to reproach the oppressor.
CONCLUSION
This study has concluded that Abu Ya‘qub al
-Sakkaki
presented an exemplary model of linguistic research. In
his scholarly activity, he established a strong
connection with the ideas and linguistic reflections of
earlier linguists, particularly those of ‘Abd al
-Qahir al-
Jurjani. He made extensive use of the concepts put
forward in al-
Jurjani’s works Dala’il al
-
I‘jaz and Asrar al
-
Balagha.
In addition to this, Sakkaki also introduced his own
independent reasoning and personal viewpoints. He
regarded the aim and essence of vocabulary as a means
of deeply understanding meanings, and he sought to
link linguistics with other disciplines, including rhetoric.
His primary goal was to present a perfected model of
Arabic eloquence, supported by syntax (naḥw) and
discourse.
Moreover, by emphasizing the clarity, organization,
and classification of scholarly concepts, he was able to
present Arabic linguistic research in a precise and
systematic manner. In particular, he clarified the role of
grammatical elements in revealing meaning and their
place within deductive structures. In this framework,
the science of bayan was introduced as a
complementary component of grammatical activity.
From Sakkaki’s views, we understand that the levels of
meaning consist of:
Letters,
Words,
Phrases.
The scope of the science of bayan covers the following
three aspects:
The alignment of speech with the psychological state of
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
362
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
the listener whether indifferent, doubtful, resistant, or
denying;
Deriving implicit meanings from words with the help of
context that is, conveying the essential message
through a statement and extracting necessary
information from it; Understanding various purposes
and meanings through context and evidence.
He also differentiated between lexical indication (the
meaning a word conveys in usage) and rational
indication (understanding meaning through reason).
He defined the term ḥaqiqah (literal meaning) as the
use of a word in its originally designated meaning
without
any
interpretation.
Nevertheless,
he
considered it acceptable for the meaning to shift not
to the word’s original meaning, but to another meaning
conveyed by the context. Such contextual evidence
(qarinah) may be either linguistic or rational.
Sakkaki also succeeded in developing a rigorous
methodology for linguistic research. At the same time,
he did not close the door to ijtihad (independent
reasoning); that is, he created his Miftaḥ al
-Ulum as a
“key to the sciences,” not as a closed system that limits
ijtihad or encompasses linguistic studies in a restrictive
way. Rather, he presented it as a source open to
innovation and inclined toward development.
REFERENCES
Abd al-Qahir al-
Jurjani. Dala’il al
-
Iʿjaz. Edited by
Muḥammad Rashid Riḍa. Cairo: al
-
Maṭbaʿah al
-
Muniriyyah, 1903.
Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani. Asrar al-Balagha. Edited by
Mahdi Muḥammad Fakhri and Ibrahim Abyari. Beirut:
Dar al-
Maʿrifah, 1982.
Abu Yaʿqub Yusuf ibn Abi Bakr al
-
Sakkaki. Miftaḥ al
-
ʿUlum. Edited by Naʿim Ḥasan. Beirut: Dar al
-Kutub al-
ʿIlmiyyah, 1987.
Muḥammad ʿAbid al
-Jabiri. Toward a Philosophy of a
New Rhetoric. Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies,
1992.
Hani Muḥammad. “The Rhetorical Efforts of al
-Sakkaki
through His Book Miftaḥ al
-
ʿUlum.” Aqlam al
-Hind, vol.
4, no. 3 (2019): 77
–
92.
Mazin al-Mubarak. Al-Mujaz fi Tarikh al-Balagha.
Damascus: Dar al-Fikr, 2003.
Abd Allah Sula. Qawaḍiya al
-
Iʿjaz bayn al
-Turath wa al-
Muʿaṣarah. Riyadh: Dar al
-Wasimah, 2000.
Abd al-
ʿAziz ʿAṭiq. Al
-Balagha al-
ʿArabiyyah: Bayan,
Maʿani, Badiʿ. Cairo: Maktabat al
-
Nahḍah al
-
Miṣriyyah,
1964.
William Smyth. “Preparing a Rhetoric Textbook.”
Translated by Ömer Kara. İslami Araştırmalar, vol. 24,
no. 2 (2013): 275
–
296.
Al-
Jaḥiẓ. Al
-Bayan wa al-
Tabyin. Beirut: Dar Ṣadir, 1968.
