Refutation of the Philosopher Al-Farabi's Article on Linguistic Argumentation for Identifying Tribes and Places

Authors

  • محمد السيف جامعة القصيم

Keywords:

الكلمات المفتاحية: أبو نصر- الفارابي – الاحتجاج اللغوي- الاستشهاد- قبائل الاحتجاج- التحديد المكاني للاحتجاج.

Abstract

The most important origin from which grammatical rules are built is the correct hearing (Alsamaa) of eloquent Arabic. Therefore, the first step taken by the first linguists was to collect the linguistic material from the classical Arabs, and then they and those who came after them derived from this linguistic wealth the rules of Arabic and the standards of following the practices of the language of the Arabs. These linguists understood the need to select the eloquent language and investigate the safety of the narrator from solecism, so they made an effort to strike in the depths of the Arabian Peninsula and distance from the places of contact with non-Arabs, as they committed to ensuring the eloquence of the narrator before narrating about him through tests conducted to verify his eloquence and the integrity of his tongue, this is their condition, and this is their way, until the philosopher Al-Farabi died in (339 AH),  making a geographical framework for hearing which must be limited to the tribes covered by this framework. The tribes rejected Outside this framework; it stipulates the tribes whose language is accepted and those whose language is rejected. His article was neglected and overlooked by contemporaries and those who followed him until Abu Hayyan and then Al-Suyuti, revived it by advocating it but not with practice. Afterward, Al-Farabi's article was widely accepted by many modern scholars, and they relied on it in the context of mentioning the characteristics of grammatical schools and their criticism of grammarians in general and Kufics in particular. This study has revealed the invalidity of this determination drawn by Al-Farabi for linguistic Argumentation and revealed his violation of the approach of grammarians theoretically and practically, which contradicts him. Both Basri and Kufic mention evidence from their heritage, and then it appeared that the blame of some scholars to hear Kufic is neither directed nor valid.

Published

2024-05-20 — Updated on 2024-05-26

Versions

Issue

Section

Articles