Abstract:
Many contemporary rhetorical scholars believe that commentaries written on well-known rhetoric books -such as Miftah Al-Oloum, Talkhis Al-Miftah and so on- often involve repetitive and non-creative topics. While this opinion cannot be completely ruled out, careful examination shows that commentators have sometimes expressed new issues in their writings. These new issues are important from the perspective of rhetorical history. One of these topics is the link between 'Badi’' and other territories of rhetoric. It is natural for us today to regard the Islamic rhetoric as having three distinct territories, namely 'Ma’ni', 'Bayan' and 'Badi’' ', but in the seventh and eighth centuries this independence was by no means certain. In this paper, the views of Sakaki explainers on 'Badi’' status and its relation to other territories of rhetoric are analyzed. Among these explainers, four classes can be identified, each with a distinct idea. The ideas are as follows: 1. 'Badi’' is part of eloquence. 2. 'Badi’' is part of eloquence and rhetoric. 3. 'Badi’' is part of the science of 'Ma’ni' and 'Bayan'. 4. 'Badi’' is independent and there is no relation to other parts of rhetoric. This paper describes the views of these four classes and analyzes the reasons for this diversity.
Machine summary:
Analysis of the approaches of the commentators of Miftah al-Ulum regarding the relationship of the art of Badi' with eloquence (Fasahat), rhetoric (Balaghat), Ma'ani, and Bayan (seventh and eighth centuries) * Rouhollah Hadi ** Mostafa Jalili Taqviyan Abstract Many contemporary researchers of rhetoric believe that the commentaries written on famous books of rhetoric such as Miftah al-Ulum, Talkhis al-Miftah, etc.
For example, the commentary on Miftah al-Ulum by Hussam al-Haqq al-Din Muadhini Khwarizmi only includes the Sarf (morphology), Nahw (syntax), and Ma'ani (semantics) sections of Sakkaki's book (cf.
Ali bin Isa, who has commented on Taybi's treatise, writes in his book titled "Hada'iq al-Bayan fi Sharh Kitab al-Tibyan," in the commentary of this phrase as follows: "Regarding the fact that the study of the first and third is the function of Balagha," it must be said: As for the first [meaning meaning] which is clear, because the master of the science of Ma'ani first intends the meaning and makes the wording follow it, whereas in the domain of Fasahat the matter is the opposite.
Thus far, one of the factors that caused many commentators of Miftah to imagine that Sakkaki considered the Badi' arts to be a part of the science of Ma'ani and Bayan or Fasaha has been mentioned.
Perhaps he reached such an inference from Sakkaki's words under the influence of Ibn Malik and his commentators; because as was previously observed, the author of the book Al-Misbah fi Ulum al-Ma'ani wa al-Bayan wa al-Badi' also followed this same path and method.
(
, 
, 
)
