Ilm Al-Wada - Weiss Diss. - Cropped
Ilm Al-Wada - Weiss Diss. - Cropped
Ilm Al-Wada - Weiss Diss. - Cropped
----
----------
88-13,367
WEISS, Bernard George, 1934-.
LANGUAGE IN ORTHODOX MUSLIM THOUGHT: A
STUDY"OF "WAJjl' AkI.!IGHAH'! AND rrs DEVELOP../.,/,
KENT.
.
. b2
lftll";"ll";"lI
\'
1ernar4 George '!!.eiu
A DISSBRrM'!Oll
HBSIDITBD 'rO TllB
'I
!\
or llOC'fOR
07 PBIIDSOPBr
1:1. liil . . . . .
'
..
. ~ .'
. , ,., . r.-.;,
'-
~~
Loi~)()
1w4x.
. tre(aae
It
waa
V!"'
posaillle. .
I,,
I
The uae of
J!U4.,
VOJ:'k
.Any
"" Mking.
... ,.._
" ..
,,, ,..,,,.
,/
.7!)zle of Content
introduction
'
. . ... .... .
1-7
ms
ORIGI!I OP LAliGllAGB
8-41
8-l3
l3-l8
18-20
The conven~ionalJ.at-Theological
controversy
::.~
'1'h "'. .
ms
20-JS
35-37
... .. .
J7-41
42-89
l'RDICIPLBll
fJ' JllUBPRDDB5Cll
Xntroduction
42
42-45
45-47
...
remiaea".I
'1'he 'Knowledge of
~
J!5.!
A SUJDing tip
47-54
54-89
54-60
...
.....
60-88
'1-71
72-89
89
lii'I lii'I . . . . .
'
90-139
. ...
lnb:'oduction
the Catec;oriea of
90-93
94-118
94-114
114-117
117-.118
118-122
aourC:e
.... ...
123-124
. . . . ..
.
124-128
128-139
1aolat1ve and
i'
118-139
~aW1Ptive
.1pp11cation of the.catec;orle
~SlO!IS
140-149
150-15&
157
'
. . . . . liill
..a
Introduction
until the tenth century, but. the idea of the givenness of lan-
Islam is
1
'
wiyah). l
ii
'
I.
:i
1
i
i:'
I I.i
'
'I
lFor the use of mawduc in the sense Of given, see
Gardet-Anawati, Introduction a la TheOlogie MU&ulmane, p. 407
.'
This rela-
tog~ther.
Sepa-
rate them from each other, and you are left with mere sounds
Language is
of tbe:l:1= meanings.
Both
world-(al-khari1}, ideas ~re denizens of the internal intelligible wOrld Cal-dhihn): language bridges the gap between
tbe twq worlds.
Thus the idea of the g~venness of language is elaborated
in terms of a radically inflexible do~trine of semantic f iXity.
~evealed
truths, whether
An:'J scrip-
interpr~tation
tion is contaJ.ned.
church or the Holy Spirit, illuminatin9 the mind of the be~iever, exercises an interpretin.9 rol~, in Islam thia role
I,
devolves
~elusively
The Prophet
to the same
'i
I,,
'
Moreo~er,
exte.n~
scr~pture,
canon
4
'Zha Bible 1 primarily a boo!< of history, which records the
The comnunication of
inti i
~a
considered in Islam.
to revi.81on and
rephra~ing
Ambigui~ie8 and
con~equently,
while ol.der
texts. ~or example the TWel.ve Tabl.es, may be of utmost impOrtanc:e 1.n the shap1.ng of law, the la~guage o:f an ear.lier period,
e.g. f1.ftb; centuJ:Y e.c., is never regarded_3.s a given for
,.
'
th whole of law.
The verbum
ae1
.the given.
d~awn
up by legislative aaaem-
'rberefore1
m~tters
of lanquage.
and
'rhe question
lanquaqe.
'fhere is a close affinity between the terms wade and
aunnah.
6
~ans simply .. pr~-eatablish,ed custom, i.e. that Which
ha
of man.
language~;
indeed, one
does come acxoss instances here and there of the term used
1n this manner.
Witness
~be
Speech~).
For the
moat part, ha.iteVer, the term sUnnah had a peculiarly religious ~ignificance: strictly speaking, it was a deSignati~n
for the utterances and actions of the Prophet viewed as setting a true precedent for th~ new Conwunity, .but ~n a~tual
uaage it became a designation for the body of traditions
in Which the actions and utterances of the Prophet were recorded.
ii
"'
r~lated
tuall complementary.
wel~
as
In order to
k~ow
to lanquaqe.
'l'h1.9
~sertation
comprises
thre~
sections.
The first
of language.
(
I
l!!A!. with.iii
The discussions of the origin of language (mabda al 1ughah) 1 form a.n important chapter in the devc:lopment of the
idea of the givenness of language, in islam.
This givenness,
aa we h~ve seen, means essentially the givenness of the expression-meaning relation; and the discussions of the origin
of language were conc~rned Primariiy with this relation.
'rile question of how language comes into being was understood
as a question of how expressions come to be related to their
meanings.
(1) Ac~ord1;ng
&xpreasions
(2) Ac-
~ho
view made language the result of divine instruction: the relation between expressions and meanings is rooted in the nature
of God, in the divine articulateness: man learns 'both ez:pdesions and mearrl.ngs from God. 1
Tbe first two of these views bring to mind view& of
the origin of language advanced by the ancie.nt Greeks r the
ao-~alled
Isl~..
That some
;:i"
I,
It is u'1likely that
2w.s. Allen, Ancient Ideas on the.origin and Development of language, TransactionS of the Philological Society
.2f LOndon, 1948, PP 35-60.
---10
of later_timea, could have escaped entirely the notice of
the MU.slims.
11.m discussions of t~e origin of language as a mere continuation of the Greek discussions.
a knowledge,
appe~
to have
'?he
Cr~tylus,
into AJ:abic.
I :
was not, so
f~
1'
j '
I .,
se~
i'i ,;
from which the Muslims could have learned about the Greek
I
I,
I''
1,
~011111.enta.ries.
i'
I
,,I
\,.
~naturalist
11
I~
I,
!
fiven time.
I
1,
vi~a
were
juxta~sed,
prOpoun~ed aimul~aneoualy
at a
1,I
t:I.
tuxy. 2
together
When the
co~ventiQnali~tM
ha~f
a cen-
t: l
I
'
di~~tri-
I
~y op~aed
I'
'
'~l
t-
t.' ------.le.g.
~
~ --. '
t:c
al-kddI, al-Ibkihli,
p.
J.B.
---- -
ll
oounte:pllrt among the Mulilna.
It
11
11
aimilari~
I'
.an:J.nga. According
\11.
I .
of Arabic philology.
1\
'I
grassho~
1.
'-:
!11
I ',. .
I'
t~
the consonants.
'fbus we find
to Z.eat
;!~'
OD the
:1'.
o~
Qadama,
~d
\\'
[!
I
\
such spe-
1:
\:
I.
rl
\i
'
13
~he
Rather we find
11
The
11
natur-
aliat and conventionalist views, rather than being oppO1itea, represent successive challenges to a common opposite,
namely the theological view.
Tbe
~aturalist-theological"
controversy appears to
llam.
to Mu1.tazilite circles.
see~
Orthodoxy
1n the ninth century waa represented by AQmad ibn ijanbal (780855) and his followers, who were concerned with issues of
~09ma1 the origin of lan~age was not_ at that time such an
iaue.
~1tbin .Mu~tazilite
ranks.
14
la for the
11
'
.tative among the Mutazilites is Jll>il 'All al-Jubbi 'I (d. 915-6), 1
wbO flourished a quarter of a century or more after the time
~Abbad's
po81te, 1.e.
11
no~
Wh~t
occur
111'
:
11.,
IO, then the adversaries :1n the con_trovert1y would have been
I! ~1)
i! nl
! ; ~i j
:,
I ii'
I
I
o~
This
ICcord with what.we knOW' of a general conflict between alJ\lbbi>I and the follOW'ers of 'Abb~d. 3 cAbb~d had. taken is~ue
3w.
. ,
with the school of AbU al-Hudhayl (d. 840-1), the ..,at celel>:t&ted of the early
Mu'taz~lites,
in various points.
Since
vi~s
This suggests
that he
ear~y
Mu tazilites,
J:!whtd wa~al-'adi
ant
laee p. J~
These
-~.-~
16
))OOkB, however, are more interested in the refutation of'.Ab. -tild_'a view than in an objective statement of it and the arguments supporting it.
al-figh, where
But this
;
deniably signify the non-existent.l
(3) It is also unthinkable that the same expression
woul~ re~ire
us to say of homonyms.
'
'
11r
I
'i)j
ess~~tially
philological insight,
,,, RI
iI :.~1
I ;;
'I
~e
origin
I'
I'
\'.'
Naturalism might
1:
libn al-ijajib,
11'
i'
Muntah~
al-wu?Ul, p. 20.
18
p given a sure basis for this idea1 a language given in
.!',
!IA been a
But the
its~lf.
ac~eptance
of such
exp~eaaed
in an atomistic ontology,
f - tbe
the West.
Permanence in lan-
nat~re,
but on
th~
reality -
loQg
oppo~itiOn
if
among other
~inqs,
in the
~.
I
I
19
According to thia
inte~retation,.
which ia
namea
cil>Jects.
'
at1 the names means either the names of' the angels, or the
names of Adam's aona.
~erse:
Mam all the names) he ahawec! them (-hum, i.e. the thing
~) ~ the &n9!!1B and aatdc ~811 me the names of th~ae,
~an.
i~e ..
20
lfbe 1111.jority 0 the exegetes,
aSr a1-iatiari,
accepted
.r
in
literature.
th~
~e
attributed in
~he
cormnen-
The
'?Orab, unlike the Koran, makes Mam the giver of nameBr bUt
it is quite exi>licit as to what lldam gives the names !2_1 to
eV~tbing
irhia comprehen-
~-_ i81~c
~anquage.
It is
'!
!~ ~
Abu
H!shim, (d.933)
,I
21
AbG
~him'
According to Ibn
wh~n
he broke with
11
C:onven-
The fqrmer
then appeiU:'B,
m~st
from
Mu~tazilite
la .Byber9, al-MU~tazilah,
22
MU~tazilite
master.
Mu~tazilite
view: and
lusUl al-fiqh).
MUct~ilites
logians.
iat~1Jh,_ taw~duc,
~nd taw~tu~,
....
I,.
~e
a~d
for convention,
tawgrf,
di~fer
to
&<me
extent in meaning.
.. ,
1.Datz:uct (someone) in, to inform (someone) of."
This term
L.
-.
l'l'hese terms are discussed by LOucel in L 1 0rigine
411 Langage d'apres lee grarmnar~ens arabes," Arabica, X, fas.3,
pP.254-S.
23
~'
The terms
Of all
al-Ma~m~n
ition
~fa
to the po-
.. create~
~ature
of speech in general.
speak
ordin~~
The Koran
24
~ein9 at a fixed time. 1
ventionalist
posit~on
'
supposes language.
tives
Since God is eternally a)a~ower it is
impossible for him to be eternaJ.ly qualified
vi th the opposite of speech, because the o~
Site of speech. .is silence, or a defect.
juat as the opposite of knowledge.
~ is ignorance, or doubt, or a defect.~
1<ilbd
t~ugbt.
25
The Arabic word for teach, i.e. ca11ama, means 11terally to cause to know.
than simply that God caused Adam to know the names1 it means
that in informing Adam of the names God caused him to have
Jcnawledge. 1
o~t.
And.when
of the names.
as
the
I~
t;adi-
'
f.
26
i>elief in ~e uncreatedness of language.
Accordingly, the
begi~ing
of
l~nguage
of 1anguager it has to do rather with an impartation of language to Adam from above, an infusion into Adam of the divine
articulateness.
and~
~he
are well
creation of lan.'
Mconvention~listM
view of
Language,
in
the
tbi.nga is of course God: in this sense, language, though ariaiDg from human convention, is the prod~ct of divine creativity:
~I
27
Mu~tazilitea
and.early
of the Koran.
For traditionistst
The belief in
i .. tinuity.
-;
l.
za
not in th.a senile of beia9 other than the language actually
iD use _among the. Ar~. but ia the sense of being a purer
farm of that language than any actual dialect, a form corResponding fully to the transcendental archetype bestowed upon
~am.
,I
;I
II
.)
ian;ua;e.
'fhe arguments used by either aide in the conventionaliat-theological controversy are pieaented in two important
philoloqical worlta of the late tenth century, i.e. the Kit'!!>
al-S!b.ibi of Ibn Piria and the al-l(haea.ais of Ibn _JiMt, a_a
that th~ w_ere a11 advance.d durii:ig the course of the tenth
cen~i:y,
'I
,[
I'
r
l.
divi~ed
29
~ail
text
'l'hi
oo4 taught Adam all the names, i.e. the names of all existent
thing a.
the' word name includes all three parts of spaec:=bs: noun (ccllled
name in Arabic:), verb,: and particle.
c~n~erred
by God on Adam.
.poa.ea language..
purpose of establishing la,nquage without Some m8ans of cOmm:unJ.cat;lng their intention to each other?
Granted that
'l'he cj'iilt
I
.i
'
'!
'lO
language.
~sea
la~guage.
a Prior revelation of
la~guage
then to
kn~ la~quage,
This implies a.
p.ece~sacy
knowledge
w~thin
man of
meaningless.
Xn-
eontroversy
event~ally
reached an impasse.
In
~he
early elev-
According
..
au.gura~ed by ~
~ide
'
The person
Who more than anyone else was res~nsible for c~oslng the
.books
iusdeclaration that
neither~
tbeologi-
32
the origin of language should be held in suspension1 was taken
as the last word on the subject by most of .the theologians
It is significant that
Thia shows
33
"theologica~"
view of lanquage to
I
j
Kor~n,
rise to that view, i.e. the version which set forth the un,
'
~rdinary
speech, but
i.e~
permi~ted
Of language.
.1.e.
This
aoun~s,
34
hum~n
convention).
~hrouqh
is altogether appropriate.
From al-Blqillant 1 s
lanqu~ge
the majority of legal theorists and theologians, only a theoretical possibility (ibtim31), to be entertained but n9t espousea.
lilllguage.
'!he belief in the divine
origi~
Pecially Ibn
Ibn Tay-
47.
by certain scholars as a
an
juatif~cation
innovation,
for the notion
35
of metaphor. 1
are ebaolutely normative, and he does not doubt that the belief in the divine origin of lan_guage wa11 prevalent in these
I
centuries;
1chool which the latter founded did not follow his leacl.
* * * *
:i:t riow remains to show wh:at
I'.
ai~ificance
the contro-
versy over the origin of language and ita decline has for
l~guage.
[.
givenn~ss
of language
Wil8
dependent on the
given~esa
d~scendents.
ma.ins always the same, a given for the people which uses it.
'rbe decline of the controversy over the origin of lan guage and the relegation of the "'theological" and "'conventioll"".'
Ill.1st views to the realm. o_f theoretical
~ssibility
show
theoloqi~ns
lanqua~e
. accepted as a fact
tification..
see~
~hich
us-
'Xisted prior to the "time of the Prophet, that t~e Koran and
37
bein~
Precisely
~ow
Arabic
.
.
.
.
~interpretation ( c.11m. ai-tafstr) and other .re'ligioua sciences.
It was t:h1a language wh1:-ch
wa.8
The Koran
~~guage
& final word is in order concerning the rise of the
"term. wade and its use i.n the context of the controver.sy over
38
ti> origin of language.
relatio~
based on fiat, not upon any intrinsic connection between expression and meaning.
EXpressions
~be
related to mean-
d~
mean
vh,at they mean is that they have been assicn;ed to their meanings.
w~s
neutral
a~
The veib
39
The iihirite Ibn .ljazm also quite clearly
a~sociates
the term
inst~nces
establishment of language
by lexicographers.
.
.
means the
Th.is ambiva-
~erm.
wad c is to_ be
t~en.
wrote a book.
recOrded Arabic.
.!'.'Or this
rea~on,
A cognate of wade,
40
1.e. taw!du~, was used to express the conventional origin of
1anguage: but ~ itself must have been restricted, during
the early phases of the controversy, to the work of the lexi
coqraPhers.
zilites, the term wade came to be used for the original es,
tablisbment of langu_age, i.e. came to be synonymous with its
God,
the: unsuitability
tbS
41
'rhus the term wade, rather than expressing a particular doctrine of the origin of language, comes to express the
presen't status of language as established. What matters
I'". henceforth is not the manner in which language came into being
at some. remote point in the past--that is an unknown1 What
tbo~ght.
start-
._
.,
the.givenn~ss
~e
Although
Only
~a~
is
~stablis~ed
in language is relevant
wi~h
the givens of
poii>.~.
43
group of legal
th~orista
1ative theologians).
l\Ccorcllrig to
,11,
'.rbe
Shafi~ite
mutakallimiJ'n, or speculative
theo~ogians!
'rile
pecta the lea.ding spirits in 1-::gaJ. theory and thus were Sha-
on the other hand, bad ulterior motives in their leqaJ. theorizing, they wished to provide, in the face of al-Shaficl 'a
..!.
I'
i
Thei~
t~e
great jurists
vu tl)e fact that the qreat jurists had not indicated theee
rules u
t~s wba~ia-eatablished
reference~
in la.nguacje
Juristic precedent
Again,
bad to respond.
deference to prec~ent, Were also oblig~d to take irito conideration what-is-established in la.rtg:uage..
ul~imately made its way
into.
-,. ...
\-'. .....
-:.
;;
...
45
to formulate 11nguiatic premises aa the subject matter-of
~t
appear
givenne~s
through~t
the
Ris~lah.
one of the principle points that one grasps from the opening
pages of the Rislilah is that an understanding of the text o.f
46
Soine
A class of tradi-
tions evolved which were concerned entirely with Koran interpretation, interpretation based not on considerations of lani;iuage, but exclusively upon utt~rances allegedly.handed dawn
from the c.ontempoiariee of the Prophet, or from the Prophet
himself. 2
1schacbt,
An
47
giVe~,
'rbe rise of MUc.tazilite interea~ in the science of the
principles of jurisprudence i~ the tenth century is one of
the major events in the history of that science.
'rile Mu~ta-
MU~tazilites
The
The great
1
la1-suyatI.,
. al-Muzhir, p. 10.
48
HuCtazilites.
of interpretation . The first knOWn Muctazillte exegete, ac. cording to Goldziher, 1 was AbU Bakr al-Al}amm, who lived iD
the early ninth century (d. 850).
The ear-
Al>u ea&him (d. 933) and two impOrtant members of the tlcbool
founded by him Al>u Al>d Allah al-IJusayn ibn AJ.1 al.--rl
(d. 978~9) and AlJd al-Jabbllr ibn ~ al-Asadllblid:C (d. 1026).
'?he latter, who was the teacber of .AbU iil-JJusayn, was undoubtedly the most important figure in llUtazilite legal. thought.
Under the Buwayhid vizier, Ibn c Abblid ld. 995), wbo favored
llUtazilitiam, he was appointed chief judge (Olldl al=ffi1411bl
49
sayf al-Dln al-iimidr (d. 1156) and Falchr al-Din al-RiizI (d.
1209) in the formation Of the mutalcallim variety of Muslim
legal theory.
o~
Islamic
lega~
theo:cy in general.
bi&
master.
since these
lihed.
zation.
~as
.~enerali
50
One
can also say that a homonym is an expression which is established for a plurality of meanings in the manner of alternation <'al~ a"l-b,fldall 1
a1-~uaayn's
dis-
cussion of the establishment of metaphor, which 1athe feature of language with Which he as a MUc.ta.zilite is most con-
The meta-
me~inlj
11
ac~ually
51
w~s
d~prive
metapbOrs of
of a homonym.. l
It implied
l.Abu
52
cue. u
he points out..
lfhia subordination arises from the fact ~at the two mea.ning's
His justification
!13
thari
built.
I .
aame primal sense as non-metaphors. it is nevertbelesS estah11.ahecf. in aome aenser and be~CJ est.ablishe4 it is therefore
a given" of language.
&avinq thus accorded ~ metaphor the statu.s Of a given,"
abQ'
c:~mmands
and prohibitions,-2
pp. 43-lBO.
'
: ./
,.
. , .
'
J'
....
,_
.i
!.
I .
.........
that we find the idea ofthe givenness of language most thoroughly worked out.
'to
Nyberg
has
called ninth century Mutt.izilitism the first Muslim scholasticim, but this application of the term is not entirely appropriate since the M~c.tazilites, wh:1le they did wc:>rk toward
---------------~--~--~------
~in
Prior to
al-Gbazz~lI, .
Aristotel-
The result of
this
MUs~im
speculative the-
MU.Bl~
of the principles of jurisprudence brought into being a distinctly scholastic school of legal thought.
Al-GhazzllU him-
al-Ihk~
fI usGl a1-abkam by
al-Drn a1-aaz1 (d. 1209), which became the baaia of all later
work in scboiastic legal theory, e.g. the M1nha1 al-wusO'l
ill! 11m al.:uslll of al-eay4lfwI (d. 1286) and the Mukhtasar
al-Muntah\I al-usllll of
nm
tics, commentea.
--
-:.
that scienc8.
by
57
rual>I (d. 950) and continuing in the. polyhiatorical writing .
.of the Brethren of Purity (IkhwSn al-eafll), who flourished in
of sciences.
coustitu~ntsJ i
science
AP0rtrait
---------~---------..-.-.-
58
whic~
not only to the sciences whic.h they acquired from the Greeks
and with which that notion had originally been as~ociated,
came
Consequently
to be extended
to include not only the givens of reason, i.e. the fisst prin-
linguistic information.
II
'[
usOL alabJ<iim. l
The
three main cateqories of premises in the science of the prinCiples of jurisprudences the~logical premises (al-mabXdXaalkallmiyah), linguistic Premises (al-mab~d!aal-lughaw~yah),
These consti-
The theological
Both language
and the divine natu~e are given the status of tiiDelese reali
t1e11, the knowledge of which
is fundamental
to legal theo~:
Ag~n,
aa with the Muc.ta.zilites, this rettUires moi:e than an acquaintanc~ with the meanings of particular words~ it also requires
..!-
60
.'
Tb fontation of the linguiatic premi&ea tbua brin9a
are
provided
by
the acboiastics, - and how the idea _of tbe gJ.vei:mesa of lan-
al-lugbawiyah~
1:ingui.Stl_c givens. wl
~:1.8
However,
tJ:te
use of al-mawdQCl.t
'.
i6.
61
1n that it 9111Phaat.zea the givenness of language as a starting
Th.ere ia, in
~&.ct,
a givenness in
The pre-
mises are those givens Which are taken ~ither fr9m. other sci-
-i!IB
.Cience 1 dJ.rected..
p~sea
~f
by reason, earl
~'e
C!!!!l!J
(maCrifat
,,
62
related terms; the knowledge of one is the same as the knowledge of the other.
a.nd sunnah;
sci~nce
'l'his application of
of.hadith-criticism
badith-criticis~
to
one of
Thia influ-
ibn At>mad
reputatio~
of traditionista (mubaddithUn) of
Th.iB
d~ta
,.
63
~)
~)
lexicographer.
tury which had seen the rise of badith-criticism arid the compil~tion
of al-Bulchlirl (d. 870) and Muslim (d. 875), simply recapitulates without any serious modification the theory of transmission-criticism as it had been developed by traditionists.
Three factors must be considered in connection with any given
tr~smitters.
The
In respect
64
and incomplete. 1
:In
respect to the
is
the
l~nguistic sciences.
What evi-
Of
65
It ia not
enough that a piece of linguistic information be widely distributed in the present1 this diatribtion JDU&t wctend into
the past.
When one learns a certain word from a person, one is not told
Al-R&zt
se~
that language is to a large -wctent handed da.tn from one person to another as a spontaneous ac-tivity quite independent
of the role of transmitters; the supreme instance of this
activity is the process by which a child learns words from
i.
bis
elders~
transmiss~on
purpos~
for multilineal
In short,
66
a1-R1Zr ~ aware that transmission, in the case of language,
1 not aa formal and regularized as in the case of r_eli9iou111
tradition.
~ expressi.on whose
I.
an expression whose
meaning. is
.
. in fact doubted by. no one.
ror example, whoever would doubt that earth means earth,
This certainty
is proof enough
other
expreaaions, ~ever, ar~ admittedly uncomnon and tbe.1r meanings atrao9e1 with respect. to such wOrds we have a sense of
uncertain.ty, on account of which we may correctly attribute
Al.-Rl.zI, in
EiUp-
67
ca~e9ories
of multilineal
fo~listic
point of
vi~
ot al-Anbari.
ion criticism, and have composed tabagat books for the.purpoae, whereby the great names .of the linquistic sciences can
be J,.dentified and their value as
trans~tters det~rmined . 1
Hi approach to language
I
.
'
'
'
~'
,.
'
pp. 144-170
~' f~sid,
68
A im1l.U approach i followed by certain legal theoriat.o as well.
bear the word from the one from. wham be t.ransmita it1 (5)
tho11e who tranami.t it fraa him must then alao hear the vord
from him.
Whatever be the exact inteE{>retation of the categories
of transmiaaion as applle4 to 1u.gu_age, the fact remains that
Of the two
~o:cmer.
'"
69
The sunnab,
shawllhid (author:Ltat:Lve
poetry Of
th~:t period
iB
considered its
tru-
many
the
whole community. 2
Though
70
The vastness
~ource,
i.e. analogy.
The ar-
I:
of th9 date.
p. 14
nificationa of khamr.
I'
72
There 1$ no positive
~n
Thia givenness is
~ive~ess
perifi!nceds_ in the spheres of logical truth a.nd direct experience, giv~nness is inmedia~~
tr~sm.iasion.
waac al-lughah,
j .
...
:
~ti.
<'
:.{ ~i!
;,;,
,
-
~
;,
'-';
~re
'prepared to
Again, as with
73
legal theorists.
Of the two
pr~nc.iple
types
~egal
i.
res~onsible
74
Only by doing so
In the majority
fe~tures
established in language.
75
Metaphor1
The givenness of metaphor is denied by only One Sunnite
juriat, namely
Abu
Ia~lq
I
!
uaag~
of lion
the expressio~.
01!=.
vi~
a~
'?his proves a
ao~~hat
diffi- .
cult task for the ch~ef reasOn, menti~ned previously in connection with the MIJCtazilitea, that the givenness of
~~taphor
i . ,,_,
:
----------------------------------
76
Metaphor thus
'
the .ArabS.l
like~
itself, transmitted
fro~
one may use. ~resaions as metaphors oilly in a manner confondng to the usage of the Arabs.. There is thus in usage
a givenness, a sunnah; which though diatinguishahle. from
the giveriness of ~ is nOne~eless givenness in th~ true
sense.of the word.
Th.ere
;J
are two view& aa to the way in which the principle of trans.U.aion is to be applied to metapborJ.cal. usage.
(1) Accord
&raha.
d9
we~
in C~ inatanc:ea ~oUrageouS
man.;
m~aning
from the
su~b
It
a signification is
ju~~
a tall man,
&a 1a usually the c:~se; sinc:e iii. the -::ase o_f tall animal a
.fas.ion.
l~ads
to _con-
r.
aom.ewha~
f':>:cegoing- v.iew, is that it is t:he manner, or style, of meta.pboricil.l usage which must be transmitted from the Arabs, not
each actuil.l metaphor.
78
4id uae metaphor and be shawn in what manner they did so /1
tb.111 1a aufficien.t for establishing the -qivenness of
iD 1anguage..
metaPhor
'
'.rhe arbitra.rineas
is lessened by ~e fact that
_Of
metaphor-.
poin~ in
What is transmitted
the past.
Thus
'
through
the principle of transmission and through the
o:f the term
muw~da ah,
u~age
not
mentioned ~onjOintly.
79
in the treatises i;n the science of ~, of the Category
1
.
of 11 1ndirect wade,
Cal-wade al-ta>wilI) which is a direct
carry-over of muwD.dacah.
A metaphor
6a.
al-IbJ<~.
BO
The pon:ll>ility of technical vocabularies had been
recognized by.philologists.
t~ola name~r
these
names coDstitut.e a vocabulary pe_culi~ to him and his coworkers, a vocabularr quite distinct from the language pro-
per.1
cabularies.
&II
!..!!!.!!
and
Wadc~urfY
on:
81
to take aa the basis of the legal idiom
al~ad~ al-lugbaw~
al-eay~ilwr.
'
lan~age
lan~age
a fundamental pre-
to be revealed in the language of the Ar_aba, i.e. in a iangu.age whose givenness wae a pre-established fact.
tec~cal
of
~lied
The notion
a non-Arabic,
tant
el~ment,
considereda-pre-establ~sbed
fact!
The 9iven-
revelatio~
wa:s addressed.
l~
H<Mever, there
Therefore the
~onstituting
a special
82
th ~abs.
does not obliterate the original meaning which the word has
in the ianquage.
11
the language~:
the proper meaning of the word 1_s found in the language and
ape~ial
tech-
of true
~taphor,
-Mo.reover, in
,_.,,
When the word aawm. is uttered, one does not first grasp the
meaning aJ:>stention" and then subsequently
th~
meaning "fast":
(tab~duran).
11
(Foreign words
~the
the context.
'Iba
caa~
for the
pre~ence
'l'he
that
id~a
Mu~tazi~ites,
al-eaqill3n~
it
ult~mately
and despite
carried
give~
84
eparate phenomenon independent of the givenness of the lanquage proper is. also admitted.
Generality. Homonym.ity. Synonymity
.lbD
Hi~;
~
'
:,1;:~
in language.
,,r:;;,
H; ..1t
:';ffl;'
lar ~).
,\l;lf
,,
85
&oma~mity and synonymity, l on the other hand. are
The last
part of the definition sets the bom6nym off from the general
of expressions in disguise.
ef~ect,
a group
for one meaning, and then, quite apart from that eatablistunent,
for 8nother meaning.
of the
othe~:
it is as
thou~h
establish~
for a
A synomean~ng
'lt&e same
B6
'l'he al>jection.o to homonylility and synonymity proceed
ftom the contention that they serve no useful purpose: and
Indeed, hamonymity and synOJIYllll.ty only contril>ute to confuion. llllkinCJ of language a heavy burden that 1.t ought not
U ani:expression bu two meanings, then the intelli-
to be.
meant.
peE'Son mu.at leaxn both wzp~eaions ~ les.t some learn one and
unaer1y-
I'
the
wad,c. al-lughah
I.t .ia brought into being for the sole purpose of com-
&
for an .idea.
Acc~rdingly, homO"'
in term8 of a
'
,'
87
'
be
achie~ed,
id~a.
~eter..
de~ned
by
consid~ra-
on certain
an ambiguity.
the two men were acCoated and_. Abu Bakr wcis asked, "Who is
this_ with you?
The
88
reply was both appropriate and truthful.
TO aum up1 The real bas.ls for the Islamic idea of the
a theoretJ.cal, one.
whe~e, and
:If ~e system is
to be intact
analysis rests.
A house
~fairer
of reference.
In the linguistic premises of the science of the
principles of juri~prudence, the term wade. became the standard expression f~r the idea of the givenness of language
aa a starting point of legal.thought.
89
Ill
questi~n
In the 11 1cience of
~ ~he.
o~ly
of language was explored, not for its own sake, but as a necesUry preliminacy to legal theocy.
lan~age
have
signification~
BY "ele-
any expression
t..!!il
91
that for which the expression stands, that for which the ex-
preaaion is a name.
11
expressi~ns
be~ean
Thus the
ceived, as
process.
~ name~giving
nainea of objects in the world, the Muslim view sees expresions as naines of ideas in the mind.
ideas~
name.
'.
. ,.
., .
. J.;,'
92
Th name-relation lies at the heart of the notion of
the givenness of ianquage.
does.
Thi science is said to have gra.ni directly out of
the science of t;he principles of jurisprudence.l
a.in
The first
sake 1 outside
the co,ntext of legal theory, was the great scholastic theologian J4ud aJ.-Din ai:..tjI (d. 1355).
The
auggea~d topics that were to be aea1t with ni.11Y and systemat1ca11y later.
Even as
lat~
tr~atise
Dee~
of that .science.
Yehuda
MS
'
~e status of a recoqnized written science until the eiqhteerith
century.
treati~es,
Ris~lah,
appear at that
co~
time~
soma of
make use of
"cat~gories
Caqsam.] of wade.
The application
'.
language.
The remaining
pagea,o~
'rbis analysis
I
lftla chief categories of wad
refer
to these
than to the
o~er
be given
to expla1nin9 them
sets of categories.
z.solative wade.
suhawriptive wade:
95
the categories of thiB set.
* * *
The cateqories A-A, A-I<h, and I<h-I<h were first deline'
Mu~aminad al-Jurj~I
the anpients". 3
l<AlX U>n MUbammad al-Jurjan~, H?sh!yah ~ala matn alRis2lah al-wad<Iyish, fol. la: Sharh <al~ al-Ris3lah al-wad:ryah. fol. .nsa.
2al-Ij~,
al-Ris~lah
pp. 33-35.
3i.e. t~e pre-Ghazzalian, pre-scholasti~ jurist-theologians w'tl6se chief representative was al-B'lqilllinI. on the
difference between "C\ncients and moderns" see Mu})sin MahdI,
Ibn Khaldrrn's Philosophy of Historx. pp. 31-33.
96
they differ from other particulars in that they are estal>lished
for these ideas,. not directly, but through the medium of uni-
. vera~l ideas.
The meaning of these statements will be explained after
I
I,
!
!
ap~lyin9
the
universal~particular
distinction to tq>ressions.
In the science
I'
~f ~
The. justi-
~a.z;ticular by
b~
easi-
if an expression
1outi>
pp. 44ff.
,,
97
or particular.
I
I
I
part~
larity of particles.
Before we move directly
in~
Zn both 9rammar
rhetoric
~ne fiiids
the principle
_knowled~e, is
used
98
thing
~.
hearer.
Cieh~ratan)
to something kncMn
to demonstratively.
meana of an expression, to a particular person known to myaelf and the one to whom I am speaking.
I aay
"l!!.
(one)
r~lative
pronoun, definite
demonstr~tively
It is customary
when malting a statement first to identify that which the statement is about.
I.
99
the speaker gets on with his statement, i.e. attaches a predicate to the suhj.ect
ticulara .l
d~vine knowl~dge
Of par-
truly informative.
This delimi-
Since particulars
~e
Bence
100
Al-Ijr
the proper name universals when they knew that in actual speech
0
ituations.
1ng of an expression?
expr~ssion
mean~
is established CwudiCa).
_.:1:-n
a simple,
101
I.
ing formulationz
d~monstrative
Por example,
..
As such 9b.e
p~re9nabaent
from
mari
are uDJ.versala.
The rationale foi this atraight-fotifard approach Wasi
In
~e
author of
.preaaiona like he, it is impossible that the author of language should be able to take into account, i.e. form an idea
of, all those things to whicb the expressions refer in count-
I
I'
I
102
leaa peach situations.
particulars.
g~neral
lexic~l
MeanJ..ng in this
definition.
If
-.
103
such expressions
we~e
TO exclude a
p~rt
~ome
meaning.
!Jr, about. the view of the ancients was that this view did
not give an adequate basis for the givenness of the demonstrative character of expressions like
11
he."
The
inclusion of
..
104
only in
t~is
mac.rifah be affirmed.
heavily on pseudo-meanings
~ideas
which
~epe
Accordingly, al-!jY advanced a new theory of the establishment of personal pronouns,_ demonstrative pronouns, and
relative pronouns.
alao to particles.)
express~ona
an
Instead of establishing
al-mus~aklikhaSat
bi khusUsihi) is cru-
th~ ~i:'ee
part~ulars
si~nify.a
c~nsequently
class.
it must be
par;~icular
in such
a way that when the expreSsion is used one and only one par-
'
105
ticular 1 understood. 1
Al:IO al-Olleim al-SamarqandI (fl. 1483) elucidates the
phrase each particular by means of a disjunction;
,,I
ae ia
1aid to be establish8d for "thia particular, or that particular, or that particular, etc~ of the particulars falling
under the universal idea single male person absent from the
apeech aituation.2
The identity of the particular for which "he" is used
in a given speech situation is of course not known t9 the
author of language, who establishes expressions Prior to all
peech aituatiODS.
the.expre~si9n
itself . In the
cue of .proper names, i.e . zayd, this is not the caSes the
identity of the pai:'ticular
I.
1elf.
identity of particulars
refer~ed
to
by-_expres~ions
like he
lal-QO:sbjI,
Shilb C"ala al-Risalah a1-wadcI'yah,
pp. 41-49.
.
,
2al-Sama.rqaiid.I, Sharb CalS al-RlsX!ah
al~wadCiyah,
fol. 12b
106
!!. known.
mu~ayyinah).
t'abl.
When
to aomething imnediately
pre~ent.
~aql'Iyah)
is.
Thia
~hraae
is said to Constitute
I
I
i
I
'
!
I
I.
107
a mental pointing.
1 a noble
When I aay
11
man,~
general phrase?
while
th~
meaning
o~
~rom.
sasrah" ia general
The
~teelf,
sp~aker
tion (al-inbislir
al-kh~ril'lJ
concerning personai, demonstrativ.e, and relative pronouns in general, the question arises:. h<7ti1 can the author of
language establish such an expi:ession foZ. e~ch part.icular
subsumed under a universal idea when each particulilr is not
108
present before him in such a way that he can take it into
account.
l~
A particular exists
fan~',
a term reminiscent
I
I
pr~sent
(!lat
al-i&tibd~).
the.
former a particula.r
establishment.
.
univers~l
es~ablishment
and
~particular, ~ut
as it--or the
~pplica~ion
! '
109
be applied to expreaa1on8 with respect to tbe meanings, 1_.e ..
1.cleas,.wbicb.th~
tha eatahlisbment
~)
The e8-
tabliahment of i:be proper name, e.g. Zayd, is said to be particular because the idea arising in the miild of the author ...:.
Since it
v~al., si.nt;S the idea arising 1.n the mind of the author of
language 1.a uni.vereal.
which
particul~a
author of langUacje, we muBt speak of a universal establishMnt of an expression f9r a Particular meaning
C. '3J:rm
11-mawdU'
l~u kh~ss,
eatab~ishment
~d
al-
catego.ey fol-
'rhe
.i._e. A-Kh).
~al-wade.
of expres:sions like
iio
the idea arising in the mind of the author of language ia
univex-aal.
J{ow~ver,
'
waac
re-
particular.
ai~sb~r,
2 at-12UshJr,
2. ill.
pp.
eo-eJ.
111
parts, of the aignificative units contained ~n it.
thua has its
OW1'.l
Bach unit
proper mean1.ng.
of the person zayd, fl' stands for the idea of "in-ne_as C&!!:-
.:m!h),
1
ahayrihi) , i.e. which is
BOW'ever, th~s
i~dependently,
is
~t
i~eas
I.n the
se~tence ~zay~
112
"commenc~nt1
:rromdoes
id~a
of Safrah
nifies nothing1 in conjunction with_ other expressions it signifie something about the ideas sigilified by those expressions,
expressions.
~eases
One
does not look at a mirror in order to behold the mirror itself: rather one looks in order to behold what is reflected
in the mirror.
Similarly one
~oes not~view
a relating idea
11
zayd
c~
11
coomence-
could. by means of
11
11
----------------------~-.~.~'
\. ....in' quite a
113
different way.)
consid~ra
t1onaa
si9~ify.
part~cular
Th&t
In the sentence
a particular
c~ty,
Wb.ich
1
a particular
1.~.
co~encment,
of CO\:lrse take c~gnizance of all the instances i~ which 'commencement is used as a rei"atin9 idea, i.e. cannot take cognizance of all particular Commencements.
Again, this ie
univer~al
Therefore he
idea of c.omnencement,
114
under which all particular conmenc-emeilt.8 are ubsumed and
of lang\iage can establish the expression from for the particular coiamencements" thems.elves.
Accordingly, the
"e:Stab-
* * *
The econd set of.categories
and a\Jhaumptive !!M!.,. 1
of_~
is
th~
1so1at1ve
idea.
~ua.zayd"
the combination of
vowel
I
,a and the
orthog~aphic
I1
ii
t
1
[.
poi~t
~ich
Lrbe earliest
at
these categories appear
in the literature ,of wad~ i~ in al-samarqand.r, Sharb cal~
al-Risalah al-wad~Iyah, fol~ lOb-lla.
115
terizes the establishment of formal elements in lailguage,
Por
~,
etc.
-!!!.
is not an
In a subsumptive
any
indi~idual
and
subsuin~d,
11
sub-
In a
Rs~
meaning.
aion and every- expression which " we have a clear 1nd1cation of the 1solative-subsumptive" distinctiOn.
'l'b.e recognition of the formal elements of language as
distinct .from. individual expressions probably dates from the
founding of the science of morphology (C.ila;.al-sarf) as a
aepai:ate discipline.
consequently
from the time of Sibawayh1 (d. 793). , From the ninth century
were used by
encyclop~dists
to separate
t~e
subject matter
ijil'J j I l<halrfah,
117
al-nawc.t). 1
non-complex
exp~essiona
eatabl~shed
in 1so-
'lative fashion. 2
*
The third set of categories, i.e. dJ.rect and indJ.-.
rect wade, provides a basis for diatinguisbin9 between the
Cma1h).
~dea
of and
11.Bhed for
only by means of an
~clitiOnal
factor other
the expres-
ion itself, i.e. a context (garTnah} !which indicates a.cOnnection ('-all.aah) between the proper meaning and the metaphor-
ical meaning. 3
Since the category of indirect wade is applicable
'
zade,
.2 .s!t,. ,
118
wad~.
1.e. the
metapho~,
.,
'
~t
'Iba application of the categories of wade. to the elemanta of language ie the chief concern of the science of
~- .~
~he
Whic;h
waac.
treatise~
de.al, are.
These may
source-no~ns,
morpholog~cal
~cles_,
terms
(3~il
li.e. ism i!mid, as opposed to ism al-masdar and &-ism al-mushtaqg (see Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Langua_ge,
X, p. 106). The terto generally used in the wad~ treatises is
ism al-tins, but since this is restricted.to th~ ism i3mid,
.rather than being made to embi:'ace both ism fiimid and_ ism alpasdar, as is uaually ~one. in graiamar, we w~ll employ an English
translation of ism tamid.
----------------------
i'
I
119
mau1, ate.}
(2) Formal elements occurring
.!!!. wordas
(a) suffixess
the plural suffix, the dual suffix, the .relative suffix (-.!) 1
,.a~rial
or the ve:tb.
Again it should be stressed that each of these e1e-
a namer
each is eatablis~
120
I
'1
guage.
~word
The hylomorpbic
i'
Wbich
~e
Detached
\.
.
baving no
~esti~g
AB aucb, they are the aubj ect matter of morphology and are
designated by means of morphological terms
~.
ra~icals
..51!!!.
radica'ls~
etc., Which
Formless matter,
are the sub-
lMa&aignon, "La Structure Primitive de'l'Analyse Grammaticale en Arabe," Arabica, x, fasc. 1, p. 12.
2 i.e. including"both word-forms and other formal elements.
.
121
It hould be noted that in the above enumeration not
all words are
~ichotomized
ma~ter,
but only
Accord-
the word.
~orm
of
In the
case of both d:!l.ril> and darabat the basal meaning of the source-
122
element of language.
type
o~
re~ation
between
'8rtormed7 therefore it
~a
A substance cannot
I
I
'i
not
A word which
'!
~tationary nounsconstitu~e
of~,
source-
in themselves elements
123
irhe application of the categories of
~ to
the
e1~
tieatises.
Fi.J:st,
categories o.f
11
~ressions
aiona falling under each of thesecategories are further clasified in terms of the categories'of 101-101, A-ICh, A-A.
The
A-A
lCh-!Ch
A-A
. aubsumptive
ijajarz5de
(19~
century),
Ris~lah
fi
al-wad~'
...'",j
124
c.Ab4 al-Malik al-Patnr (19th century), 'Agd al-La>a1I
al-ijuaaynI
al-~aw:lhirI
al-~afawr,
all of these
at_~ge
of its development.
* * * *
With respect to the application of the c'tegories .of
1aol~tive
~re
in
All
gen~ric
de~nstrative
pro-
nouns, particles and stationary nouns are established by "isolative wade_: (2) that all_ formal elements", both those occurring in words and those occurring in groups of words, are
establ~shed
by a subsumptive wade.
11
material elements."
inv~lving
fr~
al-Ratun~
1
I<halaf
(al-Patnt, ij.ajarzMe,
morph_ologic~l
a.1.-~afawI.,
Ris~lah
fi
al-wad~.
The declaration
Thus in a
126
ingla instance the author of language establishes aaet of
names for all the forms dealt with iron morphology.
Those
d,,..
consi~eration
at all as
of language
el~nta
i only the dissent of the feW from the opinion of the majority.
The
COillDOn
~on
JJf radicals,
e.9 .
ing.
family
family s the
rad~cals
d~rib,
k&:tib, qa .. im
according to radicals.
to think of
~e
Consequently, it would be
Wro~g
127
wad~
o"J!
to the radicals
th~
(al-~afawI,
.!!!.
individual expres-
~-form
the
Just
.4 . !!. ap-
etc.
tions
J. . ~
~e
~rgea
clisaenting
lative and
su~sumptive"
i as follows..
.
vi~s
p~oper
an
sour~e-nouns,
es~ablia.hed by
~~so-
pron~uns,
particles,
128
by a eubeumptive" wade ares all the '"formal element enu-
phras~,
fr
* *
dif~
estab~ished
~.
by an "isolative wade,
~eing
!hei~
precedent
~s
veraally acCepted: Kh-lCh--proper names, generic names: A-Kh-personal prqnouns, demoristrative pronouns, relative pronouns,
particles; A-A--stationarY nouns, source-nouns, the matter
of derived nouns, the matter of
ve~s.
129
~hraae,
th~
~he
form. of
ar~
evenly divided..
Sbuhrllwl, llbd al-Jla\lmln Khalil., al-~..WU.ir'I, alDijwY) maintain that these words are established for particulars
.!!!!!i!!!.!!.
130
tor universal
of
1Jl words.
h~ve
the
:! fullln (O
SO-and-so) established for the universal idea someone'& preaence 1 desired or for the piirticular ideas which it conveys
Vben found in indivJJual expressions, e.9. v! Muhammad (0
_,,,,,.ad), vl! zavci (O zayd), ei:c.
Mu~anmad s
presence
The fact
resOived.
(2) In the case of constructions, the issue is the
same, though our authors a.re differently divided.
Al PatnI:,
131
al-~awllhirI,
al-DijwI,
al-~afawI
clas-
jus~aposition
1.~. th~
~etween ~ayd
and
g~aim),
'
Once more,
~e
deri~d
lea~
11
verb~
sere we can
a double clasB~.fication, in terms of its tWo meaning-components, i.e. relation (nisbah) and timS (zam1ln).
With
resp~t
132
t~
be
~ound
(This
The
The sen..;.
tence characteristically expresses a particular relation between a particular substance and a particular action..
The
to eaghdad.
particular.
xn the above statement,
11
133
expresses a particular relation between a particular substance
and a plltiCul&r action,
11
this is to
be
to narrative (badith).
iB
that
reli~ious literatur~
aubetan~e,
th~ory.'
a~
The
action ..
~firms
134
a part.1.cular substance-action
rel~tion
by incorporating words
~tself
The sentence-
relation~
A aantence
w~ich expre~ses
ci.fi.c.
~latio~
by means of a
der~ved
a particular suhstapce-action
the
aenteDc:e-types will
t:wQ
4)
an~lyzed
b~
discussed in turn ..
it
coneiBt~. Of
i .. e.
giy~,
135
only a liat.
~.
A derived noun signifies altogether three meaningcomponentas1 a substance, an action, and a relation.
action ia signified by the material
substratu~,
The
form-.
aentence are
pre~ent
th~ng.
g~.,im.
~s
consequently,
ga' 1m
must be
136
particular substance..
In i:he combina-
be
tr~lated,
i~
related
~stand-
the
aenten~e
par~,
t;
'
~t
'l-'
signifies a uni-
137
The verb, on
The component
and a
Moreover, unlike
the derived noun_, the action and relation which aie 19Jlif1ed
are a particular action and relations therefore, the verb aigni.fie nothing universal to be particularized by an attached
noun.
1~
hllm!yah)
Since the
ve~b
parti~ular
relation.
~ubject
and predicates
In the case
138
noun be claas1f1ed ae
A-A, and
11
the
form.
to. establish
fo~
classi~
the
~ qama
the action of
st~.ing.
139
ia not
This issue
~eaolved~
al-Shubr~r.
conclusions
In thia dissertation we have been concerned with.the
role of language in orthodox Muslim thought.
His.wor~s
have been
unchanging given.
the Book are the meanings with which they are iD.exfz;-icab~y
connected in language.
The problem to which the discussions of the origin
141
of language, in the ninth and tenth centuries_, were directe.d
vu how to fihd .a basis. for the givenness of language..
propo~ed
TWO
i"
tbemsel ves Cbi dhatih'!) , i.e. are the cause of ~eir awn sig-
142
culateness of God himself.
What was ohjectioriable, from the point of view of later
orthodoxy, about the tr_aditioniat view of 1B11quage aa a tranacendenta1 given was the corollary emphas.18 upon the discontinu"i ty between the J.an911age of the Koran and that spoken by
the Arabs in the Proplieta time.
that .only the Prophet could .interpret the Koian, sine~ only
ha had command of ~e pure language.
ClGlri-
so long as -tradJ.tions
______________________....
..._
.":f!
th~
143
attempts to pravid,;, a basis for the giveii.ne.111 of language,
vaa
nonethe~eaa
But it
sun~
tradiUoniata had
-
create~
languaq~-as-established
What
th~
acr8d law.
irhe :idea of language-as-established was a
herita~e
Al-Sh~fi'I"
knowi~_g
Arabic
we~l.
In this
144
the atrict traditioniata toward philological studies.
The
~abs
For th"lll
!?.
It was
origin.
~t
It seems .quite
~theological"
According to
being.
.145
Mu~tazilites
had won
This
s~ce
it represented a return
Al-B~qilli.U,
both the
~conventionalist
wh~ch
What -.ttered
~nceforth
duct of convention or
d~vine
11
Whether a pr?-
iii general.
The idSa of language-as-established took on a special
impbrtance for the
~ad
scholaeti~
legal theorists.
Le9al theorists
langu~ge,
i.e. metaphor,
JI11,1St
146
vhich he mu1t base hia pr.inciples of interpretation.
ac:holaatic were
conc~rned
to justify their
The
hermen~utical
t8xts.
acience, reata.
Once the givenness of language came to.be understood
in tenis_ of the establishment of language Cwadf.. al-luqhahO;i,
there remained the ta8k of working out the idea of the eetab-
co~ceivable
The
unit of signification.
languag~-as-established
147
of things.
The science of
waa~w
out all aignificative elements in language, even formal elements, uchaa suffixes, radicals, construction-forms, etc.,
and treata each as a name.
are
regarde~
~reated
as names.
Thus
t~e
principle of the
n~-rela
idea.for which it
s~ands,
to names was an
inevit~le
11
elernents 11 of language
consequence of
c~rtain
presupposi-
148
est~lished
by
lishment conceivable.
Ariother presupposition is that information about language is a matter of information about the meanings for which
expressions have been established.
to be established at a fixed
poin~
This infor-
of the transmis-
ques~ion
w~y
establish~d
is the knowledge of
conceivable.
In no
Thus to
C1am~).
So exhaUs-
149
established for
iUeanin9s
~eyond
which
~t
cannot con-
1;Yropean
Articles1:
Allen. William s. Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Development of Language, Transactions of the Philological
Society (London), 1948, PP:.35-60.
Gardet, t.oUis.
Al-Djubb"i~x,
Hew Edition.
r.aouat, Henri..
Jqun~
b. IJacbal,
r.oucel, Henri.
uabea,
L'~rigine
.Arabic:a X, XI (1963-64).
Masaignon, t.ouis.
~-Muc.tazilah,
Arabica
lam
Stern, Samuel M.
The Encyclopedia of
151
Goldziher, I.gnaz.
Muhammadanische Studien.
Hallet Max
Siemeyer, 1889.
Die Richtunqen der Islarnischen Koranauslesunq.
Encyklopadische Uebersicht
Leipzigi sreitkopf
,d~e~r._,w~1~s~s~e~n~s~c~h~a~f~t~e~n"-'d~e~s._o~r:,:12
e~n~t~s .
~hsin..
Ibn Khaldun's Philosophy of History.
George Al.len and Unwin, Ltd., 1957 ..
Pickthall, Marmad~e.
Landoni
~opf,
1930.
oxford:
Can:i>ridge:
Arabic
Published works:
. c.Abd al-JabbU, .AbU al-t:tasan 1.b_n Al)mad
"% abw"lb al-taWbld wa-al-Cadl.
1961--.
~Abd al-Ralpn~
Khalaf ..
ba~at al-sa~adah,
Khul~sat
al-Asadabad~.
nar
Cairo~
~ilmal-wadc
..
A1-Mughni
al-kutub,
Cairo:
Ma~
19-- ..
Damas, 1964.
152
Mu~ammad
Caires
Al-Anb!rl, AbU al-Barakat. KitM:I al-ins!f fl mas!'il alkhil!f. Ed. G. Weil. Lei~en: E. J. Brill, 1913.
Luma' al-adillah f 1 usOl al-nabw.
Ed. A. Amer.
:i:bn CAq!.l, Sahli al-DXn C.JU>d Allah. Sharb Ibn 'Aq11 calJ
al-alf:tyah. ca1roi Ma1;Jjac.at a1-sac1dai?., 1962.
Al-Bay~Kwl,
al-usnl.
Caires
Cairos
l<hullsat al-wad<.
Mu~ammad
De .Platonis
al-falasifah.
Cairo: nar
196-.
Istanbul:
153
~!Jjl
Ibn al-ijijib,
usU1r.
~Uthm3n
Cairo:
Muntah~
al-wusol wa-al-amal
'lldah, 1908.
Ibn Faris,
~.
<arab ft kala'.mih11".
1910.
Ibn aaz~, 'AlI ihn Al)mad. Al-Ibkant fI ustll al-a.hJs!m.
Ma'1Ja<.at al-Sa'Xdah, 1926.
Al-I<has~>1s.
Cairo:
Cairo: D'ir
al-Kutub, 1952.
Ib11 Khaldl!n, <l\bd a.1-Raln:ln. Al-Mugaddimah.
baab al.-Adabfyah, 1900.
Ib11 Tayillyah, Al)mad. Kitllb al-!mlln.
Ul<IJ, 1907.
Al-fJI, 'Adud al-DID.
Beirut: al-Mat--
Cairo:
Al-Risalah
al-mutun (Cairo:
in Ma1mU~
al-Jam1.liyah, 19--), pp.
al-wad'~yah,
al-Mat:l>a~ah
33c.35.
Ma1mtl' al-mutlln.
See aboVe.
Al-Makhznml, Mahdr.
wa manhaiuh..
Hader; Albert N.
Falsafat al:..Muc.tazilah.
al-Thaq~fah,
;_.
Alexandria: M~t;.
1950.
Cairo: al.:Mat;l>ac.ah
154
Al-Naahsbar, cAli S~I.
al-IBlim.
Man~hi1
cairo1 al-Ma~aah
Al-Qushji, &Ala al-Din. 4 A1I 1bn.Mu~amiuad. Sharb ~ala al-Riallah al-wadt1yah. cairo:,ai-Ma\:])a'ah al-Jam'l.lryah,
1911.
Al-Tafsir al-kabTr.
Cairo a al-Ma>a'ah
al-Bahiyah, 1934.
Al-RazI, Qu> al-Din.
Ma~aat u~af!
Cairo1
al-8'11>1, 1948.
T~fsir
Ca1ro1 Dar
cairot..MuH.afn
Jame.. al-iawami<.
Muhammad, 19--.
155
Al-'faharl, Mu\uunmad ibn Jarrr.
Ma'h'if, 195-.
Tafs'Ir.
cala al-Talkhis.
1887.
~sta,nbul:
al-Ma1j:ba'ah
al-'Utluu~n'Iyah,
Taa:hk0pr6zade, J\ll,med.
,Al-Mufaf,al.
Ca.ire;>:
M~'\=bac
at
tJanuscripts
Al-Azhari, c..~ta Allah ibn Abmad.
Dh al-Kutub MS waair 4.
al-wade
Yehuda
clplim
Ms
al-D~n.
Sharb
~ala
al-Risalah
al-wad~Iyah.
5352.
Al-Rie3lah al-barfiyah
.Garrett MS 448H.
Al-RiZew-r, 'Uthman
fi al wad<.
Anon.
Al-Risal.ah al-1ad'I'dah
156
Al-~afawI, Mu~1;af! ibn MU!>ammad.
Al-llis:Uah fi al-wad.
Al-Azhar MS 5400 (11), fol. 99b-10la.
al-Ris~lah al-wadciyah.
157
piasertation .Abstract
Tbi diaaertation is concerned with the idea of the
givenneaa of lanquage as a fundamental Islamic idea..
phrue which qivea expression to this idea is
(establishment of ianguage).
three sections.
wade.. al-lughah
The
Thia controversy
al-lughilh.
ilevalopmant
o~
W~thi_n
the
aci~nce
of the principJ.ea
of juriaprudence.