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 exa More
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.
Manuscript profile
