Basra ve Kûfe Dil Ekollerinin Semâ? Özelinde İhtilaflarının Örneklerle İzahı
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2023
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Düzce Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
İslâm dünyasında fetih hareketlerinin artmasıyla Arap olmayan milletler Araplarla bir arada yaşamaya başlamış, Arapça’ya olan yönelim artmış, bunun neticesinde dilde bozulmalar meydana gelmiştir. Lahn denilen bu bozulmalar, dînî nasların yanlış anlaşılması da dâhil birçok hataya sebebiyet vermiştir. Lahnin önüne geçmek için gramer kurallarının tespiti zorunlu hale gelerek bu hususta ilk çalışmalar Basra’da yapılmıştır. O dönemde Kûfe’de çeşitli alanlarda ilmi faaliyetlerin yürütülüyor olması sebebiyle Kûfe âlimlerinin, dil çalışmalarına daha sonra dâhil olduğu söylenmiştir. Yaşanılan bölgelerin coğrafi konumu, buralardaki siyasi ve sosyal durumlar ve yöntem farklılıkları Kûfe ve Basra’nın iki ayrı ekol olmasında etken sebepler olmuştur. Nahiv kaideleri ortaya konulurken her iki ekol de semâ?, kıyâs, icmâ? gibi metotları kullanmışlar, ancak bu metotları kullanma bakımından farklılık göstermişlerdir. Aynı şekilde çalışmamızın ana konusunu teşkil eden semâ?da başvurulan kaynaklar hususunda da birbirlerinden ayrılmışlardır. Basra ekolünün bu kaynakların kullanımında tavizsiz, katı bir tutum sergilediği söylenirken Kûfe ekolünün bir miktar daha müsamahakâr davrandığı belirtilmiştir. Nitekim nahiv kurallarının oluşturulmasında esas alınan tüm yöntemlerin çıkış noktası olan semâ?da takınılan tavrın diğer metotların kullanımında da tesiri olmuştur. Söz konusu metot hakkında gerek Arapça gerek Türkçe çalışmaların yapıldığı görülmüştür. Araştırmamızda ekollerin semâ? özelinde ihtilafa düştükleri noktalar, örnekler vasıtasıyla müşahhas bir hale getirilecektir. Çalışmamızda semâ?dan ana hatlarıyla bahsedilerek müracaat edilen kaynaklar, Basra ve Kûfe ekollerinin farklı yaklaşımlarıyla birlikte ele alınacaktır. Çalışmamızı özgün kılacak nokta ise ekollerin semâ? metodunda ihtilafa düştükleri meselelerin örnekler üzerinden izah edilecek olmasıdır. Böylelikle ihtilaf noktaları teoriden pratiğe dökülerek somutlaştırılmaya çalışılacaktır.
With the increase in conquests in the Islamic world, non-Arab nations began to live together with Arabs, the orientation towards Arabic increased, and as a result, language deterioration occurred. These corruptions, called la?n, have caused many mistakes, including the misunderstanding of religious texts. Determination of grammatical rules became obligatory in order to prevent la?n, and the first studies on this issue were carried out in Ba?ra. Since scientific activities were carried out in various fields in K?fa at that time, scholars of K?fa were later included in language studies. The geographical location of the inhabited regions, the political and social conditions and the differences in method were the factors that made K?fa and Ba?ra two different schools. While determining the rules of syntax, both schools used methods such as sam??, qiy?s, ijm??, istihs?n, isti???bul ??l, but they differed in terms of using these methods. Likewise, they differed from each other in terms of the sources referenced in sam??, which constitutes the main subject of our study. While the Ba?ra school was uncompromising and strict in the use of these resources, the K?fa school was a little more tolerant. As a matter of fact, the attitude adopted in sam??, which is the starting point of all methods based on the creation of syntax rules, had an impact on the use of other methods as well. When we examine the studies on sam?? and qiy?s, the abundance of studies on qiy?s draws attention. Although the studies on qiy?s and its sub-titles have shed light on the sam?? method and the differences in this regard, no study specific to sam?? has been found. In order to overcome this deficiency to some extent, in our study, the main lines of sam?? will be mentioned and the referenced sources will be discussed together with the different approaches of the Ba?ra and K?fa schools. The point that will make our work unique is that the issues that the schools disagree on in the sam?‘ method will be explained through examples. Thus, the points of disagreement will be tried to be embodied by pouring them from theory into practice.
With the increase in conquests in the Islamic world, non-Arab nations began to live together with Arabs, the orientation towards Arabic increased, and as a result, language deterioration occurred. These corruptions, called la?n, have caused many mistakes, including the misunderstanding of religious texts. Determination of grammatical rules became obligatory in order to prevent la?n, and the first studies on this issue were carried out in Ba?ra. Since scientific activities were carried out in various fields in K?fa at that time, scholars of K?fa were later included in language studies. The geographical location of the inhabited regions, the political and social conditions and the differences in method were the factors that made K?fa and Ba?ra two different schools. While determining the rules of syntax, both schools used methods such as sam??, qiy?s, ijm??, istihs?n, isti???bul ??l, but they differed in terms of using these methods. Likewise, they differed from each other in terms of the sources referenced in sam??, which constitutes the main subject of our study. While the Ba?ra school was uncompromising and strict in the use of these resources, the K?fa school was a little more tolerant. As a matter of fact, the attitude adopted in sam??, which is the starting point of all methods based on the creation of syntax rules, had an impact on the use of other methods as well. When we examine the studies on sam?? and qiy?s, the abundance of studies on qiy?s draws attention. Although the studies on qiy?s and its sub-titles have shed light on the sam?? method and the differences in this regard, no study specific to sam?? has been found. In order to overcome this deficiency to some extent, in our study, the main lines of sam?? will be mentioned and the referenced sources will be discussed together with the different approaches of the Ba?ra and K?fa schools. The point that will make our work unique is that the issues that the schools disagree on in the sam?‘ method will be explained through examples. Thus, the points of disagreement will be tried to be embodied by pouring them from theory into practice.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Arap Dili, Nahiv, Basra Ekolü, Kûfe Ekolü, Semâ?, İhtilaf, Arabic Language, Syntax, Basra School, Kufe School, Sam??, Dispute
Kaynak
Düzce Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
7
Sayı
1
