Manuscript ID : 202412151193546 Visit : 152 PDF XML

Article Type: Original Research

A Linguistic Analysis of Syntactic Rules in the Kufic and Basrian Schools with Focusing on Ibn Anbari's Al-Ansaf

Khadijeh Jalali ¹ ( Department of Arabic Language and Literature, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. )
Zahra Khosravi Vmakani ² ( Department of Arabic Language and Literature, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. )

Submited date : 2024-12-09 Accepted date : 2025-01-13

Keywords: Linguistics, Syntax Rules, Kufa School, Basra School, Ibn Anbari,

Abstract :

Given the increasing importance of linguistic analysis of the Arabic language and the need to examine its grammatical rules, this study investigates the grammatical differences between the Kufi and Basrian schools of Arabic grammar, with a focus on Ibn Anbari's "Al-Insaf." Employing a descriptive-analytical approach, the study reveals significant disparities between the two schools, particularly in areas such as the diacritics of words, sentence order, the role of particles, and rhetorical styles. The Kufi grammarians primarily relied on usage (poetry and prose) to substantiate their views, while the Basrians also provided rationales for their rules. Notable differences between the two schools include issues related to the diacritics of past tense verbs used as present tense, the subject of accusative and nominative cases after "ma" and "إن", the precedence and succession of sentence elements, and the usage of particles such as "إن", "أن", and "لولا". Variations in the use of redundant words like the conjunctive particle "waw" and the role of pronouns following "لولا" were also observed. The analysis of the topics discussed in "Al-Insaf" indicates that these differences stem from varying approaches, reference sources, and interpretations of Arabic grammar rules, ultimately reflecting the richness and diversity of the Arabic language and the various perspectives on its grammar. These diverse viewpoints have contributed to the development of Arabic grammar and a deeper understanding of its structures.

References:

Holy Quran
Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi, Muhammad bin Yusuf. (1420 AH). Al-Bahr Al-Muhit fi Al-Tafsir, edited by Sidqi Muhammad Jamil. First edition. Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr.
Alaa, Badri, Rana. (2019). Description of the Controversial Issues in "Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin". Journal of Arabic Scientific Heritage, Al-Mustansiriya University, Issue 43.
Al-Ashmouni, Ali bin Muhammad; Ibn Malik, Muhammad bin Abdullah. (2004 / 1425 AH). Hashiyat Al-Sabban Ala Sharh Al-Ashmouni Ala Alfiya Ibn Malik with Sharh Al-Shawahid by Al-Ayni, edited by Abdul Hamid Hindiwi. Beirut: Al-Maktaba Al-Asriya.
Al-Jurjani, Abdul-Qahir bin Abdul-Rahman. (1984). Dalail Al-I'jaz, edited by Mahmoud Muhammad Shakir. Cairo: Maktaba Khanji.
Al-Suyuti, Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr Jalal Al-Din. (2009). Al-Bahja Al-Mardiyya ala Alfiya Ibn Malik, with commentary by Mustafa Hosseini Dashti. 19th edition. Qom: Esma'ilian Institute.
Al-Tabarsi, Fadl bin Hasan. (1993). Majma' Al-Bayan, edited by Muhammad Jawad Balaghi. Third edition. Tehran: Nasr Khosro Publications.
Ase, Javad. (2010). How Exegetes Engage with Grammatical Disputes Between the Basra and Kufa Schools. Quranic Studies, Vol. 16, Nos. 62-63, pp. 298-313.
Badi Yaqub, Emil. (1986). Encyclopedia of Grammar, Morphology, and Parsing. Qom: Dhawi Al-Qurba Publishing.
Bateni, Mohammad Reza. (1991). A New Look at Grammar. Tehran: Agah Publications.
Hadithi, Khadija. (1984). The Grammatical Schools. Baghdad.
Homayounfar, Mojgan. (2021). Lesson Book on Generative Grammar, edited by Mohammadreza Kamyar. First edition. Tehran: Navaiseh Parsi Publications.
Ibn Al-Anbari, Kamal Al-Din Abu Al-Barakat Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad bin Abi Said Al-Nahwi. (1957 / 1377 AH). Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin, with Al-Intisaf min Al-Insaf. Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr.
Ibn Aqil, Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman. (2006). Sharh Ibn Aqil Ala Alfiya Ibn Malik. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya.
Ibn Hisham Al-Ansari, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Yusuf. (2007 / 1428 AH). Awḍah Al-Masalik ila Alfiya Ibn Malik. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Arabiyya.
Ibn Manzur, Muhammad bin Mukarram. (2006). Lisan Al-Arab. Beirut: Dar Sader.
Khosravi-Makani, Zahra. (2017). Review and Critique of the Translation of Abdul-Qahir Al-Jurjani's Book and His Modern Perspectives on Criticism. Journal of Humanities Texts and Programs Critique, Vol. 17, Issue 1 (Spring).
Lyons, John. (1987). Language and Linguistics. Cairo: Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabia.
Majlesi, Muhammad Baqir. (1983 / 1403 AH). Bihar Al-Anwar. Beirut: Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi.
Motaghizadeh, Isa; Mohammadi-Bayazidi, Majid. (2012 / 1434 AH). Ibn Al-Anbari's Methodology in "Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin" and His Grammatical Principles. Research in Arabic Language and Literature, Vol. 7, Fall and Winter.
Najdi Nasef, Ali. (1980). Sibawayh, the Leader of Grammarians, translated by Muhammad Fazeli. University of Mashhad.
Pahlevannejad, Mohammad Reza; Erfanian Qonsoli, Leila. (2010). Exploring the Relationship Between Syntax and Semantics. Sixth Conference on Literary Research.
Sabzevari, Mehdi. (2018). Introduction to Linguistic Schools. Tehran: Boye Kaghaz Publications.
Safavi, Kourosh. (2004). Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Soore Mehr (Islamic Propaganda Organization).
Tayyeb, Seyed Abdolhossein. (1999). Tafsir Atiyyab Al-Bayan fi Tafsir Al-Quran. Tehran: Islam Publishing.
Turkmani, Hossein Ali; Mohammadi, Javad; Ashnawar, Mehdi. (2013). Analytical Review of Literary and Linguistic Origins of the Quran's Language in the Contemporary Period. Quarterly Journal of Literary and Quranic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Zamen, Hatem Saleh. (2009). Linguistics. Baghdad: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Bayt Al-Hikma, University of Baghdad.
Zeif, Shouqi Ahmad. (2016). History of Arabic Literature. Qom: Dhawi Al-Qurba.

Full-Text:

A Linguistic Analysis of Syntactic Rules in the Kufic and Basrian Schools with Focusing on Ibn Anbari's Al-Ansaf

Khadijeh Jalali, PhD student, Department of Arabic Language and Literature, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

jalalidibaji@gmail.com

*Zahra Khosravi Vmakani, Associate Professor, Department of Arabic Language and Literature, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Zah.khosravi_vamakani@gmail.com

2024/07/13 2024/09/24

Abstract

Keywords: Linguistics, Syntax Rules, Kufa School, Basra School, Ibn Anbari

INTRODUCTION

The history of language, grammar, and linguistics studies in the West dates back to the Middle Ages and even earlier, while in the East, particularly in the Islamic era, there is a rich history of linguistic studies. However, what is significant about Western linguistics is the emergence of systematic theoretical studies and the establishment of linguistics as an independent discipline in the last two centuries. This led to the development of various schools of thought and theoretical perspectives in linguistics, each of which established its own principles and contributed to the scientific and systematic study of language (Sabzevari, 2018: 6).

Linguistics seeks to explain how language is structured and how it functions. It is the scientific study of human language. Although linguists may disagree on the number of levels at which language can be studied, but most agree on at least five levels: phonological, phonemic, morphemic, morphological, and semantic (Safavi, 2004: 27).

Among the layers of grammar, syntax is the science that deals with the principles and rules governing the final sound of each word in a sentence, as well as the way words combine to form sentences. Its objective is to preserve language from linguistic errors (Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi, 1420: 1/16).

Ali ibn Muhammad al-Jurjani, in his book Al-Ta'rifat, defines syntax as the science of rules and principles that determine the specific conditions of Arabic constructions, whether analysis or synthesis, and other related matters. He further adds that this science examines the conditions of speech in terms of its reasoning and correctness, thus providing a means to understand the validity and invalidity of speech (Al-Jurjani, 1984: 1/105). Based on the definitions of syntax provided by scholars from ancient times to the present, it can be stated that: 'Every syntactic group requires a head. Therefore, lexical heads are the main word classes, which include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions. Functional heads include complements, conjunctions, negation markers, tense, and agreement' (Homayounfar, 2021: 23), which is of great importance in linguistics.

For those who are new to linguistics, it becomes clear that the fundamental component of linguistics is 'syntax.' Even when considering the time spent on different linguistic topics, phonology is typically studied after syntax. This is not only evident in Chomsky's perspective but also in the earlier structuralist view (Pahlevannejad & Erfaniyan, 2010: 488).

A review of the history of syntactic studies in Arabic reveals that the levels of morphological and syntactic studies were the starting point for the analysis of Arabic grammar, attracting the attention of many researchers. A careful examination of the works of Arabic grammarians, particularly those from the prominent schools of Kufa and Basra, shows that linguistic layers existed within the grammatical rules and writings of these schools, despite their differences. By carefully examining the texts and opinions of the scholars of these grammatical schools, one can appreciate their determination, effort, taste, and precision in presenting their theories

Therefore, this research aims to conduct a linguistic analysis of syntactic rules in the Kufic and Basrian schools, focusing on Ibn Anbari's Al-Ansaf. In this study, the aforementioned book will be referred to as "Al-Ansaf" and its author as "Ibn Anbari" for brevity. This work contains the most famous disputed issues between the Basrian and Kufic grammarians, presented in two volumes and 121 issues. These issues cover phonological, morphological, and syntactic layers, with 99 issues representing pure and complete differences between the two schools. There are 5 issues in phonology, 13 issues in morphology, 8 issues in the philosophy of morphology and phonology, 3 issues in lexicon and vocabulary, and finally, 92 issues in syntax and meaning. The relevant issues of interest to this research will be selected and examined.

2. Literature Review:

Muslim scholars, particularly Persians, have made significant contributions to the development of linguistics. By focusing on the Arabic language and conducting in-depth research in various fields such as phonology, syntax, semantics, and lexicology, they were able to establish important linguistic schools like Basra and Kufa. The achievements of these scholars have had a profound impact not only on linguistics but also on other Islamic sciences. However, despite these significant achievements, a thorough review of the literature on linguistics and its various layers, as well as the differences between the grammatical views of the Kufic and Basrian schools in various databases, unfortunately, failed to yield an independent study that directly addresses the topic of this research. Nevertheless, there are closely related studies that will be discussed below.

In a study titled "The Style of ibn Anbari in Al-Ansaf Regarding the Disagreements Between the Basrian and Kufic Grammarians and His Grammatical Principles" by Motaghizadeh and Bayazidi (2012), the authors examined Ibn Anbari's style in Al-Ansaf and his grammatical principles. The authors, noting the spread of the Arabic language and the need to preserve and codify its rules, highlighted the emergence of differences between the Basrian and Kufic grammarians and the significance of Al-Ansaf in this context. Unlike other studies, this research delved into the various linguistic layers in detail, providing a more precise analysis of Ibn Anbari's method of examining grammatical differences.

In another study, Alaa Badri (2019) provided a general description of Al-Ansaf and the disputed issues contained therein. Emphasizing the importance of Al-Ansaf as one of the most important sources for examining grammatical differences between the Basrians and Kufians, the author presented a general analysis of the book's structure and content. In this study, Al-Ansaf is divided into two main parts: the first part provides a general overview of the book, and the second part presents a statistical summary of the classification of topics. Although this study addresses the topic in a general manner, it offers more detailed and in-depth analyses compared to previous studies.

Ase (2019) examined how interpreters have dealt with the grammatical differences between the Basrian and Kufic schools. They demonstrated that interpreters have adopted various approaches when confronted with these differences. Some interpreters have passively followed one of the two schools without considering the meaning of the verse, while others have taken a more active approach. Ase's study emphasizes the significance of grammatical differences in Quranic interpretation and how these differences have influenced the understanding of verses. However, the primary focus of this research has been on how interpreters have dealt with grammatical differences and their impact on Quranic interpretation, without delving into linguistic layers and conducting a detailed analysis of grammatical rules. Unlike Ase's study, the present research, focusing on Al-Ansaf, examines in detail the disputed issues between grammarians and provides a linguistic analysis of them.

3. Research Methodology:

This research is descriptive and analytical, based on Library and documentary studies. The research method in this study involves a re-examination of the grammatical views of linguists in the field of language studies, utilizing the works of Arabic grammarians. Initially, the morphological and syntactic layers of Ibn Anbari's Al-Ansaf will be examined, and then, based on these layers, the views of Muslim linguists in the Kufic and Basrian schools of grammar will be extracted. The data collection tool in this study is note-taking, translation, and the alignment of linguistic layers with Al-Ansaf.

4- Findings:

-Linguistics and its importance:

Linguistics is the scientific study of language and its structure. The historical roots of this discipline can be divided into three periods: the grammatical period, which began in ancient Greece and focused on grammatical rules; the philology period, which was associated with the analysis of literary texts; and the comparative linguistics period, which emerged from the comparison of different languages. Ferdinand de Saussure, with his innovative theories, brought about a fundamental transformation in linguistics and shaped the modern form of this discipline. In short, linguistics seeks a deep understanding of the nature of language, its structure, and how it evolves and changes over time (Turkmani et al., 2013: 53).

Modern linguistics has brought about a significant shift compared to traditional approaches to language. In the past, language was merely considered a tool for studying philosophy, logic, or religion. However, modern linguists view language as an independent and complex phenomenon worthy of scientific study. For this reason, they have used new scientific methods to investigate the structure and function of language. One of the most important differences is that modern linguistics has separated form from meaning. While in the past, meaning was often interpreted with a philosophical perspective, modern linguists emphasize the importance of studying the formal structure, which includes five levels such as the phonological level, morphological level, syntactic level, and so on, before examining the relationship between form and meaning (Bateni, 1991: 28-15).

Linguistics in the Islamic world has deep roots in Quranic studies and the works of great grammarians such as Ibn Meza and Ibn Jinni. These scholars undertook a detailed and comprehensive analysis of language, exploring many concepts and theories that have been discussed in modern linguistics long before. By considering both the meaning and structure of language, they delved into the complexities of language and, in a sense, laid the foundation for many topics that are studied today in morphology, syntax, and rhetoric. In other words, linguistics in the Islamic world has a long and rich history, and many of the achievements of contemporary linguists can be traced back to the works of Muslim scholars (Khosravi & Makani, 2017: 88).

-Syntax Layer

Syntax is the study of sentence structure and grammar. Al-Ashmouni defines it as: "Syntax is the science of the derived standards from Arabic speech that leads to knowledge of the rules of the parts from which it is constructed" (Al-Ashmouni, 2004: 1/19). In other words, it is the science that determines the rules and principles of the composition and structure of sentences based on Arabic speech.

The goal of syntax or "Ilm al-I'rab" is to study the relationships between words in a sentence and how these structures are formed and based on what rules (ibid., 1/5). Emile Badi' Ya'qub, a contemporary Arab linguist, defines syntax as follows: "Syntax is the Arabic method in eloquent speech, with careful attention to diacritics, or in other words, it is the law of gathering words and linking them together" (Badi Yaqub, 1986: 2/1238). A syntactic linguist seeks to extract the rules of grammar and codify them into a system, and strives to make it easier to learn these rules (Lyons, 1987: 1/179).

Syntax is the science that studies the structure of sentences and the rules governing the combination of words in a language. This science is very dynamic, and its rules are constantly changing. However, the basic principles that scholars of the past, such as Sibawayh, established for Arabic syntax, are still valid. One of the main differences between traditional and modern syntax is how the roles of words in a sentence are defined. In traditional syntax, these roles are defined qualitatively and sometimes vaguely, but in modern syntax, the definition of roles has become more precise and quantitative. In other words, in modern syntax, the possibility of a word having more than one role in a sentence is less likely (Zamen, 2009: 63).

-Basrian and Kufic Grammatical Schools

Early scholars attributed the science of grammar or grammarians to the city where it was known or famous. For example, they would say, "I am from Basra" or "I am from Kufa" or "a scholar of Basra"... The first person to classify grammarians based on this was Abu Bakr al-Zubaidi, and he was the first to use the word "madhhab" (school or sect) to mean "the specific grammatical method of a city or the grammatical opinions of a group of grammarians" (Hadithi, 1984: 7).

Basra and Kufa were the two main centers for the emergence and development of the science of grammar in the Islamic world. Basra is known as the first city where the rules of grammar were codified. Khalil ibn Ahmad al-Farahidi is considered the main founder of the Basrian grammatical school and modern Arabic grammar. After him, Sibawayh, Akhfash, and Mubarrad were other prominent figures of this school. On the other hand, Kufa also formed an independent grammatical school under the influence of Kisa'i and his student Farra'. These two grammatical schools, Basra and Kufa, engaged in competition and dialogue throughout history, and each contributed significantly to the development of this science (Zeif, 1438: 150-30).

As two important scientific poles in the early Islamic period, Basra and Kufa had different approaches to linguistics. The Basrian school, influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle, had a logical and systematic approach to language and emphasized rules and order in language. They viewed language as a tool for logical thinking and analysis of the phenomena of the world. In contrast, the Kufic school had a descriptive approach based on linguistic observations. The followers of this school paid attention to the diversity and variety of languages and dialects, and viewed language as a dynamic and changing phenomenon. In summary, the Basrian school viewed language as a logical system, while the Kufic school viewed language as a natural and dynamic phenomenon (Najdi Nasef, 1979: 303).

-Syntactic rules

The syntactic structure of the issues in Al-Ansaf, a fundamental layer of linguistics, reveals that most of the issues in this book relate to the grammatical differences between the Kufic and Basrian schools of linguistics. The author of Al-Ansaf has provided examples from literary texts and the Quran, taken from the works of Kufic and Basrian linguists, for most of the disputed issues. Therefore, examining these cases can significantly contribute to a better understanding of Arabic texts, especially the Quran.

The results obtained from examining this book show that, in total, 92 issues in Al-Ansaf relate to the syntactic layer, which expresses the differences of opinion between Basrian and Kufic grammarians. Of these, we have examined 46 grammatical issues in detail. The main issues examined relate to sentence order, which shows the arrangement of words in a sentence and the position of different diacritics that a word can have in a sentence. Other syntactic layers, such as subject and object, have dedicated some issues, and some others relate to the permissibility of placing the object before the subject. The study of the style of speech and the use of two words together as an iḍāfa construction is another topic. Other topics in this research include the diacritics and the roles that a word takes in Arabic grammar.

Consequently, through our endeavors, the syntactic analysis of Al-Insaf has been categorized into several significant divisions, namely: i‘rāb of words; the agent in the word; sentence order; style of speech; redundant words; the function of particles; excess; conditional particles (laula); and the bee analogy.

1-I‘rāb of words:

The term "i‘rāb" has two meanings: first, it refers to the additional meanings conveyed by a word (noun or verb) beyond its basic meaning (Ibn Manzur, 2006: 35). Second, it refers to the diacritical marks that indicate these meanings (Tabarsi, 1372: 1/65). Therefore, to understand the correct meaning, it is necessary to have a sufficient understanding of the role and case endings. One important instance of this is the use of a past tense verb in the role of a present tense verb.

In question 32 of Al-Ansaf, the issue raised is whether, based on the structure and meaning of a past tense verb, it can be used in the role of a present tense verb. Based on the evidence presented by both Kufic and Basrian grammarians, an answer can be provided. The Kufians believe that a past tense verb can be used in the role of a present tense verb. Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash, a Basrian grammarian, also agrees with the Kufians. However, the Basrian grammarians as a whole believe that it is not permissible to use a past tense verb in the role of a present tense verb. They agree that if the particle "قد" is placed before a past tense verb, or if it is used as an attribute for a deleted noun, then it can be used as a present tense verb (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/252).

The Kufians have presented the following argument: Based on two principles, namely textual evidence (naql) and analogical reasoning (qiyas), it is permissible to use a past tense verb in the sense of a present tense verb. The first textual evidence is the Quranic verse: "أو جاءوكم حَصِرَت صُدُورُهُم" (An-Nisa 4:91), which means, "Or they come to you with their hearts constricted." In this verse, "حَصِرَت" is a past tense verb used in a present tense sense. Originally, it was "حَصِرَةً صدورُهُم." This is supported by the readings of several Quranic reciters.

Another argument they present is that all grammarians agree that it is permissible for a past tense verb to take on the meaning of a future tense verb, as in the verse: “و إذ قال اللهُ یا عیسی بنَ مریمَ,” where “قال” means “says.” Since a past tense verb can be used in place of a present tense verb, it follows that it can also be used in a present continuous sense.

The Basrians also present two arguments against using a past tense verb in the role of a present tense verb:

a. A past tense verb does not inherently convey a present meaning, and therefore, it cannot be used in that position.

b. A verb must be able to be used with words like “الان” (al-ān) and “at this moment” (الساعه) to be considered in the present tense. For example:” «مررتُ بزیدٍ یضربُ و نظرتُ إلی عمرو یكتبُ».”.

Based on the aforementioned, one of the disagreements between Kufic and Basrian grammarians is whether it is permissible or not to use a past tense verb as a present tense verb. The Kufians, relying on Quranic verses, argue that a past tense verb can be used in the present tense without any additional particles. However, the Basrians do not agree with this and argue that if a past tense verb is used in a present tense sense, either something is implied or an additional particle must be used.

The second important issue in the study of case endings is the case ending of an adjective that can function as a predicate. Generally, a word can have multiple roles in a sentence. However, sometimes it must be assigned only one role. Al-Ansaf, in question 33, presents one such case and, based on the examples provided by Kufic and Basrian grammarians, the correct role can be determined.

The Kufians argue that if a prepositional phrase is repeated and a predicate for the subject is also mentioned, then it is obligatory to use the accusative case for the adjective. For example: "In the house, Zayd is standing in it." The Basrians, however, believe that it is not necessary to use the accusative case, but rather both the nominative and accusative cases are permissible. However, all grammarians agree that if the prepositional phrase is not repeated, both the nominative and accusative cases are permissible (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/258).

In this regard, the Kufians have presented both textual evidence (naql) and analogical reasoning (qiyas) to support their claims. For example, in the verse: "وأما الّذین سُعِدُوا ففي الجّنّةِ خالِدینَ فیها" (Hud 11:108), which means, "And as for those who are successful, they will abide eternally in Paradise," the word "خالدین" is in the accusative case and can only have one function.

2. The Agent In The Word:

In Arabic, words take their case endings due to a semantic or syntactic governor. Therefore, in a sentence, there is a governor and a governed element. The case ending of a word can be determined by a verbal, local, or implied governor, indicating the type of relationship between the governor and the governed.

One area of disagreement is the governor of the predicate following the particle "ما", similar to laysa "لیس". Issue 19 of the chapter on particles similar to "لیس" explicitly addresses this topic. This includes the particles "لات, ما, لا, and انّ". When these particles precede both the subject and the predicate, they function similarly to "لیس". However, the focus here is on the negative particle "ما" similar to "لیس". This particle precedes both the subject and the predicate, causing the subject to be nominative and the predicate to be accusative. The disagreement between the Kufians and Basrians lies in whether the governor of the accusative predicate in this case is "ما" itself or if another governor should be considered.

The Kufians believe that "ما" in the language of the people of Hijaz cannot govern the predicate. Therefore, if the predicate is in the accusative case, it is governed by the deletion of the preposition"با". However, the Basrians believe that "ما" can govern the predicate and put it in the accusative case (Ibn Anbari: 1957: 1/165).

The Kufians contend that "ما", in the Hijazi dialect cannot govern the predicate. Therefore, if the predicate is in the accusative case, it is governed by the deletion of the preposition “باء ". They provide the following reasons: a particle can only function as a governor when it is specific to a particular role, such as particles of jasm and nasb. However, "mā" differs from these particles because it can precede both a noun, as in "ما زیدٌ قائمٌ ", and a verb, as in "ما یقوم زیدٌ ". Since it can precede both, it cannot function as a governor. They also argue that "ما" and "لیس" are only similar in meaning, but the former is a particle while the latter is a verb, and thus cannot function in the same way. In their view, a particle is weaker than a verb in terms of its governing power (Ibn Anbari: 1957: 1/165).

Another point of contention is the issue of the governing element of the predicate following an emphatic " إن". It could be argued that most grammatical discussions aim to ensure that we can correctly apply the grammatical rules of words in speech and writing. This has led Arabic grammarians to pay close attention to the concept of the governor and the governed. Understanding these two concepts allows us to determine the appropriate grammatical case for each word in a sentence. Grammarians have strived to discuss this important issue adequately. In issue 22 states, The Kufians believe that " إنّ" and its sisters do not raise the predicate. For example, in the sentence " إنَّ زیداً قائمٌ", the Kufians argue that "إنّ " does not cause the predicate to be nominative. However, the Basrians contend that "إنّ " is the governor that raises the predicate (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/178).

The Kufians provide the following argument: The original function of these particles is not to place the noun in the accusative case. The reason they do so is that they resemble verbs. If the reason for these particles placing the noun in the accusative case is their resemblance to verbs, then this function is secondary and not their primary function.

Another point of disagreement is the issue of the governing element of the accusative exception. In issue 34, Ibn Anbari discusses the differing opinions regarding the governor of the accusative exception. For instance, in the sentence " قام القوم إلا زیداً ", some Kufians believe that " إلا" is the governor (Ibid., 1/261).

Abu al-Abbas Muhammad ibn Yazid al-Mubarrad and Abu Ishaq al-Zadjaj, both Basrian grammarians, have offered the following view: Farrah and his Kufi followers believe that "إلّا " is a combination of "إنّ و لا ", with "إنّ " being contracted and assimilated into "لا". They then argue that the accusative case of the exception is governed by " إنّ". Furthermore, they justify the negative aspect by invoking the conjunction "لا". The Basrians, however, believe that the governor of the accusative exception is the verb, which is governed by " إلّا".

3. Word Order in a Sentence

In Standard Arabic, in a verbal sentence, the verb typically comes first, followed by the subject and then the other elements of the sentence. In a nominal sentence, the subject comes first, followed by the predicate and then the other elements. However, it is sometimes observed that the elements of a sentence are inverted or postponed.

One of the grammatical discussions in al-Insaf, specifically issue 17, concerns the verb " كان " and" أخوات “, which in Arabic grammar are termed defective verbs. These verbs always precede the subject and the predicate, rendering the subject nominative and the predicate accusative. One of the” أخوات “is " كان " and " مازال ", and Of course, some other imperfective verbs are similar to it.

The issue on which the grammarians have disagreed is whether it is permissible to put the word "مازال" and its siblings that are synonymous with it before it or not. The Kufians, like Abu al-Hasan ibn Kaysan, believe that it is permissible to put the word "مازال" and any siblings that are in its meaning before it. However, the Basrians did not consider it permissible to put it before it. Abu Zakaria Yahya ibn Ziyad al-Fara, who is from the Kufian school of thought, also does not consider it permissible (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/155).

The Kufians have presented arguments in favor of allowing the predicate of "مازال" to precede it, such as: "The meaning of 'مازال' is not the negation of an action but rather the negation of the cessation of an action. Their argument is that 'زال' itself is used for negation and since 'ما' is also for negation, then a double negative becomes a positive." (Ibid., 155-156).

Another point of disagreement is the issue of placing the predicate of "لیس" before it. Therefore, the disagreement between the Basrians and the Kufians does not end with this aspect of inversion. In addition to "مادام" and "مازال", they have also examined "لیس". In this regard, issue 18 discusses "لیس" as one of the defective verbs. "لیس", like other defective verbs, precedes the subject and the predicate, rendering the subject nominative and the predicate accusative. The disagreement between the Kufians and the Basrians is whether the predicate of "لیس" can be placed before it?

Here, the Kufians believe that it is not permissible to place the predicate of "لیس" before it. Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad, a Basrian, also does not consider this inversion permissible. The Basrians, however, consider it permissible to place the predicate of "لیس" before it, just as it is considered permissible to place the predicate of "کان" before it (Ibid., 1/160).

The Kufians argue that "لیس" is a defective verb and is not like other conjugated verbs. The reason why the predicate of "کان" can precede it is that "کان" is a conjugated verb and has past, present, imperative, and infinitive forms. However, "لیس" does not have these forms. Since "لیس" does not have present, imperative, or infinitive forms, it should not be treated like a conjugated verb.

The Basrians, on the other hand, believe that it is permissible to place the predicate of "laysa" before it. This is because the Qur'an states: "أَلَا يَوْمَ يَأْتِيهِمْ لَيْسَ مصروفًا عَنْهُمْ" (Hud:/8), which means: "Do they not know that the Day when it comes to them, they will not be turned away from it?" Therefore, in this Qur'anic verse, the object of the predicate of "لیس" precedes it.

Another point of disagreement is the issue of placing the object of a prepositional phrase before the preposition itself. In issue 27 of al-Insaf, it is stated that:

The Kufians believe that if the prepositions "علیک", "دونک", and "عندک" are used for emphasis, their objects can be placed before the preposition itself, for example: " زَیداً عَلَیك و عمراً عِندَك و بكراً دونك". However, the Basrians believe that it is not permissible to place the objects of prepositions before them. Al-Farra', a Kufi grammarian, also holds this view (Ibid., 1/228).

4-Style of Speech:

Another issue discussed in al-Insaf is the matter of number and noun. Ibn Anbari, in al-Insaf, has only addressed the part of this issue on which the Kufi and Basrian grammarians disagreed. One of the important points regarding the structure of words, in the case of numbers and nouns, is issue 43. Thus, the discussion is about whether it is permissible or not to use the definite article with the second part of a compound number and its noun.

The Kufians believe that in the phrase "خمسة عشر درهماً" (fifteen dirhams), it is permissible to say "الخمسة العشر درهماً و الخمسة العشرَ الدرهمَ". (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/312).

However, the Basrians believe that it is not permissible to use the definite article (الف ، لام) with "عشر" and "درهماً". All Basrian grammarians agree that it is possible to say "الخمسة عشر درهماً". And only the first part of the compound (الف، لام) can take the definite article, not the second part or its noun.

The Kufians argue that this usage of numbers can be found in the speech of the Arabs, and this serves as evidence for the correctness of their claim. The Basrians, on the other hand, argue that when two nouns are combined, they become one noun, and thus should be considered as one word. Therefore, the definite article cannot be added to each part of it. In this case, the definite article should be attached to the first part(الف ، لام), and the second part is considered as part of the word. The Arabs treat compound nouns in this way, as seen in the following example:

«تفقّأ فوقَه القَـلـَعُ السّواری وَجُنَّ الخازِبازِ بهِ جُنُونَا» (Ibn Manzur,2006: 1/ 123)

In issue 44, the topic of the style of speech in adding a compound number to itself is discussed. In this issue, it is stated that the Kufians believe that it is not permissible to say: "ثَالِثَ عَشَرَ ثَلاثَةَ عَشَرَ". However, the Basrians believe that it is possible to say: "ثَالِثَ عَشَرَ ثَلاثَةَ عَشَرَ".

The Kufians argue that it is not possible to form an active participle from the phrase "ثلاثة عشرَ". It is only possible to form an active participle when the number is singular. Therefore, forming an active participle from the phrase "ثلاثة" and "عَشرَ" has not been heard of (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/322). The Basrians, however, believe that based on usage and analogy, it is possible to form an active participle and say: "ثالث عشر ثلاثة عشر". Therefore, it is permissible to use it.

Another point of disagreement is the issue of the permissibility of separating the modifier and the modified noun. Arabic grammarians have always placed the modifier and the modified noun together. However, issue 60 of al-Insaf discusses the separation of these two, which are closely related. The Kufians believe that, due to poetic necessity, it is possible to separate the modifier and the modified noun using prepositions, particles, or other words. The Basrians believe that this separation is only permissible with prepositions and particles, and not in other cases (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/427).

The Kufians provide the following example as evidence, which is commonly found in the poetry of Arabic speakers: "فَزَجَجتُها بِمـِزَّجّةٍ زَجَّ القَلُوصَ أبِی مَزَادَة", which means: "I struck her with a mizzaja, a kind of iron tool used for striking armor, with a blow so hard that it seemed as if I had knocked off her armor."

Another area of disagreement is the issue of apposition. In issue 65, Ibn Anbari discusses another rule related to the apposition of words, where the Kufi and Basrian schools have differing opinions on whether a noun can be apposed to a pronominal suffix. The Kufi grammarians believe that it is permissible to append a noun to a pronominal suffix, as in "مررتُ بك و زیدٍ". However, the Basrians do not consider this permissible (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/436).

The Kufians argue that this type of construction is found frequently in the Qur'an and the speech of the Arabs. For example, in the verse "واتقُوا اللهَ الذی تَسَاءَلونَ به والأَرحَامَ" (An-Nisa 4:1), the pronoun "هاء" in "به" is a pronominal suffix, and "الأرحام" is opposed to it.

The particle "کی" is one of the accusative particles that is used with the present tense verb, causing it to be in the accusative case. A major point of disagreement among grammarians is whether this particle can also function as a preposition. The Kufi grammarians believe that "کی" is always an accusative particle and cannot be used as a preposition. However, the Basrian grammarians believe that it can be used as a preposition. The Kufians argue that this particle is associated with verbs and cannot be used with nouns, and therefore cannot function as a preposition. They also point out that the preposition "لام" sometimes precedes "کی," as in "جئتُك لكی تفعل هذا" (I came to you so that you may do this), and in such cases, one preposition cannot precede another (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/570). The poetic example "فلا واللهِ ما یُلفَی لِما بِی وَلا لِلمِا بِهِم أبداً دواءٌ" (By Allah, it is not found in what I have nor in what they have, a cure), where two prepositions follow one another, is considered irregular and against the rules of Arabic grammar.

The Basrians argue that since "کی" can be used with the interrogative particle "مای," just like "لام" and other prepositions, it shows that it can function as a preposition. Therefore, just as we say "لِمَه", we can also say "کیمَه" (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/571).

5- The Function of Particles:

In Arabic, it is often observed that words undergo changes, especially since some words are always considered functional elements. Undoubtedly, sometimes with a change in the structure of functional words, their function also changes. What has been a point of contention among grammarians is which particles can play a role in a sentence in terms of meaning, grammatical function, or phonetic change.

One of these functional particles is "إنّ" which is the subject of dispute between the Kufi and Basrian grammarians in issue 24 of al-Insaf. The Kufi grammarians believe that the abbreviated form of "إنّ", when used with a subject and predicate, does not cause the noun to be in the accusative case. The Basrians believe that it does cause the noun to be in the accusative case. However, the Kufians argue that the reason why the emphatic form "إنَّ" causes the noun to be in the accusative case is that it resembles a past tense verb in its pronunciation. Since it consists of three letters and is always pronounced with a fatha, it has become like a past tense verb. If the abbreviated form is used, it loses this resemblance to a verb, and consequently, its function is nullified.

One grammarian has stated that the emphatic form of "إنّ" functions with nouns, while the abbreviated form functions with verbs. Therefore, it is preferable for the abbreviated form of "إنّ" not to function with nouns, just as the emphatic form does not function with verbs. This is because what functions with verbs does not function with nouns, and vice versa (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/195).

Another grammatical issue is the function of the infinitive marker "أن" after "لکی" and "حتّی", which is discussed in issue 80. As grammarians agree, there is an accusative particle "أن" after "لکی" and "حتّی" which is considered to be the cause of the accusative case. The question is whether this particle can be explicitly stated or if it must always be implied. The Kufi grammarians believe that it is permissible for the accusative particle "أن" to be explicitly stated after "کی", as in "جئتُ لكی أن أُكرِمَك" (I came so that I might honor you). In this example, "أكرِمَك" is in the accusative case because of the accusative particle "کی", and "أن" is for emphasis, but the function of the accusative particle "أن" is canceled.

Some Kufi grammarians believe that the preposition "لام" is the cause of the accusative case in "جئتُ لِكی أن أكرمَك", and that "کی" and "أن" are both emphatic particles that emphasize "لام". Similarly, they consider it permissible for "أن" to be explicitly stated after "حتّی". (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/579).

The Basrians believe that it is not permissible to explicitly state "أن" after the aforementioned cases. The Kufians cite Arabic poetry as evidence to support their arguments, such as: "أَرَدتَ لِكیما أن تطیرَ بِقِربَتی فَتَترُكها شنّاً بِبَیداءَ بَلقَعِ" which translates as: "You wanted to bring you closer to me, then leave it abandoned in a barren desert."

6-Redundant Words:

One of the issues that has received attention from various Arab grammarians is redundant words. The word "zāʾid" (redundant) is derived from the root "zāyada" (to increase) (Ibn Manzur, 2006: 6/ 123). In the terminology of grammar, a redundant word is "a word whose presence or absence in a sentence does not change the basic meaning of the sentence" (Al-Suyuti, 2009: 1/ 253).

One of the redundant letters in Arabic is the letter "واو". One type of "واو" is the conjunctive "waw" which connects a word or phrase to another of the same type. One of the points of disagreement in issue 64 between the Kufi and Basrian grammarians is whether the conjunctive "واو" can be redundant. (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/456).

The Kufi grammarians believe that the conjunctive "واو" can be redundant. In fact, some Basrian grammarians such as Akhfash, Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad, and Abu al-Qasim ibn Barhan also agree with this view. However, the majority of Basrian grammarians do not consider it permissible.

The Kufians have stated that there are many examples in the Quran and Arabic speech where "waw" is used redundantly. For example, in the verse "حتّی إذا جاءوها وَفُتِحت أبوابُها" (Zemer 39:73), the implied meaning is "حتّی إذا جاءوها فتحت أبوابها", and the phrase "فتحت أبوابها" is the answer to the phrase "حتی إذا جاءوها". Ibn Hisham has not expressed a clear opinion on this verse and has considered "واو" to be both conjunctive and redundant (Ibn Hisham, 2007: 344).

Ibn Anbari, in issue 89, has also discussed the role of "إن" after "ما" similar to "ليس". The letters are examined in this book in terms of structure and meaning, and the difference is that if the letter "إن" comes after "ما", it is considered negative or redundant.

The Kufi grammarians believe that the "إن" following "ما" has the same meaning as "ما" and is negative. However, the Basrian grammarians consider it to be redundant (Ibid., 2/636). The Kufians argue that there are many examples in the Quran where "إن" has the meaning of the negative particle "ما", such as the verse: "إِنِ اَلْكافِرُونَ إِلاّ فِي غُرُورٍ" (Al-Mulk 67:20), which translates as: "Indeed, the disbelievers are in nothing but delusion."

The initial letter "لام" in "لعلّ" is another point of disagreement. In issue 26, "لعلَّ" is discussed. This word is considered a quasi-verb in Arabic, and this issue is a point of disagreement both grammatically and semantically. The Kufi grammarians believe that the initial letter "لام" in "لعلّ" is essential. However, the Basrians believe that this letter is redundant (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/ 218).

The Kufians argue that "لعلَّ" is a single letter, and all single letters are essential, while redundant letters, which include "الف, یا, واو, میم, تاء, نون, سین, ها, لام", as found in phrases like "اليوم تنساه" and "لا أنسیتموه" and "سألتمونیها", are specific to verbs and nouns, and no redundant letter can be added to a single letter. Rather, all single letters in any word must be essential. They argue that the "alif" in any verb or noun has only two possibilities: it is either redundant or a transformation of another letter. However, in letters like "ما, لا, یا", it is not permissible to consider them redundant or transformed, but rather they must be considered essential. Therefore, no redundant letter can be added to Arabic letters, and we conclude that the "لام" in "لعلّ" is essential (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 1/219).

7- The Lulaye issues

One of the grammatical issues related to syntactic structure is the structure and usage of "لولاک و لولای" and the position of the pronouns "یا" and "کا" in these phrases. Both Kufi and Basrian grammarians have presented their views on this issue in question 97 of al-Insaf. According to Ibn Hisham's classification in al-Mughni, "لو لا" can be divided into four categories: 1) conditional”لو لا", (2) hypothetical "لو لا", 3) reproachful "لو لا", and 4) interrogative "لو لا" (Tayyeb, 1999: 3/195).

This discussion about the different types of "لو لا" raises the question of what type of pronoun should follow it. Based on the verse "لَوْ لا أَنْتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ‌ " (Saba' 34:31), the detached nominative pronoun should be used, as this pronoun is the subject.

It is rarely heard that Arabs sometimes use attached pronouns after "لو لا", such as "لولاى، لولاك، لولاه", although Mubarrad claims that this usage has never been heard. However, it is correct to say that this usage has been heard, as in the saying of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) in praise of Amir al-Mu'minin Ali (peace be upon him): "لولاك يا علىّ ما عرف المؤمنون من بعدي" which translates as: "If it were not for you, O Ali, the believers would not have been known after me" (Majlesi, 2024: 38/149).

The Kufi grammarians believe that the "یاء" and "کاف" in "لولای و لولاک" are in the nominative case. Akhfash, one of the Basrian grammarians, also holds this view (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/687).

The Basrian grammarians, on the other hand, believe that "یا" and "کاف" are in the genitive case governed by "لولا". Sibawayh also considers "لولا" to be a preposition that governs only pronouns (Ibn Aqil: 2/7).

Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad also believes that it is not permissible to say "لولای ولولاک". In his opinion, it is obligatory to say "لولا أنا و لولا أنت". In his view, a detached pronoun must be used, as there is an example in the Quran: "لَوْ لا أَنْتُمْ لَكُنَّا مُؤْمِنِينَ" (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/ 687). The Kufians argue that the position of the word after "لولا" is the nominative case, and therefore "یاء" and "کاف" are in the nominative case and are considered subjects.

8- The "Zanburian- Bee" Theorem:

In issue 99, Ibn Anbari introduces a new topic of grammatical disagreement known as the " Zanburian " issue. This famous debate is a point of contention between the Kufi and Basrian grammarians. The Kufi grammarians argue that the Arabs agree with Kisa'i's view: "قد کنتُ اَظنَّ اَنَّ العقربَ اَشدُّ لَسعة مِن الزنبورِ فاذاهو ایاها"; according to the Kufi grammarians, the verb is in the accusative case, but the Basrians believe that this is not permissible and that it should be said "فاذا هو هی", and the Basrians say that the accusative case is not permissible and Sibawayh considers it to be in the nominative case (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/ 704).

The Kufi grammarians argue by analogy that when "إذا" expresses suddenness, it functions as a preposition of place and governs its subsequent object in the nominative case, functioning like the verb "وجدت" (found). However, the Basrian argument is that only the nominative case is permissible because "هو" is in the nominative case due to its initial position and must have a predicate, and the predicate must also be in the nominative case. Therefore, it is said: "فإذا هو هی", where "هو" refers to the bee because it is masculine, and "هی" refers to the scorpion because it is feminine.

However, if "إذا" is used to express suddenness and is equivalent to "وجدت", it becomes invalid because when it is actually used in the sense of "وجدت", it is obligatory that the subject be in the nominative case and the two objects be in the accusative case. In "وجدت زیدا قائماً", the subject is in the nominative case and the two objects are in the accusative case. Or if it is said that it has the meaning of "وجدت" but does not function like it, such as when it is said "حسبک َ زیداً ", which means "it is sufficient for you, Zayd", and here it is a noun and not a verb, or in "احسِن بزیدٍ", which is an imperative in form but an expression of surprise in meaning, or in "رحم الله فلانا", which is a declarative sentence in form but a supplication in meaning (Ibn Anbari, 1957: 2/705).

In this discussion of Ibn Anbari's issues, the significance of semantics in linguistics and the impact of grammatical disagreements on the meaning of words are evident, as seen in the translation of the Quranic verse: "تُضَارَّ وَالِدَةٌ بِوَلَدِهَا" (Al-Baqarah 2:233). Therefore, when the reading is in the nominative case, its form is that of a declarative sentence, while its intended meaning is a prohibition.

5- Discussion and Conclusion

Muslim linguists, since the very beginning of the Quranic revelation, with their various linguistic, philosophical, and literary orientations, laid the foundations of linguistic knowledge. In this regard, they made a significant contribution to the understanding of linguistics and the interpretation of the Quran. Understanding the rules and regulations of a language greatly helps in its proper comprehension. The results of the analysis of the grammatical rules in the book "Al-Insaf" which was carried out using a descriptive analytical method showed that throughout this discussion, there are significant linguistic differences in Arabic at the levels of syntax, semantics, and the understanding and translation of texts. These differences are evident in most of the issues related to morphology and syntax. The Kufi grammarians have relied on usage (poetry and prose) to prove their viewpoints, while the Basrian school, in addition to this, has also focused on providing reasons for these rules.

A careful examination of the issues raised in the book "Al-Insaf" clearly shows that the Kufi and Basrian grammarians had different opinions on many grammatical issues and rules. These differences were mainly related to the diacritics of words, the subject of a sentence, the word order, the role of particles in a sentence, and so on. Based on this study, it was found that the main difference was over the diacritics of certain words, such as the past tense verb used as a present tense or an adjectival predicate. The Kufi and Basrian grammarians disagreed on the permissibility of these diacritics. In the section on the subject of a sentence, there was also disagreement about the subject of the accusative and nominative cases of certain words, such as the predicate after "ma" and "إن". Regarding word order, the main disagreement in this section is over the permissibility of the precedence or succession of certain elements within a sentence. In terms of rhetorical style, there is disagreement over the usage of certain linguistic structures such as compound numbers and apposition. Another significant difference lies in the function of particles, particularly "إن", "أن", and "لولا". The Kufi and Basrian grammarians disagreed on whether these particles govern nouns in the accusative case or whether they can be considered as redundant. Regarding redundant words, there is disagreement over the permissibility of using the conjunctive particle "waw" as a redundant letter. In the case of "لولا", the main disagreement is over the role of the pronouns "ya" and "ka" following "لولا". Finally, the "bee" issue demonstrates that this matter relates to the subtle semantic and syntactic nuances of a specific sentence, with the main disagreement being over the case of a particular word in that sentence.

It appears that the reasons for these disagreements can be attributed to differences in the approaches of the two schools, the different sources they relied on, and variations in their understanding and interpretation of Arabic grammar rules. Therefore, it can be concluded that these disagreements actually reflect the richness of the Arabic language and the diversity of perspectives on its rules, which has led grammarians to seek stronger evidence to support their views, resulting in the broader development of the science of grammar. Consequently, a careful study of this book helps us to better understand the subtle differences in Arabic grammar and to achieve a deeper comprehension of this language.

Broader Comparative Analysis Across Arabic Grammar Schools: It is suggested to extend research beyond the Kufa and Basra schools to include other grammatical schools, such as the Baghdad school, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of different perspectives.

2: Study of the Impact of Sources and Arguments Used in the Schools: A more detailed examination of the sources utilized by these schools, including poetry, ancient texts, and the Quran, can shed light on the reasoning behind each school’s grammatical arguments.

3: Linguistic Analysis of the Role of Disagreements in Grammar Development: Research should focus on how disagreements among these schools have influenced the advancement of Arabic grammar and the formation of linguistic principles.

4:Application of Findings to the Understanding of Quranic and Literary Texts: The study's findings should be directly applied to the semantic and grammatical analysis of Quranic texts and classical Arabic literature to better understand the implications of different perspectives.

5:Utilization of Modern Linguistic Analysis Tools: Employing new technologies, such as computational analysis and linguistic modeling, could enhance the accuracy of comparative studies and help uncover new patterns in grammatical disagreements.

References:

Holy Quran

Abu Hayyan Al-Andalusi, Muhammad bin Yusuf. (1420 AH). Al-Bahr Al-Muhit fi Al-Tafsir, edited by Sidqi Muhammad Jamil. First edition. Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr.

Alaa, Badri, Rana. (2019). Description of the Controversial Issues in "Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin". Journal of Arabic Scientific Heritage, Al-Mustansiriya University, Issue 43.

Al-Ashmouni, Ali bin Muhammad; Ibn Malik, Muhammad bin Abdullah. (2004 / 1425 AH). Hashiyat Al-Sabban Ala Sharh Al-Ashmouni Ala Alfiya Ibn Malik with Sharh Al-Shawahid by Al-Ayni, edited by Abdul Hamid Hindiwi. Beirut: Al-Maktaba Al-Asriya.

Al-Jurjani, Abdul-Qahir bin Abdul-Rahman. (1984). Dalail Al-I'jaz, edited by Mahmoud Muhammad Shakir. Cairo: Maktaba Khanji.

Al-Suyuti, Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakr Jalal Al-Din. (2009). Al-Bahja Al-Mardiyya ala Alfiya Ibn Malik, with commentary by Mustafa Hosseini Dashti. 19th edition. Qom: Esma'ilian Institute.

Al-Tabarsi, Fadl bin Hasan. (1993). Majma' Al-Bayan, edited by Muhammad Jawad Balaghi. Third edition. Tehran: Nasr Khosro Publications.

Ase, Javad. (2010). How Exegetes Engage with Grammatical Disputes Between the Basra and Kufa Schools. Quranic Studies, Vol. 16, Nos. 62-63, pp. 298-313.

Badi Yaqub, Emil. (1986). Encyclopedia of Grammar, Morphology, and Parsing. Qom: Dhawi Al-Qurba Publishing.

Bateni, Mohammad Reza. (1991). A New Look at Grammar. Tehran: Agah Publications.

Hadithi, Khadija. (1984). The Grammatical Schools. Baghdad.

Homayounfar, Mojgan. (2021). Lesson Book on Generative Grammar, edited by Mohammadreza Kamyar. First edition. Tehran: Navaiseh Parsi Publications.

Ibn Al-Anbari, Kamal Al-Din Abu Al-Barakat Abdul Rahman bin Muhammad bin Abi Said Al-Nahwi. (1957 / 1377 AH). Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin, with Al-Intisaf min Al-Insaf. Beirut: Dar Al-Fikr.

Ibn Aqil, Abdullah bin Abdul Rahman. (2006). Sharh Ibn Aqil Ala Alfiya Ibn Malik. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyya.

Ibn Hisham Al-Ansari, Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Yusuf. (2007 / 1428 AH). Awḍah Al-Masalik ila Alfiya Ibn Malik. Beirut: Dar Al-Kutub Al-Arabiyya.

Ibn Manzur, Muhammad bin Mukarram. (2006). Lisan Al-Arab. Beirut: Dar Sader.

Khosravi-Makani, Zahra. (2017). Review and Critique of the Translation of Abdul-Qahir Al-Jurjani's Book and His Modern Perspectives on Criticism. Journal of Humanities Texts and Programs Critique, Vol. 17, Issue 1 (Spring).

Lyons, John. (1987). Language and Linguistics. Cairo: Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabia.

Majlesi, Muhammad Baqir. (1983 / 1403 AH). Bihar Al-Anwar. Beirut: Dar Ihya Al-Turath Al-Arabi.

Motaghizadeh, Isa; Mohammadi-Bayazidi, Majid. (2012 / 1434 AH). Ibn Al-Anbari's Methodology in "Al-Insaf fi Masa'il Al-Khilaf Bayn Al-Nahwiyyin: Al-Basriyyin wa Al-Kufiyyin" and His Grammatical Principles. Research in Arabic Language and Literature, Vol. 7, Fall and Winter.

Najdi Nasef, Ali. (1980). Sibawayh, the Leader of Grammarians, translated by Muhammad Fazeli. University of Mashhad.

Pahlevannejad, Mohammad Reza; Erfanian Qonsoli, Leila. (2010). Exploring the Relationship Between Syntax and Semantics. Sixth Conference on Literary Research.

Sabzevari, Mehdi. (2018). Introduction to Linguistic Schools. Tehran: Boye Kaghaz Publications.

Safavi, Kourosh. (2004). Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Soore Mehr (Islamic Propaganda Organization).

Tayyeb, Seyed Abdolhossein. (1999). Tafsir Atiyyab Al-Bayan fi Tafsir Al-Quran. Tehran: Islam Publishing.

Turkmani, Hossein Ali; Mohammadi, Javad; Ashnawar, Mehdi. (2013). Analytical Review of Literary and Linguistic Origins of the Quran's Language in the Contemporary Period. Quarterly Journal of Literary and Quranic Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2.

Zamen, Hatem Saleh. (2009). Linguistics. Baghdad: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Bayt Al-Hikma, University of Baghdad.

Zeif, Shouqi Ahmad. (2016). History of Arabic Literature. Qom: Dhawi Al-Qurba.

Biodata