طرق ابن مالك في ترجيح آراء البصريين والكوفيين في النواصب والمنصوبات من كتاب شرح التسهيل: دراسة وصفية تحليلية

Abstract

This research investigates the methodology of Ibn Malik in weighing disputed grammatical issues between the Basran and Kufan schools through an analytical study of his work Sharh al-Tashil, addressing the central problem of the absence of a systematic analysis of his methods of preference (tarjīḥ) and the uṣūlī (principles) foundations underlying his selections. This study aims to clarify his approaches in preferring one opinion over another, examine his evidence and reasoning, and determine the extent to which his methodology aligns with established principles of uṣūl al-naḥw (The origins of Arabic Grammar). It adopts a descriptive method by surveying major disputed issues between the two schools, outlining their historical development, and presenting a scholarly profile of Ibn Malik within the grammatical tradition, drawing upon primary grammatical, legal-theoretical, and historical sources as well as modern academic studies - particularly the study on "Ibn Malik Position Which It Differed Albesrion and Alkovion” by M. Shashi, which served as a key reference for expanding the analytical dimension of this research. In addition, this study employs an analytical-applied approach by applying the principles of preference as articulated by Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti in Al-Iqtirah fi Usul al-Nahw (Al-Iqtirah: Principles of Arabic Grammar) for selected disputed issues, in order to assess the consistency of Ibn Malik’s preferences with recognised theoretical criteria, especially given that he does not explicitly adhere to one school but distributed his choices according to the strength of evidence and validity of reasoning. The findings demonstrate that Ibn Malik’s methodology is characterised by moderation and intellectual independence: in some cases he clearly preferred the Basran position on the basis of a stronger analogy (qiyās) or more widespread linguistic usage, while in other instances he adopted a reconciliatory stance or selected between views according to evidentiary strength, reflecting a balanced and critical approach rather than strict partisanship.