The poetic and grammatical evidence in the tools in the book Al-Kafi fi Sharh Al-Hadi by Al-Zanjani, d. 655 AH)

Abstract

This research, tagged with (the poetic and grammatical evidence in the articles in the book Al-Kafi fi Sharh Al-Hadi by Al-Zanjani (d. 655 AH), dealt with some poetic evidence in the articles. The research dealt with five issues. The first issue dealt with: the waw for the absolute plural. Al-Zanjani followed the doctrine of the Basrans and Sibawayh from The waw indicates the absolute plural and does not indicate the order. This is based on the evidence he cited that supports what he argued. He addressed the second issue: it comes or for doubt and ambiguity. Al-Zanjani cited it for illusion only in the words of Labid, and he did not bring a poetic witness in which he clarifies the meaning of (or) for doubt, which is From what is counted on him, he did not diversify in citing the issue, he was limited to a specific aspect only, and he dealt with the third issue: the entry of that after ki. Al-Zanjani followed the doctrine of the Basrans in not renting the entry of that after ki, which is correct, due to the weakness of the witness that he does not know who said it, so when reviewing The researcher of the verse and its narrator in the sources made it clear that Al-Zanjani was correct in what he said, that the verse does not know who said it, and that the inclusion of that after ki is due to poetic necessity, because what was heard of that is of rejected principles, and it is applicable in poetry when necessary, and in the fourth issue

Using that in the position of ki and vice versa. It is permissible to use (in) in the position of (if) and vice versa. The difference between them is not clear because of the partnership between them, as is clear from the evidence that will be mentioned, in addition to the fact that Al-Zanjani was alone in the first and second verse is

His martyrdom in this place.

Regarding the critical issue, there is a disagreement regarding the “lam” in the answer to “Law and Lula.” What is apparent from Al-Zanjani’s statement is that the “L” in the answer to “Law and Lula” is not redundant, and that is through his comment at the end of citing the above evidence by saying: “We have the word “Lam” that is meant in these situations, it was deleted for the sake of knowledge, and the thing if it is known. Its location is permissible.

The opinions of scholars on a single grammatical issue were presented, discussed, and Zanjani’s position on it was stated. He relied heavily on poetic evidence in analysis and interpretation.

Explaining the meaning of the grammatical issues raised.