السليقة والقياس ومعيار الاحتجاج منهج تقويم الشواهد بين لهجة قريش وتعدّد اللغات

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between linguistic intuition (saliqa) and grammatical analogy (qiyās) in Arabic grammar through an analysis of selected Qur’anic, poetic, and prose examples that were later classified as violating analogy or described as cases of necessity or rarity. The study argues that the difficulty associated with these examples does not arise from linguistic deficiency or structural irregularity, but rather from a methodological shift in evaluating linguistic evidence, whereby analogy came to be treated as a prior normative standard rather than a descriptive outcome of actual usage.
Adopting a descriptive and analytical approach, the study surveys the views of early Arabic grammarians—most notably Sibawayh, Ibn Jinnī, and al-Mubarrad—and compares them with later grammatical interpretations. The analysis demonstrates that many constructions considered problematic in later stages were originally accepted as valid forms grounded in attested Arabic dialects and authentic usage. The labeling of such forms as violations of analogy or instances of necessity is shown to result primarily from narrowing the scope of analogy and restricting it to a single dominant linguistic pattern.
The study further argues that classical Arabic prose provides a more reliable measure of linguistic intuition than poetry, as it reflects language use in its natural, unpressured form and thus eliminates appeals to metrical or rhythmic necessity. Prose evidence, therefore, exposes the limitations of rigid analogical reasoning and highlights the descriptive strength of early grammatical approaches. The study concludes that when analogy is detached from empirical usage, it becomes restrictive; when restored to its descriptive function, it regains its explanatory value. The paper recommends re-evaluating the concept of grammatical necessity, expanding the range of admissible dialectal evidence, and developing a more inclusive grammatical framework that balances systematic rule formation with respect for linguistic diversity.