The problem of definition of knowledge has been discussed in the tradi-tion of kalām and philosophy. Especially with the inclusion of logic definition theory in the discipline of kalām, the definitions put forward were criticized by later thinkers. Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī (d. 722/1322), who was included in this discussion, which was mainly shaped around the question of whether knowledge is necessary (ḍarūrī) or acquired (kasbī), wrote the ideal definition and features in al-Meārif and commentary of Avicenna’s al-Ishārāt wa altanbīhāt. In (...) addition, Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī examined the problem of whether knowledge can be defined and -like Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210)- argued that the meaning of knowledge is very clear. In this context, Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī, who criticizes the definition of knowledge put forward by the Peripatetic tradition in particular Avicenna (d. 428/1037), determined the ont and non-existent definitions of knowledge and criticized them. This study deals with how the ideal definition theory, which Avicenna founded, was handled by Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī and the problem of definition of knowledge according to Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī. In addition, with this article, it has been argued that Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī did not define knowledge. In this direction, at the beginning of the article, the discussions on the definition of knowledge in the pre-Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī kalām tradition and the sides of the issue were examined. Then, in this article, in which the characteristics of the ideal definition according to Shams al-Dīn al-Samarqandī are determined, it is also examined whether he defines knowledge or not. (shrink)

Standard language, which follows rules of dictionary and grammar, undergoes various changes when it is the subject of literature, especially poetry. These changes, called linguistic deviation, are due to the poet’s expression of his feelings and thoughts by forcing the possibilities of language. In this direction, language deviations can be defined as the dispositions where the author goes out of the standard language, as in the examples of changes in the pronunciation (ṣavt), form (ṣarf) or spelling (kitābet) of the words, (...) the derivation of new words that are not used in the language (irticāl) and the deterioration of the syntax (naḥv). According to many literary critics such as Ibn Hishām al-Ansārī (d. 761/1360) and ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Baghdādī (d. 1093/1682), this language used by Arab poets who were not influenced by foreign languages, namely the Cāhilī, Muḥaḍram and Islāmī poets (ḳudemâ), was acceptable and it is considered as ḍarūrātuş-şiʿriyye (poetry necessities). In this context, deviations that do not comply with the standard language are tried to be explained with dialect differences, different variants of the couplet or various interpretations. However, some scholars such as Ibn Fāris (d. 395/1004) and Abū al-Ḥasan al-Jurjānī (d. 392/1001-1002) argue that these usages are laḥn (linguistic mistakes). According to these names, it is not correct to explain the poets’ use, which are contrary to the standard language rules, with excessive interpretations (takalluf). Assuming that linguistic deviations are laḥn, they cannot represent a superiority in terms of literary value, but when considered as a necessity, they represent a superiority within the framework of certain criteria. But any specific criteria have been determined before about which linguistic deviations represent the superiority. Therefore, in our study, the theories put forward about the accuracy of linguistic deviations that exceed the standard language rules will be examined and the necessary criteria for them to represent a superiority will be determined. In this direction, the difference in meaning and form that this deviation adds to the expression becomes important. If the language deviation, which is contrary to the standard sentence structure, does not comply with the language rules in any aspect and does not add any superiority to the poem in terms of meaning and form, it does not seem possible for such uses to represent a more fluent and persuasive language (al-Balāgha). However, the language deviation reveals a new meaning or form that is not found in the standard expression, and if this usage complies with the standard language rules, it represents a more eloquently language. The degree of violation of the purity and perfection of language (faṣāḥa) of a statement is related to the violation of qiyās (analogy?) and grammatical incongruity mentioned in the rhetoric books. The contravention of common language rules of these uses, which are not considered faṣīḥ, varies. As a matter of fact, some of these were seen as minor mistakes that could be ignored, while others were considered as major mistakes. For this purpose, a conceptual framework about linguistic deviations is drawn at the introduction of the article, and the literary theories on the subject are examined in the first chapter. In the second part, it is argued that linguistic deviations represent a superiority depending on certain criteria by giving examples from the poems of the period of Jāhilīyah. (shrink)