Abstract

The thought system of Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, who is a productive intellectual worker in the Mu‘tazilî school, is established on the contingency (imkân) of obligation (taklîf) of the God upon people. In other words he has a universe and order of thought which is built around the term obligation. Therefore, the content of Qâdî’s aforementioned thought which has a very significant place in Mu‘tazilî thought is constituted of responsbilities of human beings. These responsibilities of the human beings are gathered under the title of rational ones (aqliyyât) in terms of being held responsible by reason and the title sem‘iyyât which covers the things that fall under the category of responsibilities that can be only known by revelation (wahy) due to the imposibility of being assigned by the sole reason. In short, aqliyyât corrresponds to the rational field of obligation whereas se‘miyyât corresponds to the legal (shar’i) field of responsibility. The responsibilites under the title aqliyyât are such as tawhîd, justice, and other non-primary premises that serve as instruments for comrehending these two terms. The content of sem‘iyyât, on the other hand, is constituted of the issues that fall outside of the rational obligation (taklîf al-aqlî) and can only be known by means of sam‘ (revelation) such as the knowledge that adultry leads to moral corruption or the knowledge of juristic worships. We can observe that Qâdî ‘Abd al-Jabbâr, did make use of three different kinds of proofs in order to prove, found, and justify the aforementioned issues which lay the foundations for his thought. These are rational (aqlî), revelational (sam‘î) and linguistic (lugawi) proofs, respectively. For each of these kinds of proofs there is an idiosyncratic domain of coverage on which that kind of proof is considered as the unique authority. This research aims to elaborate the domain the only authority of which is the linguistic proofs and also aims to render it comprehensive. So to speak, the motivating factor of this research is to clarify the question of to what extent the language plays a role in Qâdî’s thought and its domain of influence in the simplest way.