المبرد وانتصاره للمذهب البصري عند الاحتجاج بالقرآن الكريم والقراءات

الملخص

Al-Mubarrad is considered as one of the notables of the Basran scholar. Rather,
he is the third one in it after Hebron and Sibawayh, and the standards set by AlKhalil and Sibawayh in protest are among the constants followed by those who
came after them among the pioneers of the Basran scholar. This title: Al-Mubarrad
and his support for the Basran scholar of thought when it was invoked by the
Qur’an and its reading. The study aimed to highlight some of the situations in
which Al-Mubarrad contradicts the readers in invoking the Qur’an and readings in
grammatical complexity, to the point where some readers were labeled with error.
This is in addition to identifying the positions of other grammarians and the extent
of their reliance on what came in the Book of God in terms of evidence. The study
relied on the analytical descriptive research method. This is by describing and
analyzing the grammatical issues that al-Mubarrad invoked, and he had a contrary
opinion in them to the readers and the Kufans in drawing the grammatical rule
depending on the readings or Quranic verses, the place of disagreement. The paper
reached several results, the most important of which are: Many grammarians held
negative attitudes towards some readers and readings, so they made mistakes in
readings that were proven from the Messenger, may God bless him and grant him
peace. The Basrans generally adopted the language of the Qur’an, but they were
very narrow in this, and they did not adopt several readings, although they had a
basis in Arabic. Al-Mubarrad invoked the readings, like other grammarians of his
time, as he was one of the first to establish the visual school, and he was
considered one of Sibawayh's students, but he did not deviate from the usual and
what was followed in what the visual school drew. The study recommends
examining the many differences in the language of the Qur’an and all Qur’anic
readings, and making them reliable sources for argumentation and the
consolidation of grammatical and morphological rules. Because it is a rich source
of language, not a source of differences and partisanship.