Poetic Borrowing: Common Meanings, Recognizable Taking, Naskh and Intihal

1. The epilogue and its place

الخاتمة — في السرقات الشعرية وما يتصل بها
Epilogue: poetic borrowings and related practices.

After the verbal ornaments, the discussion turns to later expression benefiting from earlier poetry through wording, ideas or arrangement. Similarity alone is not enough to establish borrowing: a common theme must be distinguished from a distinctive literary achievement.

Related practices such as quotation, incorporation, versification, unversifying and allusion are named in the introduction. This lesson focuses on the fundamental test for poetic taking and its most visible form.

2. Borrowing versus resemblance

Poetic borrowing becomes a question when an expression seems to transmit an earlier poet's distinctive idea or mode of representation. Two poets praising courage or generosity have not thereby demonstrated taking from one another.

The analysis separates three matters:
1. Purpose: which quality or aim is expressed?
2. Mode of indication: what image, allusion or arrangement conveys it?
3. Distinctiveness: is that mode common or an unusual achievement?

The distinction prevents a shared subject from being confused with a distinctive borrowed expression.

3. Why borrowing is treated after badīʿ

The study of eloquence concerns more than producing rhyme, paronomasia or antithesis: the freshness of imagery and expression also matters. The discussion of borrowing examines originality, suitability of meaning and the quality of poetic transformation.

This is a classical rhetorical and critical taxonomy, not a modern legal finding. To classify an example as copying, taking or coincidence, one must first examine its form and thought.

The topic therefore belongs to the wider evaluation of eloquence without becoming another device such as sajʿ or jinās.

4. Agreement on a common purpose

إذا اتفق القائلان على الغرض العام
When two speakers agree on a broad theme.

Courage, generosity, beauty and modesty are widely understood qualities. Calling someone brave or generous is not the invention of a single poet. Agreement on such a theme is therefore insufficient to establish borrowing.

If, however, both poets use a markedly distinctive image or reasoning to convey it, the inquiry moves from the theme itself to the way it is expressed.

5. Worked cases of shared themes

Case 1: One poet calls a man courageous; another describes him as fearless in battle. Their subject overlaps, but this does not prove copying of a particular verse.
Case 2: Two poems speak of a patron's generosity. Their aims coincide, but their expression may be independently composed.
Case 3: Two poems praise beauty. The general attribute is not itself a rare literary invention.

Agreement in the subject and agreement in a particular imaginative representation must not be treated as identical.

6. Shared intellectual and customary knowledge

Themes such as praising courage, blaming miserliness, honoring generosity and admiring beauty arise commonly in reason and social custom. A poet may express them without appropriating another person's distinctive invention.

Attribution of borrowing must therefore examine not merely the abstract proposition but its particular indications, arrangement and context. The case for borrowing is weaker still when the method of indicating the quality is conventional.

Without this rule, almost every praise poem, elegy or satire would count as a copy of an earlier one, which is not the critical distinction being made.

7. The mode by which wording indicates meaning

Mode of indication is the way an expression directs understanding toward a quality or meaning. It may be direct naming or may operate through simile, metaphor, allusion, or a described condition or action.

Calling a man brave directly names the trait. Comparing him to a lion suggests bravery through another image. Portraying his treatment of visitors may indicate generosity through a particular scene.

The key question is whether the poets merely share the quality described or also share the distinctive sign used to reveal that quality.

8. Common figures of comparison

تشبيه الشجاع بالأسد والجواد بالبحر
Comparing the brave to a lion and the generous to a sea.

These are established literary associations. Seeing courage in a lion or abundance in the sea does not require a rare insight that must have passed from one poet to another.

Agreement in such common figures is not enough for a borrowing claim. A highly specific elaboration, unusual feature or distinctive arrangement of a simile may require separate examination.

9. Conventional metaphor and allusion

Metaphor and allusion likewise offer conventional paths to a quality: openhandedness can signify generosity, tightness of the hand can suggest miserliness, and a warm welcome may indicate nobility.

A wide hand is not literally generosity; the relation is a familiar allusive one. Two poets drawing on that common connection have not thereby established copying.

The question becomes whether they also share an unusually specific elaboration beyond the established convention.

10. A described scene as evidence of a trait

Sometimes a quality is conveyed not by naming it but by describing a posture, action or scene. A cheerful face when petitioners arrive suggests generosity; a gloomy reception may imply the opposite.

This replaces a direct adjective with a scene. Yet if that scene is a generally recognized sign, using it does not by itself constitute a poet's exclusive innovation.

One must still distinguish the conventional sign from an unusually original construction of its details.

11. A conventional sign is not exclusive

الهيئات تدل على الصفة لا لاختصاصها بمن هي له
Scenes or conditions signify a trait without being exclusive to any one bearer of it.

A welcoming face, warmth toward visitors and promptness in generosity can occur in different people. A poet's use of such signs therefore does not automatically show borrowing from another poet.

The case becomes stronger only if a distinctive literary invention, not merely a conventional sign, appears to have been carried over.

12. Common knowledge and priority

When the link between a word or sign and its meaning is already widely known, a poet's claim to exclusive priority is weak. The lion for courage and the sea for liberality are conventional examples.

An unusual image or an unfamiliar method of indicating a trait is different. Repetition of that detailed form by a later poet may warrant closer investigation.

This does not make every rare similarity proof of theft; it establishes that common agreement and distinctive agreement carry different evidential weight.

13. Comparing theme and mode of indication

Area of agreementExampleInitial assessment
Common purposePraising courageSimilarity, not proof of theft
Conventional simileA brave man as a lionCommon literary method
Established allusionAn open hand for generosityNo exclusivity established
Unusual detailed imageA distinctive rare constructionFurther inquiry may be justified

The last row is not an automatic verdict: it identifies a reasonable subject for investigation.

14. Distinctive versus conventional expression

خاصي في نفسه غريب لا ينال إلا بفكر
A distinctive, rare idea reached only through reflection.

When the method of conveying a meaning is unusual and intellectually inventive, matching it exactly differs from using a known convention. Conversely, an ordinary image may become distinctive through a poet's transformation, arrangement or elaboration.

A rare idea and a familiar idea given a rare treatment therefore require distinct analysis. The question is precisely which special feature has been taken.

15. Does every rare resemblance prove taking?

Rare agreement can strengthen a suspicion of borrowing, but possibility is different from proof. Chronology, the later poet's possible access and the exact location of the unusual similarity can all matter.

The core critical principle is that a common topic must not be equated with a distinctive invention. “Both praised generosity” is weak evidence; “both used an identical unusual arrangement” is a more substantial question.

This avoids both unexamined exoneration and automatic accusations based on resemblance.

16. The first major division of poetic taking

The first broad distinction is between overt and less overt borrowing. An overt case carries an earlier meaning or verbal construction in a form that makes the relationship comparatively recognizable.

In less obvious cases, alteration of wording, presentation or conceptual perspective obscures direct correspondence. Their fuller treatment follows later; this lesson establishes the basic idea of overt taking.

The distinction would be lost if similarity in wording, arrangement and meaning were treated as one and the same matter.

17. Taking the whole meaning

الأخذ الظاهر: أن يؤخذ المعنى كله
Overt taking consists in taking the whole meaning.

This yields three possibilities: retaining the earlier thought together with its wording and arrangement; retaining the thought while changing some words or order; or expressing essentially the same thought through a newly composed verbal form.

All concern transmission of the earlier meaning, but they differ in how much of its wording remains. That distinction motivates the categories of copying, attribution and altered borrowing.

18. Three cases of overt taking

CaseMeaningWording and structure
1. Complete takingEntire meaningOriginal wording and order retained
2. Partial verbal alterationUnderlying thought retainedSome words or their order changed
3. New formulationEssentially the same thoughtNew expression, semantic dependence remains

The first form is more immediately recognizable. With the others, comparison of words alone may be insufficient.

19. Wording, meaning and arrangement

Wording concerns the expressions used, meaning concerns what the verse conveys, and arrangement concerns how its words are joined and ordered. A poet may retain many words but change their order, or replace most words while preserving the idea.

Analysis therefore asks three separate questions:
1. Is the thought the same?
2. Are the original words retained?
3. Is their construction and sequence retained?

The pattern of answers helps classify the kind of borrowing.

20. Naskh and intihāl

النسخ والانتحال
Copying and claiming another poem as one's own.

Taking an earlier poet's wording together with its arrangement and presenting it as one's own is the most readily recognized kind of taking, called naskh or intihāl. The issue is not shared subject matter but extensive reproduction and attribution.

Naskh emphasizes copying; intihāl emphasizes claiming another's verse as one's own. They appear together because the later speaker represents inherited wording as original composition.

21. Copying is not every acknowledged quotation

Quoting a previous poet as evidence with attribution is not the same act as presenting that line as one's own creation. Attribution is central to the notion of intihāl.

A changed function or acknowledged source can require a separate literary label. The epilogue accordingly mentions citation, incorporation and related practices; they should not all be collapsed into plagiarism without analysis.

The immediate question is how the earlier text is presented and to whom it is attributed.

22. A reported exchange about attribution

A report concerning ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr and the poet Maʿn ibn Aws illustrates a dispute over verses and their attribution.

إذا أنت لم تنصف أخاك
If you do not deal justly with your brother.

The line begins a cited poetic example of taking earlier verse together with its verbal composition. The report functions here as a transmitted literary illustration, not as independent adjudication of an historical legal case.

23. What the literary dispute illustrates

Two people may independently give the same moral advice. But when an identical verse with the same verbal sequence is offered as the later speaker's creation, the question becomes: Who composed these lines?

The transmitted exchange highlights precisely this change of focus: a disagreement over attribution, not merely a shared ethical thought.

The teachable distinction is between coinciding on a familiar moral lesson and claiming another's completed poetic wording as one's own.

24. Keeping meaning while changing expression

Overt borrowing is not limited to exact word-for-word reproduction. A later poet may preserve an earlier poetic thought while replacing words with synonyms, changing forms or using another arrangement.

Lack of identical vocabulary does not end the inquiry. One must ask whether the particular structure of the idea survives or only a broad moral subject remains.

If a distinctive meaning is retained in full, the question of semantic taking survives substantial verbal revision.

25. The example beginning “دع المكارم”

دع المكارم لا ترحل لبغيتها
Leave noble qualities aside; do not travel in pursuit of them.

This poetic example addresses someone with pointed irony, telling him not to strive for noble qualities. A second verse recasts the same thought in altered vocabulary. The point of comparison is the transfer of a distinctive ironic intention, not mere sound similarity.

Thus, different words do not exclude a borrowing question if the same specific thought and its conceptual arrangement have been retained.

26. Comparing an altered formulation

ذر المآثر لا تذهب لطلبها
Abandon virtues; do not set out in pursuit of them.

Compared with the earlier example, “ذر” replaces “دع,” “المآثر” replaces “المكارم,” and “لا تذهب” replaces “لا ترحل.” The words change, but the pointed ironic command remains close.

This demonstrates that substituting near-synonyms does not automatically create a new literary thought. Full literary evaluation still considers the surrounding lines, purpose and shades of meaning.

27. When changed words do and do not matter

A very broad recommendation such as “speak well” may recur without borrowing. But a shared ironic stance, unusual sequence of commands and distinctive conceptual turn amount to a more specific correspondence.

A workable comparison separates:
1. Identical or near-identical wording.
2. The particular thought expressed in each verse.
3. Whether the new vocabulary generates a new meaning or merely renames the earlier one.

This evaluates verbal change by its actual rhetorical effect.

28. Changing the structure of a poetic expression

A later writer may change not only synonyms but the syntactic relations and order of the earlier expression. The original distinctive meaning may nevertheless remain.

Here nazm is not simply metrical form or rhyme; it also means the order and connection of words. Changing syntactic roles and sequencing can alter how a thought is presented.

A full verse must therefore be examined. One shared expression cannot by itself settle every degree of semantic and verbal correspondence.

29. Attribution and verbal alteration are different axes

Intihāl chiefly concerns claiming another poet's verse as one's own; verbal alteration concerns modifying the inherited expression. One person may reproduce an entire composition and claim authorship; another may preserve an idea but change the language.

These are not evaluated by one test. The first centers on text and attribution; the second on the specificity of the thought and the extent of transformation.

The distinction keeps copying, authorship claims and semantic resemblance analytically separate.

30. A three-stage comparison method

When two verses resemble one another, comparison proceeds in stages:
First: Identify the shared purpose and ask whether it is conventional.
Second: Identify the method of indication: is the simile, allusion, argument or distinctive scene also shared?
Third: Compare wording and arrangement: is the text copied, partly revised or wholly reworded?

The stages first distinguish what is common from what is distinctive, then classify the kind of taking. Starting only from similar end words misses the larger analysis.

31. Avoiding overconfident judgments

This discussion separates shared subject matter, distinctive expression, and authorship attribution. The evidential force of each differs.

Without a securely established text, one cannot confidently compare wording and arrangement. Likewise, recurrence of familiar imagery is not necessarily naskh or intihāl.

Advanced rhetorical criticism attends to textual accuracy, attributions, chronology and the exact form of correspondence. A possible resemblance should not be presented as a conclusive verdict.

32. Final comparison of agreement and taking

CategoryIdentifying feature
Common agreementWidely shared themes such as courage or generosity
Common mode of indicationConventional image such as lion or sea
Distinctive semantic takingTransfer of an unusual idea or construction
Naskh and intihālReplication of wording and arrangement with claimed authorship
Meaning retained with new wordingThe thought persists while expression changes

The central rule is that a form of borrowing cannot be identified until the precise locus of similarity has been determined.

33. Preparing for ighārah and maskh

Once a thought or wording passes into another poet's composition, the next question is whether the new form is more eloquent, equal, or weaker than the earlier one. This leads to the next classifications.

The present foundations are established: a common purpose is not proof of theft; distinctive indication deserves more scrutiny; overt taking requires comparison of thought and wording; and copying the full arrangement with a claim of authorship is the clearest naskh/intihāl case.

The next heading is الإغارة والمسخ, which further examines transformation and rhetorical quality.