Ensieh Khazali; Zahri Ansari Nia
Volume 5, Issue 19 , February 2017, , Pages 73-104
Abstract
The subject of the common debates among Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.), Christian scholars, and Jewish scholars in Marv was "the divinity of the Jesus". In one of these debates, Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.) ...
Read More
The subject of the common debates among Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.), Christian scholars, and Jewish scholars in Marv was "the divinity of the Jesus". In one of these debates, Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.) argued against this issue. He presented direct arguments against the divinity of the Jesus and indirect arguments to prove the prophethood of the Jesus Christ and Muhammad (P.B.U.H.). Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.) utilized semantic and linguistic proofs to influence and persuade the audiences and to neutralize their arguments, as well. The use of emphasis, cohesive devices, and special verbs plays a significant role in highlighting the speech, whereas ignoring, understating, and using expressions without connotations are effective in marginalizing some concepts. Some of his proofs are textual and specifically linguistic. Some of them are contextual and were influenced by the setting, the point of view, and the beliefs of the audiences. The current study, using descriptive and analytical approaches, examines the debate of Imam Reza (P.B.U.H.) and Catholicos about the prophethood of Muhammad (P.B.U.H.). This study uses the ideological square of Van Dijk as a methodology which is centered on highlighting and marginalizing.
