Journal of Razavi Culture

Abstract Undoubtedly, one of the necessities of the present age is the matter of conversation between religions; because the interaction and understanding of religions has a constructive and a decisive role in reducing conflicts. The vitality of convergence in the Islamic world becomes critical in the presence of the tense dynamics existing among countries of the Islamic world, caused by the interventions of foreign nations as well as the created divisions due to religious motives. The subject matter of this article includes dialogue, and its role in religious societies and its necessity in Razavi distinction of thought. Therefore, the main purpose of the article is how to achieve the feasibility of institutionalizing a conversing culture by relying on Razavi ways of life and cherished values. The findings of this paper indicates that Razavi’s mode of thought, such as a full-view mirror, reveals the fact that in dealing with other religions and sects, the best conversation with one’s ideological opponents can be held by keeping calm and creating a calm atmosphere. Therefore, the era of Imam Riḍā’s (as) Imamate, as the golden period of conversations and debates around proving the superiority of Qur’anic teachings, can be considered as a model for the necessity of renewed dialogue between Islamic religions, conversing etiquette, and peaceful coexistence among Muslims.

Abstract Religious disputes have always been a challenge for thinkers and theologians to the extent that they have had an attempt to settle them peacefully. In this regard, by fair behavior, avoiding the extremes of excess and deficiency and observing human rights conventions, great men will lead human society toward progress, materially and spiritually.
Using a descriptive -analytical method and authentic historical sources, the present study attempts to investigate what strategies were used by Imam Reza (A.S) to settle the religious disputes. Imam Reza avoided to use pluralistic approaches for settling religious and sectarian disputes, since they result in confusion of human faith and intellectuality. Rather, in the form of guiding and purposeful debates, he used to provide answers to scientific questions and settle religious disputes by proving the legitimacy of valid beliefs and explaining false ones, emphasizing the principles of audience analysis and thematic analysis, observing justice, fairness and respecting others without any bias, as well as being fully aware of all aspects of discussions.

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.) 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.

Abstract   The Holy Quran describes different discourse techniques and introduces 3 techniques namely wise reasoning, good preaching and the best contention as the Prophet’s (PBUH) techniques for invitation to Islam. Meanwhile, in logics, five reasoning or discourse techniques have been proposed in accordance with the purposes of discussions, the techniques include contention, demonstration, rhetoric, fallacy and poem. The Qur’anic discourse techniques are different from the logical discourse techniques and the five techniques of reasoning in terms of principles and ends. In the present article, attempts are made to investigate these differences and to answer this fundamental question:  Is it possible to consider the Qur’anic discourse techniques consistent with the techniques of logical reasoning? With careful consideration of the two techniques’ characteristics and the close investigation of the Imams (AS) debates including the debates of Imam Reza (AS) which are based on the Qur’anic discourse techniques, it becomes clear that the most important difference between the two techniques is associated with their goals, in other words, The Qur’anic discourse techniques aim to guiding the audience, on the contrary, the Five Techniques of reasoning aim to pacify the audience. Careful study of the Imam Reza (AS) debates, and their reliance on solid and logical foundations as well as Qur’anic discourse techniques suggest that the statements of Imam Reza (AS) just like the statements of his fathers, can be used, in terms of method and content, to answer the corresponding questions and doubts not only in that historical period, but at all times.