Journal of Razavi Culture

Abstract Critical discourse analysis (CDA) emerged in the 20th century as an approach to discourse analysis that examines the social and cultural functions of discourse. Various scholars have contributed to the development of this approach including Dutch linguist Theo van Leeuwen who has discussed important theoretical issues in the field of CDA. Legitimation is one of his theoretical notions which is based on four components, namely, authorization, moral evaluation, rationalization, and mythopoesis. This theory is a suitable framework for the analysis of legitimation in different texts. The present study uses this theoretical framework to examine the debate of Imam Reza with two prominent Christian and Jewish figures. The research method is descriptive-analytical and the aim is to understand the method of legitimation as well as its effectiveness in Imam Reza’s discourse. The significance of the study lies in the fact that the debate between a major Islamic scholar, i.e. Imam Reza, and two prominent Christian and Jewish figures unveils some truths about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The findings show that legitimation in Imam’s debate is mostly manifested in the authorization component which helps to resolve controversial issues such as the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad, the prophethood of Jesus Christ, slanders against Jesus Christ, and the lack of divinity of Jesus Christ. In fact, by using a method that fits the religious beliefs of the audience, Imam Reza’s legitimation in discourse has successfully led to the persuasion of the audience.

Abstract Critical discourse, in fact, is considered the formative process of discourse analysis, in which, by going beyond the mere description of linguistic data, attention is paid to the effective processes in the formation of discourse. In this type of discourse analysis, two social and linguistic approaches are discussed. In the social approach, discourse is explained as situational context, and in the linguistic approach, textual context is explained. The debates of Imam Reza (a.s.) are full of political, religious and social themes, which Imam (a.s.) has eloquently expressed in the various conditions of the time, to inform and guide people towards truth and justice. This research has analyzed the linguistic and structural interaction of Razavi’s debates with the atmosphere that dominates the society and the thoughts of the interlocutors. The results of this research indicate that Imam (a.s.) was able to create a close bond between the culture ruling the society and the intellectual deviation of the audience by using styles and words compatible with the atmosphere of the debate. His Holiness (PBUH) used words that had a deep meaning and in order to highlight the concepts in question, they used different linguistic connotations. Sometimes, with the use of questioning, he has somehow questioned the beliefs of the other party and challenged and marginalized his speech.

Abstract       Ḥadīth Silsilat al-Dhahab which is a Qudsi Ḥadīth includes discourse about monotheism and Imamate which alongside each other form the discourse of Shiite thought and all are put under the issue of resistance. This ḥadīth, in 200A.H was stated by the 8th Imam of the Twelver Shiite, Imam Riḍā (as), when he was called to Marv by Ma’mūn, ‘Abbasī Caliph, on route from Medina to Marv in Neyshabur, in company of some scholars.
This research tries, by investigating this ḥadīth through critical discourse analysis of Fairclough, to search why Imam chose that ḥadīth to state at that important and historical time and what was the significance of it and what were the consequences. Investigations showed that Imam Riḍā (as), by narrating this ḥadīth ratified, reinforced, and clarified the discourse of Shiite thought and he moved aside other discourse and rejected them.