The Prophet Muhammad’s Responses to Opponents and Supporters: A Quantitative Analysis of Qur’anic Prophet–People Conversation Patterns

نویسندگان
دیانی عبدالرسول ID 1
رسولی علیاکبر ID 2
تقینژاد علی ID 3

1 دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی

2 دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشگاه امام صادق

doi
10.37264/JIQS.V4I2.4
چکیده

This study aims to examine the Qur’anic verses that record the dialogues between the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the people. After identifying the dialogical methods employed by the Prophet’s audience, it investigates how the Prophet responded to both opponents and supporters according to their methods. To achieve accurate results and provide a systematic analysis of the verses, association rules (a data-mining method) have been applied. The findings show that the Holy Qur’an contains 153 verses devoted to the dialogues of the Prophet with the people, which can be divided into 72 separate conversations. The main focus of this study is on the verses in which the people initiate the dialogue and the Prophet provides the response. By categorizing the Prophet’s interlocutors into opponents and supporters, and by identifying the dialogical methods used by both sides, ten dialogical methods were recognized: emotional, argumentative, interrogative, exhortative, persuasive, propagative, denunciatory, assertive, derisive, and threatening. The analysis reveals that when the opponents initiate dialogue in an interrogative manner, the Prophet’s response is propagative; when their method is denunciatory, the Prophet responds with propagative and argumentative approaches; when their method is assertive, the Prophet responds in a persuasive manner; and when their method is derisive, his response is threatening. By contrast, the dialogue method of  the supporters is predominantly interrogative, to which the Prophet responds in an exhortative manner.

کلیدواژه‌ها
Emotional Dialogue: In certain verses, the use of human senses or the arousal of the audience’s emotions and feelings can be observed., Argumentative Dialogue: Verses that contain reasoning and rational arguments., Interrogative Dialogue: Some Qur’anic dialogues appear in the form of questions or requests for legal and educational clarification, with the aim of providing explanatory responses to questions posed to the Prophet., Exhortative Dialogue: Dialogue that is effective because it is devoid of violence, humiliation of the interlocutor, or provocation of stubbornness. The Qur’an calls upon the Prophet to engage with others through goodly exhortation and in an exhortative manner., Persuasive Dialogue: In some verses, in order to invite reflection and convince the audience, questions are posed that cannot be easily rejected, or explanations are given with the aim of persuading the interlocutor., Propagative Dialogue: Verses that emphasize the propagation of religion and the communication of the divine message., Denunciatory Dialogue: Verses in which negation or rejection occurs, whether rejection of the other’s statement or judgment, denial of existential truths, or denial of God, and so forth., Assertive Dialogue: Verses in which a statement is simply expressed, independent of any advice, exhortation, threat, encouragement, derision, or propagation. Assertion here may be considered equivalent to affirmation or declaration., Derisive Dialogue: Verses containing humiliating words or allusions; any form of mockery, ridicule, reproach, belittlement, or insult falls under this category., Threatening Dialogue: Verses that employ threatening words or allusions for the purpose of warning and instilling fear of dreadful events, such as depictions of eschatological punishments or threats of death., Support: indicates the percentage or number of transaction sets in which a given feature set appears., Confidence: indicates the degree of dependency of one feature on another and is calculated according to the following formula, for example:, Support (first party= opponents, second party = Prophet, method of opponents = interrogative): 18 cases, Support (method = propagative): 8 cases, Confidence (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, method of opponents = interrogative → method of Prophet = propagative): 44%, Support (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = denunciatory): 18 cases, Support (method = propagative and argumentative): 7 cases, Confidence (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = denunciatory → Prophet’s method = propagative and argumentative): 38%, Support (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = assertive): 11 cases, Support (method = persuasive): 4 cases, Confidence (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = assertive → Prophet’s method = persuasive): 36%, Support (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = derisive): 10 cases, Support (method = threatening): 6 cases, Confidence (first party = opponents, second party = Prophet, opponents’ method = derisive → Prophet’s method = threatening): 60%, Support (first party = supporters, second party = Prophet, supporters’ method = interrogative): 18 cases, Support (method = exhortative): 7 cases, Confidence (first party = supporters, second party = Prophet, supporters’ method = interrogative → Prophet’s method = exhortative): 38%, When the opponents employed the interrogative method, the Prophet responded propagatively., When the opponents employed the denunciatory method, the Prophet responded propagatively and argumentatively., When the opponents employed the assertive method, the Prophet responded persuasively., When the opponents employed the derisive method, the Prophet responded threateningly., When the supporters employed the interrogative method, the Prophet responded exhortatively., RIS, EndNote, Mendeley, BibTeX, APA, MLA, HARVARD, CHICAGO, VANCOUVER