الحجاج المغالطي في حوار المشركين في القران الكريم

Abstract

The fallacious argumentation was associated with sophist philosophers in particular. For them, a sophist is a wise and skilled man in debate, a competent professor, or an eloquent orator. This means that the term “sophist” referred to everything that is positive, as stated in the books of researchers in the field of sophistry and its origins. This has, however, changed with the dialogues of Plato and Aristotle after him. So the term “sophist” came to be used with the deceiver who trades using his wisdom and eloquence and takes a reward for that, or it was applied to the one who deviated from philosophy and made it a means of making a living. Fallacious argumentation, fallacy arguments, or fallacy arguments mean that the speaker uses fallacious arguments or employs a discourse full of fallacies, for the purpose of winning over the addressee, convincing him/her, getting him/her to submit, or even changing his/her behavior toward the speaker - the one who makes the fallacies - by making him/her believe he/she is correct, evading him/her, and causing him/her to fall into error. The fallacy, as Rasheed Al-Radi sees it, is a type of inferential process carried out by the speaker, and it involves corruption in content or form, either intentionally or unintentionally. The Arabs knew the “fallacy” under different names, such as “puns,” “wise style,” “answering the addressee without what he expects,” “riddles and puzzles,” and “riddle and answer.” As for Abd al-Qahir al Jurjani, it was known to him by the term “fallacy,” and al-Suyuti recognized it like this as well. However, the latter mentioned the term "wise style" with it. Through the chapters of the thesis, it was shown that the study revealed those fallacies that were contained in the dialogues of polytheists in the Holy Qur’an, by following the approach of the commentators and the approach of the pragmatics, and drawing a comparison between them. The study also showed how the Holy Qur’an confronted these fallacies by following multiple approaches, beginning with leniency and encouragement and ending with reward and punishment. Through its practical part, the study concluded that the polytheists used various argumentative mechanisms such as links and factors, as well as speech acts. They also used various rhetorical mechanisms, and the study mentioned some of them, such as metaphor, representation, contrast, and repetition, for example.