DISCOURSE STRATEGIES AND NARRATIVE REPETITION IN THE

QURʾĀN: A SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AL-SHUʿARĀʾ

Roghayeh Farsi
University of Neyshabur, Neyshabur-Iran
Rofarsi@yahoo.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6847-338X

Abstract
This paper attempts to explain some discursive strategies in relation to
the cyclic structure of narratives in the Qurʾānic context of Sūrat “al-
Shuʿarāʾ.” To that end, the paper works on three essential interrelated
aspects of study. First, it detects the cyclic structure that interconnects
the seven prophets’ narratives within the Sūrah. Second, it investigates
the cross-Sūrah interconnections by examining the (re)occurrence of
each prophet’s narrative in the preceding and following sūrahs. Third,
it discusses how such coherent interrelationships among the relevant
sūrahs can reveal certain discourse strategies such as narrative
extension, intention, expansion, juxtaposition, and inversion among
these sūrahs. Another, yet interrelated, aspect of the study is to explain
the “Us/Them” distinction counted in the Qurʾānic narratives involved,
and to show how such dichotomy is realized through the use of
referential and predicational strategies. The study adopts and adapts
Reisigl and Wodak’s strategies to address this aspect. Within this
analytical approach, the narratives are examined on the basis of two
strategies; namely, “despatialization” (actionyms, perceptionyms,
anthroponyms, and metaphors of spatiality) and “collectivization”

Ilahiyat Studies p-ISSN: 1309-1786 / e-ISSN: 1309-1719

Volume 12 Number 1 Winter / Spring 2021 DOI: 10.12730/13091719.2021.121.218
Copyright © Bursa İlahiyat Foundation

Received: July 14, 2020 Accepted: March10, 2021Published: August 16, 2021

To cite this article: Farsi, Roghayeh. “Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the
Qurʾān: A Special Reference to al-Shuʿarāʾ.”Ilahiyat Studies 12, no. 1 (2021): 85-108
https://doi.org/10.12730/13091719.2021.121.218
 86 Roghayeh Farsi
(pronouns and possessive determiners). The analysis of data reveals
some striking findings that can be summarized in two major points:
first, each of the narrative’s topoi in the social actors representation
evinces the dominance of predicational strategies; second, the
Qurʾānic discourse is bias-free and is, thereby, drastically distinguished
from other types of discourse such as political discourse.
Key Words: the Qurʾān, prophets, narratives, topoi, discourse
strategies.

1. Introduction
The text of the Holy Qurʾān has a complicated structure in terms of
form and content. A glance over the content of Qurʾān calls reader’s
attention to its thematic and stylistic repetitions. These repetitions that
occur on all levels (semantic, syntactic, graphologic, narrative,
rhetorical, etc.) are supposed to cement the verses and sūrahs to one
another; however, they do at times add to the text semantic and
thematic tensions. They rupture the text and, thereby, confuse the
reader. This feature renders the text nonlinear so that, literally
speaking, it sounds fragmented.
The nonlinearity and fragmentation have resulted in the emergence
of a huge body of exegeses, trying to clarify Qurʾānic text semantically,
thematically, narratologically, and syntactically. For instance, al-
Qushayrī responds to the changing style and content of the Qurʾān by
shifting “back and forth between expository prose, rhymed prose,
metaphors, and poetry.” (Sands 2017, xvii). Rashīd al-Dīn Maybudī’s
exegesis, the longest Sunnī commentary in Persian language, attends
to lexicography, the derivation of words, Arabic grammar, Qurʾān
recitation, biographies, Ḥadīth, the principles of jurisprudence, the
science of the legal rulings, the science of transactions and interactions,
and the science of bestowal (Chittick 2015, ix-x). Another mostly
referred to exegesis is Tafsīr al-Jalālayn written by Jalāl al-Dīn al-
Maḥallī and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī. Bin Talal, in his introduction,
contends the primary and overall goal of Tafsīr is “only to clarify the
immediate sense of the Qurʾānic text, thereby facilitating the reading
of the Qurʾān.” (Bin Talal 2008, xi). In contrast to al-Jalālayn whose
writers try to “remove any obstacles to understanding any word or
sense in the holy text” (Bin Talal 2008, xi), al-Tustarī’s Tafsīr al-Qurʾān
al-aẓīm has an “allusive, elliptical, and even obscure style.” (Keeler
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 87

2011, xxvii). The difference lies in their approaches. Al-Jalālayn tries

to make the holy text understandable at least literally; al-Tustarī’s
Tafsīr, however, attempts to convey spiritual guidance and
illumination. The other two exegeses are Tafsīr Namūnah and Tafsīr
al-Mīzān that provide detailed interpretations of the Qurʾānic text with
an emphasis on its semantic and thereby thematic significance.
The study of the organic unity of the Qurʾān arises out of the
analysis of textual relations in the Qurʾān which marks the intersecting
point between Tafsīr and linguistics. The approach of Muslim scholars
in this sense can be divided into two main categories: those who insist
on the inimitability of the Qurʾān and the authenticity of its text and
order. Scholars such as Muṣṭafá Ṣādiq al-Rāfiʿī (1995) and Muḥammad
Rajab al-Bayyūmī (2000) base the unity of the Qurʾān, despite its
variety of topics and their thematic irrelevance, on its unifying mission
to convey the preaching of Islam to all mankind, its physical and
spiritual unity expressed via rhythms and rhymes that dominate each
particular sūrah.
The other category of Muslim scholars focuses on individual sūrahs;
they argue the various topics and themes within a single sūrah serve
the central idea around which that particular sūrah revolves. Among
these, one can refer to Sayyid Quṭb (1967), Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh
Dirāz (2000), and Neal Robinson (1986, 1996). Salwa M. S. El-Awa is
another scholar who attends to the issue of coherence and relevance
in the Qurʾān, focusing only on the “inter-verse level that is between
verses of each sūra” (original emphasis; 2006: 11). Amin Ahsan Islahi
seeks to establish a theory that covers both inter-verse level and cross-
sūrah level throughout the Holy Qurʾān; his Tadabbur-i Qurʾān
divides the whole Qurʾān in seven groups named ʿamūd (central
theme). Each section revolves around a specific theme. This renders
his theory solely thematic; it does not cover the linguistic or narrative
strategies used in the Qurʾān (Rauf 2009, 213).
Although these interpretations pay attention to the narratives which
are embedded in Qurʾān’s text, they approach these narratives as mere
stories that are brought for advice and admonishment of people. The
cross-sūrah interrelationships between the stories and their
contribution to the structure of the sūrah, wherein they appear, are not
worked on. The present study attempts to fill in the gap, showing how
the apparent fragmentations that the narratives bring to the text add to
it thematic and stylistic significance.
 88 Roghayeh Farsi
An obvious feature of the Qurʾānic narratives is their heavy reliance
on Us/Them distinction. The occurrence of this dichotomy in political
discourse renders it highly biased. Analyzing such a distinction
through referential and predicational strategies deployed in the
Qurʾānic text would achieve two points simultaneously: first, the
distinction between religious and political discourse is highlighted;
second, the inter- as well as intra-sūrah connections are laid bare.
The present study analyzes discoursal features of the Qurʾānic text
and its narrative structure with a special reference to the 26 th sūrah of
the Holy Qurʾān, “al-Shuʿarāʾ.” This sūrah has been selected because,
in comparison to other sūrahs, it contains almost all of the main
narratives (seven stories) that recur every now and then throughout
the Qurʾān. After “al-Baqarah,” this sūrah stands as the second for its
number of verses (227 verses or āyahs). This article approaches the
sūrah’s text from two perspectives: its proximization discourse and its
narratological dimension. It argues that “al-Shuʿarāʾ” has a cyclic
narrative structure which interlinks the beginning of the sūrah to its
concluding part. The article detects a circular narrative structure that
not only keeps “al-Shuʿarāʾ” running on, but also all the other sūrahs
that cohere with it through allusion, repetition, symmetry, or rhetorical
structure. This circularity is shown to be kept on through Us/Them
dichotomy of the narratives.

2. Literature Review
“Al-Shuʿarāʾ” is the second long sūrah by verse. Tafsīr al-mīzān
takes the whole sūrah as consolation for the prophet in knowing that
other prophets were worse off in their missions (Ṭabāṭabāʾī, 1997, XV,
248-249). Exegetes are all of the view that “Al-Shuʿarāʾ” is a Meccan
sūrah except for its last four verses which have been revealed to the
prophet in Medina (Makārim Shirāzī 2008, XV/203). Moreover, due to
its denouncement of poets or “Shuʿarāʾ,” after which the whole sūrah
has been named, this sūrah has been referred to by many exegetes for
proving that the Qurʾān is far from being a poetic work and the prophet
is not a poet (Q 26: 224).
“Al-Shuʿarāʾ” contains seven main stories of the previous prophets
who were rejected by their people. Almost all Qurʾān scholars have
attempted an interpretive account of these stories in the sūrah. They
have not paid attention to the structure of each one of the narratives
and how they are interlinked to one another in the body of the sūrah,
as well as, in cross-sūrah relations. The present study tries to find out
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 89

a narrative structure in “al-Shuʿarāʾ.” It analyzes the narratives and their

structures from a narratological perspective. In Snævarr’s words,
“[s]tory is what is being recounted, independent of the medium used.
Narrative is the way the story is told” (Snævarr 2010, 168).
Polkinghorne contends the concept of a storyis prototypical in the
sense that it
[i]dentifies a protagonist and, a predicament, attempts to resolve the
predicament, then the outcomes of such attempts, the reactions of the
protagonist to the situation, and the causal relationship among each
of the elements inthe story. (Polkinghorne 1988, 112)
Similarly, Snævarr emphasizes the causal connection between the
events and situations, “If there are no causal connections between
them, then we have only a chronicle of non-related events, not a real
story, no unity.” (Snævarr 2010, 172).
The other point highlighted by Snævarr about a story is “logical
preconditions for actions, not only causes” (Snævarr 2010, 173). By
this, he means the actors in a story should have reasons for acting.
Thus, Snævarr’s definition of a narrative well applies to the way the
Qurʾānic stories are structured; he writes,
[w]e can safely say that N is a narrative if it is a full-fledged, non-
schematic ‘told’ (in the wide sense) representation of events, which
form a whole, in part owing to causal connections between the events
in the story, which N relates and N is told by an explicit or implicit
narrator to a likewise explicit or implicit narratee. (Snævarr 2010, 174)
He further explicates any “told” representation of events can be
taken as a narrative if and only if it has a “storied structure;” and by
“storied structure,” he means it has a given beginning, middle, and end,
and it forms a unified whole. (Snævarr 2010, 174-175)
On the significance of narratives, one can refer to Danto for whom
narratives are means for explanation and description. He further
accentuates the relevance of the narrative to the intentions of the
storyteller (Danto 1985, 132). The explanatory and descriptive mission
of narratives reveals the storyteller’s intention and interests, and
simultaneously accounts for inclusion of some details and exclusion of
some others. He writes, “any narrative is a structure imposed upon
events, grouping some of them together with others, and ruling some
out as lacking relevance.” (Danto 1985, 132). Envisaged as such, the
stories in the Qurʾān are explanatory and descriptive narratives, since
 90 Roghayeh Farsi
they all have a unified “storied structure;” their narrator is God and the
people are the narratees. The stories bear God’s intentions which get
revealed in the sūrah, wherein they occur.
A glance at the stories that the Qurʾān narrates reveals not only do
they develop out of Us/Them distinction, but for their affective
purpose they depend on this dichotomy in which God stands as “We”
or “I” and the people to whom a prophet is sent represent “They.” This
dichotomy has been widely utilized in political discourse and renders
it highly prejudiced. Theorizing Us/Them dichotomy entails
clarification of two main points: group, and the related referential and
predicational strategies. The notion of group has been worked on by
advocators of referential strategies. Originally, group-living was based
on survival strategy (Schaller and Neuberg 2008, 403). Banding
together resulted in boundaries between groups (Lovaglia, Houser,
and Barron 2002). While the intra-group relations were mostly
cooperative, inter-group relations were competitive and conflictual
over the limited resources. Gradually, group-living came to rely on the
categorization of the social world into “us” versus “them.” (Kurzban,
Toobyand, and Cosmides 2001, 15387). This dichotomy led to binary
conceptualizations like self/other, friend/foe, familiar/alien (van der
Dennen 1999; Chilton 2004).
In Schaller and Neuberg’s observation, what promotes avoidance is
not mere categorization of an individual as an out-group; it requires
“the activation of some sort of negative stereotype.” (Schaller and
Neuberg 2008, 405). They further call the cognitive categories and
associations that link the out-group with expectations of harm and
harmful intent as prejudice “syndromes.” (Schaller and Neuberg, 2008;
Schaller et al. 2004). These syndromes or stereotypes are characterized
as ideologies. According to van Dijk, ideologies include a “very general
polarisation schema defined by the opposition between Us and Them”
suggesting that “groups build an ideological image of themselves [...]
in such a way that (generally) We are represented positively, and They
come out negatively.” (van Dijk 1998, 69). Associating the out-group
members with threats or threatening intentions provokes the in-group
members’ discriminatory and exclusionary behaviors (Schaller et al.,
2004; van Dijk, 2000a and 2000b).
The in-group/out-group distinction is best presented through
referential and predicational strategies. Reisigl and Wodak regard
referential strategies as the basic ones in the communication of
prejudice (Reisigl and Wodak, 2001). Adopting a broader definition,
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 91

they contend referential strategies construct social actors as “ingroups

and outgroups.” (Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 45). They refer to
“nationalisation,” “de-spatialisation,” “dissimilation,” and
“collectivisation” as referential strategies (Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 48-
52). For Reisigl and Wodak, nationalization is nationality-oriented. But
in the Qurʾānic stories, the people’s nationality is not always a
discriminating factor; rather, in some cases nationyms become a
generalizing force. The linguistic means that the Qurʾān draws upon in
its stories are mostly those related to de-spatialization defined in terms
of action (actionyms), anthropology (anthroponyms), metaphors of
spatiality, and collectivization (pronouns and possessive determiners)
(see Figure 2.5 in Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 48-52).
In addition to referential strategies, there are predicational strategies
that activate cognitive modules and promote behavior (Hart 2010, 62).
Therefore, they are emotively coercive. Coercion is a proposed
strategy in political discourse (Chilton 2004; Chilton and Schäffner
1997) and it means to “affect the beliefs, emotions and behviours of
others in such a way that suits one’s own interests” (Hart 2010, 63). For
Chilton, there are two kinds of linguistic coercion: cognitive coercion
and emotive coercion. Cognitive coercion is propositional and
produces cognitive effects in text-consumers; emotive coercion
appeals to the text-consumer’s emotions to make them behave in a
certain way (Chilton 2004, 118). While referential strategies are more
often evaluative (Reisigl and Wodak 2001, 46), predicational strategies
are provocative.
Predicational strategies aim at achieving emotive and cognitive
coercion. For achieving emotive coercion, text-producers represent
the out-group in relation to a particular, recurring “topoi.” Van
Eemeren et al. (2013, 38) translate a “topos” as a rule or procedure.
Topoi are related to pragmatic presupposition and defined in terms of
“assumptions the speaker makes about what the hearer is likely to
accept without challenge” (Givon 1979, 50). For Reisigl and Wodak
(2001, 74), topoi are content-based, expressed as conditional
“conclusion rules.” It is in terms of these two strategies that the topoi
in the Qurʾānic narratives are to be analyzed and discussed.

3. Methodology
This part comprises two sub-sections: corpus and analysis
procedure.
 92 Roghayeh Farsi
3.1. Corpus
The data of the present study are driven from “al-Shuʿarāʾ,” since it
is the only sūrah wherein the main narratives appear together in a well-
defined systematic structure. It then moves on through the other
sūrahs such as “Hūd,” “al-Nisāʾ,” “al-Anbiyāʾ,” “Sabaʾ,” “al-ʿAnkabūt,”
“al-Baqarah,” “Ṭā-Hā,” “al-Aʿrāf,” “al-Anʿām,” “al-Naḥl,” “Āl ʿImrān,”
“Yūnus,” “al-Dhāriyāt,” “al-Najm,” “al-Muʾminūn,” “al-Qamar,” “al-
Taḥrīm,” and “al-Māʾidah” to present how the narratives are exposed
to discoursal extension, intension, expansion, juxtaposition, and
inversion throughout the text.

3.2. Analysis Procedure

This study adopts and adapts Reisigl and Wodak’s (2001) referential
strategies of de-spatialization and collectivization. The stories in the
Qurʾān and the way the Qurʾānic discourse represents social actors
have been analyzed as shown in Table 1.

Selected strate- Linguistic means Examples

gies
ƒ Actionyms Rejection, telling lies, accu-
De-spatializa- ƒ Perceptionyms sation
tion ƒ Anthroponyms Non-believers
ƒ Metaphors of spati- Residents of the Hell
ality
Collectivization ƒ Pronouns We (I), they, Us (Me), them
ƒ Possessive deter- Our (My), their
miners
Table 1. Referential Strategies in the Narratives of the Qurʾān

Topos Association
Character Unreliable, hypocrites
Sin Sinners, perverse
Threat *dangerous (danger)
Power Exploiters and loiters
Table 2. Recurring Topoi and Typical Associations

The study also detects and analyzes the topoi that span the Qurʾānic
text by way of its stories. The following table summarizes the topoi that
have been detected in sūrahs.
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 93

4. Results
This part is divided into three main sections: narrative structure in
which the cyclic structure of the seven prophets’ narratives in “al-
Shuʿarāʾ” is presented. In addition, different narrative strategies such
as narrative extension, exclusion, inversion, ellipsis, or expansion are
presented. Two succeeding sections deal with discourse strategies,
referential and predicational. The detection of these strategies is
restricted to the seven prophets’ narratives. The part on referential
strategies is based on the dominant linguistic means: actionyms,
perceptionyms, anthroponyms, and metaphors of spatiality. The last
section deals with predicational strategies and is divided into topoi of
character, sin, threat, and power.

4.1. Narrative Cycle

“Al-Shuʿarāʾ” comprises 227 verses. The narration of seven main
stories begins from verse 10 and ends in verse 190. These stories are
both preceded and succeeded by “And verily, your Lord is He, the
Exalted in Might, most Merciful” (Q 26:9 and 191). The same verse
comes between the stories, separating the story of each nation from
one another (Q 26:68, 104, 140, 159, and 175). Narratologically, the
stories in this sūrah meet the requirements that Snævarr has
enumerated for a narrative. First, they have storied structures; second,
they have middle, beginning, and end. Third, they are a unified whole.
The narrator in all of them is God and the narratee is, first, the prophet
and, then, people. The stories in this sūrah have a basic schema: God
sends a prophet to a people. The people reject, accuse, or ridicule him.
God punishes the people for disobeying and saves the prophet. In
these short stories, the people’s actions have causal relations and their
doomed end is the logical result of their disobedience. Although the
first story which is about Moses and Pharaoh is longer and has more
details (Q 26:10-67), it follows the same narrative schema. The
repetitive narrative schema in these seven stories, and their being
 94 Roghayeh Farsi
separated from one another by a single verse, gives the recounting
verses a cyclic structure which can be shown in the following figure:

Figure 1: The Designed Cyclic Structure of Seven Prophets’ Narratives in “al-

Shuʿarāʾ”

As Figure 1 shows, this cycle does not run on its own; there are four
major forces in the sūrah; three of these forces will be discussed here
and the fourth will be elaborated on in the part related to referential
strategies. First, the same demarcating verse (situated at the center)
appears on both sides of the cycle (Q 26:9 and 191) and thus interlinks
the stories with the main body of the sūrah. Besides, the second verse
of the sūrah which refers to the Holy Book, “[t]hese are Verses of the
Book that makes (things) clear” (Q 26:2), is given further details and
descriptions in the verses that immediately appear after the cycle,
“Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the worlds” (Q 26:192). The
third point that makes the stories relevant to the context of the whole
sūrah is God’s intention of narrating them to His prophet. In the third
verse, God wants his prophet not to torment himself because “they do
not become Believers” (Q 26:3). Then, He starts narrating the stories of
seven preceding prophets who were similarly rejected by their nations.
Narrating their stories in much the same manner, God draws a parallel
line between all the previous prophets and the prophet of Islam.
Through this juxtaposing repetition, God compares the Arab nation
with the previous ones and predicts for them the same end. Foreseeing
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 95

such a doom for the prophet’s people has a gesture to any reader who
is the Qurʾān’s narratee and, thus, makes the cyclic structure of the
stories run on endlessly. This in itself can be taken as one of the signs
of the miraculous narration of the Holy Book.

4.1.1. Narrative Extension

The first mention of Moses and his conflicts with Pharaoh occurs in
“al-Baqarah” (Q 2:47), where God directly addresses “O Children of
Israel!,” in a reminding gesture to His graces on them and their
mischievous ingratitude. He refers to the sufferings they went through
and the fact that only He could save them, “And remember, We
delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: they set you hard tasks and
punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your womenfolk live;
therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord” (Q 2:49). In the
following verse, God refers to the way He saved them, “We divided the
sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh’s people within your
very sight” (Q 2:50). This sūrah does not disclose more about how
Moses’ folk were brought to the sea and rescued. This hole in the
narrative is filled in Ṭā-Hā, verse 77, where God states, “And We sent
an inspiration to Moses: ‘Travel by night with My servants, and strike a
dry path for them through the sea, without fear of being overtaken (by
Pharaoh) and without (any other) fear” (Q 20:77). Yet still, some point
remains untold in this story, and that is how Moses strikes a dry path
in the sea. The details about this event are given in al-Shuʿarāʾ: “Then
We told Moses by inspiration: ‘Strike the sea with your rod.’ So it
divided, and each separate part became like the huge, firm mass of a
mountain” (Q 26:63). Following up Moses’ story about the way he
rescued his folk through the sea interconnects the sūrahs across the
Book and, simultaneously, in each repetition of the story some detail
is added to the story; this can be called a case of narrative extension.

4.1.2. Narrative Exclusion

In Moses story which appears first in “al-Baqarah,” God reminds
Children of Israel of the torments Pharaoh inflicted on them (Q 2:49).
However, the sūrah does not reveal the reasons for these tortures. The
whole story then is recounted in al-Aʿrāf, where Pharaoh’s wizards are
defeated by Moses’ miraculous staff and, thus, fall down prostrate,
“Saying, we believe in the Lord of the worlds” (Q 7:121). Whereupon,
Pharaoh decides to torment the believers, “Their male children will we
slay; (only) their females will we save alive” (Q 7:127). Before the final
 96 Roghayeh Farsi
annihilation of Pharaoh in the sea, God strikes them with “years (of
droughts) and shortness of crops” (Q 7:130); then, He sends “(plagues)
on them: Wholesale Death, Locusts, Lice, Frogs, and Blood: Signs
openly self-explained: but they were steeped in arrogance,—a people
given to sin” (Q 7:133). After all, when they insisted on their non-belief,
God drowned them in the sea. The details before their getting drowned
are omitted from al-Shuʿarāʾ, because God’s intension here is not to
show Pharaoh’s perseverance with denial of His signs and His
endurance; rather, He wants to show the doom of deniers. After all, if
such details were included here, the balance (in terms of length)
between Moses narrative and the other stories would have been
disturbed. This discoursal technique is called narrative exclusion.

4.1.3. Narrative Inversion

Al-Aʿrāf continues Moses’ folk story, after their survival from the sea,
and recounts the way they turned against him; first, they asked him to
give them idols to worship (Q 7:138), and then in his forty-day
absence, they made a calf and worshipped it (Q 7:148). However, al-
Nisāʾ reports that Moses’ folk chose the calf “after Clear Signs had come
to them.” (Q 7:153). One of those proofs was shown to them for their
request to see Allah, “Show us Allah in public.” Upon this, “they were
dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning” (Q 4:153).
After this, they turned to worshipping the calf. However, the same
events are presented somehow else in al-Baqarah. In this sūrah, it is
said that Moses returned to his people after forty days of absence to
find them worshipping a calf. When he blamed them for this, they said,
“O Moses! We shall never believe in you until we see Allah manifestly”
(Q 2:55). This is called inversion in repetition; and inversion in
sequence of the events of the story each time it is repeated gives the
text narrative tension. The tension may apparently confuse the reader.
However, there is a delicate rhetorical trick behind this inversion and
that has to do with people’s stubbornness in their unbelief. The
inversion of the sequence of events in Moses story may imply that no
matter before the calf incident, the lightning seized his folk’s gaze or
after that; in any way, they did not and would not believe and remained
doomed.

4.1.4. Narrative Ellipsis

In al-Shuʿarāʾ, the incidents of the calf and the request of Moses’
people to see Allah are omitted; however, these incidents had already
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 97

been related in detail in three sūrahs before al-Shuʿarāʾ: Al-Baqarah,

al-Nisāʾ, and al-Aʿrāf, respectively. Thrice repetition of the story is in
itself of significance and highlights its importance. Therefore, when it
is omitted from al-Shuʿarāʾ, it does not imply their insignificance.
Rather, the mention of Moses and his folk brings onstage all the events
that had already been mentioned in previous sūrahs. This kind of
repetition is called narrative ellipsis in which the already stated is not
overtly but only implicitly (elliptically) repeated in what is mentioned
right now.
The same applies to Abraham’s narrative. The Abraham al-Shuʿarāʾ
speaks of is the prophet whose story has already been recounted in al-
Baqarah. In this sūrah, Abraham asks God to show him how He
revives the dead in order to put his heart at ease, “He said: Take four
birds; tame them to turn to you; put a portion of them on every hill and
call to them: they will come to you (flying) with speed” (Q 2:260).
Abraham reappears in al-Anʿām to argue against his non-believing
father, Āzar, and proves no entity in the universe (star, the moon, and
the sun) equals God in power and deserves to be worshipped (Q 6:74-
81). He is the prophet who begets a child by God’s power while he
and his wife are both old (Q 11:69-72). These stories provide a good
background for Abraham’s reappearance in al-Shuʿarāʾ wherein he
challenges his people’s disbelief. Narratologically, Abraham’s previous
experiences of death and (re)birth well justifies his firm belief in the
Almighty. In this way, the previous stories, ellipticized, can function as
logical reasons for what the prophet says and does. The mention of
Abraham in the succeeding sūrah, al-ʿAnkabūt has a gesture back to
what had gone on in al-Shuʿarāʾ, “And if you reject (the Message), so
did generations before you” (Q 29:18). Thus the following mention of
Abraham emphasizes his mission in an act of repetition.

4.1.5. Narrative Expansion and Exclusion

The first mention of Noah appears in al-Aʿrāf. This sūrah simply
relates how Noah asked his people to believe in God, how they denied
him, and thereupon received God’s punishment (Q 7:59-64). This story
with almost the same details reappears in Yūnus, verses 71 up to 73. It
is in Hūd that Noah’s story is detailed from the start of his mission till
he is inspired by God to build an ark to save his household save for his
son, “O Noah! He is not of your family: for his conduct is unrighteous.
So ask not of Me that of which you have no knowledge ...” (Q 11:46).
The detail about his son is omitted from al-Shuʿarāʾ. With respect to the
 98 Roghayeh Farsi
previous sūrahs, al-Aʿrāf and Yūnus, the addition of details in Hūd is
an instance of narrative expansion; but with respect to al-Shuʿarāʾ the
omission is one of narrative exclusion.

4.2. Referential Strategies

4.2.1. Collectivization: Pronouns and Possessive

Determiners
All through the Qurʾānic narratives, God as the speaker appears in
the form of first-person singular or plural pronoun (“I” or “We”). This
distinguishes God and His people from non-believers who are referred
to in third-person plural pronoun (“them” and “their”) and sometimes
in third-person singular pronoun (“he” and “him”). As an instance, one
can refer to this verse, “If (such) were Our will, We could send down
to them from the sky a sign, to which they would bend their necks in
humility.” (Q 26:4). In this verse, “We” has the position of a subject
which objectifies “them.” Through objectifying pronouns and
possessive pronouns, God collectivizes the non-believers and puts
them all (the ancient and the new) in the out-group. In the seventh
verse of al-Shuʿarāʾ, God refers to His power, stating, “Do they not look
at the earth, – how many noble things of all kinds We have produced
therein?” Distinguishing “We” as the omnipotent power separated from
“they” that have limitation in vision, this verse segregates the speaker
from the out-group. Assigning the prophetic mission to Moses, God
expresses His support against the Pharaoh whom Moses fears for his
life (Q 26:14). The following verse reads, “Allah said: ‘By no means!
proceed then, both of you, with Our Signs; We are with you and will
listen (to your call).” (Q 26:15). In this verse, the speaker is
distinguished by “We” and the possessive determiner “Our” both of
which are also capitalized. Read in the light of the previous verse, God
extends His support towards Moses and his brother against any harm
from Pharaoh’s part. The verse thus discriminates Moses and his
brother as members of God’s in-group from Pharaoh and his troop
categorized as the out-group. Thus when in the next verse, Moses
speaks using “we” in “We have been sent by the Lord and Cherisher of
the worlds.” (Q 26:16), this first-person plural, non-capitalized
pronoun “we” puts Moses and his brother in God’s in-group
distinguished from the out-group.
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 99

4.2.2. De-spatialization
De-spatialization strategies that the Qurʾān draws upon in its
distinction of believers from non-believers are actionyms,
perceptionyms, anthroponyms, and metaphors of spatiality.
Actionyms applies to people’s deeds, and perceptionyms to their
beliefs. Actionyms are closely related to perceptionyms. Since the
Qurʾān specifies Hell for wrongdoers and Heaven for the righteous,
their anthroponyms are also involved. The common actionyms of non-
believers against the prophets is rejecting them and disobeying their
commands.
In al-Shuʿarāʾ, the non-believers are de-spatialized in terms of their
perceptionyms and actionyms; thus the pronoun “they” occupies the
subject position of an agent only when they “will not believe” (Q
26:201), “perceive it not” (Q 26:202), “Our penalty to be hastened on”
(Q 26:204), “disobey you” (Q 26:216), “wander distracted in every
valley” (Q 26:225), and “they practise not” (Q 26:227). All the stories
that condemn non-believers to sever punishment de-spatialize them as
non-believers which is their anthroponyms. Therefore, they are
demarcated from God’s in-group as being residents of the Hell and the
receivers of His doom.
Hūd’s folk resist his invitation, relying on the religion they had
inherited from their fathers, “Hast come unto us that we should serve
Allah alone, and forsake what our fathers worshipped?” (Q 7:70).
Rejecting him, they accuse him of lying and madness, “We see you are
an imbecile!’ and ‘We think you are a liar!’” (Q 7:66). They even shun
him as being “seized ... with imbecility” by one of their gods (Q 11:54).
His folk are described as those that ascribe partners to God (Q 11:54),
“they rejected the Signs of their Lord and Cherisher; disobeyed His
messengers; and followed the command of every powerful, obsrinate
transgressor.” (Q 11:59). Thus they were the receivers of “a severe
penalty” (Q 11:58). His folk are described as pleasure-seekers (Q
26:128) and “men of absolute power” (Q 26:130).
Ṣāliḥ presents a she-camel as a token from God and warns his
people not to harm her. Being scornful and unbelieving, they
hamstrung the camel which is their actionyms (Q 7:73-78). Similarly,
Moses’ non-believing folk are discriminated as the out-group in terms
of their actionyms: they chose a calf for worship; “they did wrong
themselves” (Q 2:57); “when they were commanded to fight, they
turned back” (Q 2:246); “they broke their covenant” and slew the
 100 Roghayeh Farsi
prophets wrongfully (Q 4:155). They are also dichotomized for their
perceptionyms at the core of which lies their non-believing in Moses
and God’s signs to them.
The character of Noah as a member of the in-group is presented as
a “warner” (Q 11:25); and his people are objectified as “those who had
been warned” (Q 12:73); yet they are “the ignorant ones” (Q 11:29),
“wrongdoers” (Q 29:14), persisting in sin (Q 51:46), and “most unjust
and most insolent transgressors” (Q 53:52). They reject him as a liar (Q
11:27); while he was building the ship, his people “threw ridicule on
him” (Q 11:38). His folk were exposed to God’s punishment and got
drowned.
Referentially, Abraham is often distinguished from his folk, “he
joined not gods with Allah” (Q 2:135; Q 3:67 and 95; Q 6:79 and 161;
Q 16:120 and 123). This description sets up the character of out-group
in terms of their actionyms calling them idolaters; these are abandoned
by God; thus God orders, “Do not marry unbelieving women
(idolaters) until they believe: a slave woman who believes is better
than an unbelieving woman ... Nor marry (your girls) to unbelievers
until they believe... Unbelievers do (but) beckon you to the Fire. But
Allah beckons by His Grace to the Garden.” (Q 2:221). This verse
discriminates the idolaters through their actionyms and de-spatializes
them, making them residents of Fire in contrast to those of the Garden.
These idolaters are receivers of God’s curse, “They are (men) whom
Allah has cursed.” (Q 4:52). In another verse, God distinguishes
idolaters from believers and condemns them, “and those who reject
Faith fight in the cause of Evil: So fight you against the friends of Satan:
feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.” (Q 4:76). In al-Māʾidah, idols
are represented as Satan’s handiwork (Q 5:90) and are thus
condemned.
In Hūd, the people of Lūṭ are described as sexually perverse ones,
desiring his male guests instead of his daughters (Q 11:78). In return
for their sins, “We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down
on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer.” (Q
11:82). His folk are “marked as from your Lord: nor are they ever far
from those who do wrong” (Q 11:83). Al-Anbiyāʾ discriminates Lūṭ
from his folk, “And to Lūṭ, too, We gave judgment and knowledge, and
We saved him from the town which practised abominations. Truly,
they were a people given to evil, a rebellious people.” (Q 21:74). His
people’s immoral lust is well detailed in al-Shuʿarāʾ where Lūṭ scorns
them, “Of all the creatures in the world, will you approach males, /
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 101

And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates?
Nay, you are a people of transgressing (all limits).” (Q 26:165-66).
Upon his resistance, his people threaten him, “If you desist not, O Lūṭ!
you will assuredly be cast out.” (Q 26:167). This sūrah only suffices to
inform that God rained on them “a shower (of brimstone): and evil was
the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not).” (Q
26:173). In al-Naml, Lūṭ discriminates his folk for their actionyms,
“Would you really approach men in your lusts rather than women?
Nay, you are a people (grossly) ignorant!” (Q 27:55).
Shuʿayb’s people are discriminated by their actionyms detailed in
al-Aʿrāf: “Give just measure and weight, nor withhold from the people
the things that are their due; and do no mischief on the earth after it
has been set in order ... / And squat not on every road, breathing
threats, hindering from the path of Allah those who believe in Him.”
(Q 7:85-86). Thus they are described as “those who did mischief” (Q
7:86). Like Noah’s people, his folk are scornful and disbelieving.

4.3. Predicational Strategies

The recurring topoi in al-Shuʿarāʾ are rendered in terms of
character, sin, threat, and power. The sūrah describes and thereby
discriminates the out-group as non-believers (Q 26:201), liars (Q
26:223), the doomed (Q 26:213), “removed far from even (a chance of)
hearing it” (Q 26:212), deniers (Q 26:189), tyrants (Q 26:130),
extravagant (Q 26:151), transgressors (Q 26:166) and accusers (Q
26:185 and 186). They are marked as “lying, wicked” persons (Q
26:222), the wrong-doers (Q 26:227) and “people of iniquity” (Q
26:10), in possession of “hearts of the sinners” (Q 26:200),”those who
are in error” (Q 26:20). This sūrah discriminates the out-group
members in terms of the threats they have for the in-group. Moses asks
God to protect him against Pharaoh or Pharaoh will kill him (Q 26:14);
Pharaoh is said to have “enslaved the Children of Israel” (Q 26:22). He
threatens his people who believed in Moses, “Be sure I will cut off your
hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will cause you all to die
on the cross.” (Q 26:50). Noah is also threatened to be stoned to death
(Q 26:116). The folk of Lūṭ threaten to outcast him (Q 26:167). These
tribes are cast as out-groups in terms of power; although they
outnumber the prophets and most of them are in position of supreme
power for being kings, they are disempowered by God, the Almighty.
Describing Noah’s son as “of evil conduct” banishes him as an out-
group member who deserves severe punishment. Noah’s folk are
 102 Roghayeh Farsi
described as “a people given to evil” (Q 21:77). His folk are
predicationally depicted as accusers and mockers who take him as
“only a man possessed: wait (and have patience) with him for a time”
(Q 23:25; Q 54:9); further on, they become a source of danger for Noah,
threatening him, “They said: ‘If you desist not, O Noah! you shall be
stoned (to death).” (Q 26:116).
Ṣāliḥ’s deniers describe him as “one of those bewitched” (Q 26:153).
Like the other folks, his people refuse to believe him, sticking to the
religion of their fathers. He warns them against “evil and mischief on
the earth” (Q 7:74). His folk are described as being “arrogant,”
despising the believers (Q 7:75).
Al-ʿAnkabūt portrays Lūṭ’s folk as “wickedly rebellious” (Q 29:34),
“(addicted) to crime” (Q 29:31), and “people who do mischief” (Q
29:30). In contrast to them, Lūṭ is repeatedly reported to be among the
“righteous” (Q 29:27). Like the other people, his folk challengingly
accuse him of lying, “Bring us the wrath of Allah if you tell the truth.”
(Q 29:29). When punishment is to come, his wife is categorized as an
out-group member, not one of his household; she is “of those who lag
behind” (Q 29:33). In al-Taḥrīm, God discriminates Noah’s and Lūṭ’s
wives from the righteous, calling them betrayers (Q 66:10); they are de-
spatialized as residents of Hell, “Enter you the Fire along with (others)
that enter.” (Q 66:10).
People threaten Shuʿayb, “We shall certainly drive you out of our
city – (you) and those who believe with you; or else (you and they)
shall have to return to our ways and religion.” (Q 7:88). God
discriminates them as “ruined” (Q 7:92) and strikes them with
earthquake. In Hūd, Shuʿayb narrative reappears with almost the same
details, “Give not short measure or weight.” (Q 11:84). In al-Shuʿarāʾ,
Shuʿayb advises his folk to “And weigh with scales true and upright /
And withhold not things justly due to men, nor do evil in the land,
working mischief.” (Q 26:182-3). He is rejected as being “bewitched”
and a liar (Q 26:185 and 186). Like the previous tribes, Shuʿayb’s folk
threaten him to death, “among us we see that you have no strength!
Were it not for your family, we should certainly have stoned you! For
you have among us no great position.” (Q 11:91). They accuse him of
lying (Q 11:93). Like the previous people, they received God’s doom,
“the (mighty) blast did seize the wrong-doers, and they lay prostrate in
their homes by the morning.” (Q 11:94).
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 103

5. Discussion
The analysis of the stories in al-Shuʿarāʾ has revealed their cyclic
narrative structure. The cycle is firmly embedded within the sūrah and
thus interlinks the earlier verses with the later ones. Then the analysis
takes a step further to see how this cyclic structure interconnects the
other sūrahs across the Qurʾān. The recurrence of each prophet’s story
in the previous and succeeding sūrahs creates a link that runs all
through the Qurʾān. It is also shown that the repeated stories may
contribute to the cyclic narratives in al-Shuʿarāʾ in different ways: they
may extend, invert, or expand the narrative. Accordingly, they may re-
emphasize the significance of the narrative or even give the text
narrative tension. Therefore, the narratives here function as means of
cohesion leading to coherence.
The other important issue followed up in the analysis is extracting
the way Us/Them dichotomy is realized all through the seven
narratives in their different versions. It can be argued that God as the
narrator and sole speaker in the Qurʾān discriminates between
believers and non-believers. He puts His messengers, the righteous,
and the believers in the in-group and distinguishes them from the
wrongdoers, deniers, and non-believers. This discrimination is carried
out through referential and predicational strategies. The out-group are
always referred to by pronoun “they,” and objectified as “them” and
“their.” They are discriminated in terms of their perceptionyms since
they do not believe the messengers and God. This perception leads
them to act wrongfully (their actionyms). Their wrong deed leads to
their getting de-spatialized as the folk who deserve severe punishment
and residency in Hell.
As for predicational strategies, the non-believers are depicted in
terms of their character, sin, threat, and power. The Qurʾān presents
their characters differently, but all in a morally negative way. In Moses
narrative, they are condemned as liars and hypocrites; in Abraham
story, they are idolaters. For Noah, they are denouncers, and for
Hūdthey are of evil conduct. In Ṣāliḥ narrative, they are disobedients,
and for Lūṭ they are lewd and sexually pervert. For Shuʿayb, his folk
are cheaters in people’s goods. Therefore, their characters are
portrayed based on their wrong deeds and the sins they commit.
The non-believers pose threats to God’s messengers; Pharaoh
threatens to slay Moses and his followers. Abraham’s folk fling him into
a big fire. Noah and Shuʿayb are threatened to get stoned to death.
 104 Roghayeh Farsi
Ṣāliḥ, Hūd, and Lūṭ are threatened to get outcast from their society.
Only a few of their folk did believe in the prophets; so they comprised
the minor who were rejected and mocked by the major. The major had
power over the minor especially in the case of Moses whose opponent
was the king. In the case of other prophets, the chieftains of their folk
posed the greatest resistance and threat. In comparison to the
chieftains, the non-believers were stronger and their strength itself was
a threat for the believers. However, in comparison to God, the
Almighty, their power was nothing. This point is quite clear in the way
they all were wiped out of the face of the earth, “As if they had never
dwelt and flourished there.” (Q 11:95).
As already mentioned, any discourse based on Us/Them dichotomy
is highly biased. The discourse analysts have based their theories on
political discourse. Christopher Hart studies the referential and
predicational strategies applied by politicians and statesmen against
immigrants and asylum seekers (Hart 2010; see also van Leeuwen
2008; Fairclough 1999, 2010). In the works of these analysts, the bases
of discrimination between the in-group and the out-group are race
(ethnicity, nationality), class, and gender. The in-group as the speaking
self located here and now regards the out-group located there and then
as the threatening “other” and thus seeks ways to evade the (spatial,
racial, sexual, and cultural) intrusion or fusion of the other. However,
such discriminational bases do not apply to the Qurʾānic discourse. As
the analysis of actionyms and perceptionyms of the sūrahs reveal, the
out-group, as non-believers, are distinguished and demarcated from
the in-group because of their own beliefs and actions, not because of
such biological differences as gender or race. Even social class has no
voice in God’s approach to man, or His messengers would have been
selected from among the rich or the chieftains so that they would not
have to suffer so much. This point is expressed explicitly in Sabaʾ
where God says, “It is not your wealth nor your sons, that will bring
you nearer to Us in degree, but only those who belive and work
righteousness.” (Q 34:37). Also in al-Ḥujurāt, the racial, social, and
sexual discriminations are rejected as invalid criteria for membership
in the in-group: “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a
male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may
know each other (not that you may despise each other). Verily the
most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most
righteous of you.” (Q 49:13). In fact, all those people God has exposed
to His doom are receivers of punishment only because of denouncing
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 105

their prophets, mocking them, threatening them, instead of believing

in them and their message. This point draws a sharp contrast between
political and the Qurʾānic discourse. In contrast to the political
discourse where Us/Them dichotomy renders it highly prejudiced, the
Qurʾānic discourse which deploys the same dichotomy but defines it
in other terms is far from being biased or prejudiced against any nation
or group.

6. Conclusion
The present study reacts to the Orientalists’ challenging claim
against the Qurʾān as an incoherent book (Jeffery 1958). Adopting and
adapting the narrative and linguistic methodologies, this study tries to
fill the gap in the Qurʾān studies to prove its overall coherence at both
levels of inter-verse and inter-sūrah. It starts with the analysis of the
narratives in al-Shuʿarāʾ and detects a cyclic narrative structure in the
sūrah which interlinks the beginning with the ending parts. It also
investigates the mention of each one of the prophets narratives in other
sūrahs and shows the kind of relation different versions of the same
narrative has to the cyclic structure in the selected sūrah. It pinpoints
the referential and predicational strategies that the Qurʾānic discourse
deploys to discriminate non-believers as the out-group from believers,
the in-group. In a comparison between the Qurʾānic discourse and
political discourse it is discussed that unlike the latter, the former is
bias-free and its Us/Them dichotomy is based neither on social class,
nor on biological differences (race and gender). Rather, it is only
people’s actions and perceptions (beliefs) that discriminate them from
one another and procure for them membership in the in-group or
outcast them as the out-group.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

FUNDING
The author received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
 106 Roghayeh Farsi

REFERENCES
al-Bayyūmī, Muḥammad Rajab. 2000. al-Bayān al-Qurʾānī. Cairo: Al-Dār al-Miṣriyyah
al-Lubnāniyyah.
Bin Talal, Ghazi bin Muhammad. 2008. General Editor’s Introduction and Foreword to
Jalāl al-Dīn al-Maḥallī and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī’s. Tafsīr al-Jalālayn. x-xx.
Translated by Feras Hamza. Edited and introduced by Ghazi bin Muhammad
bin Talal. Louisville: Fons Vitae.
Chilton, Paul Anthony. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice.
London: Routledge.
Chilton, Paul Anthony, and Christina Schäffner. 1997. “Discourse and Politics.” In
Discourse as Social Interaction, edited by Theo A. van Dijk, 206-230. London:
Sage. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218.
Chittick, William C. 2015. Translator’s Introduction to The unveiling of the mysteries
and the provision of the pious: Kashf al-asrār wa-ʿuddat al-abrār, by Rashīd
al-Dīn Maybudī, ix-xvii. Translated by William C. Chittick. Louisville: Fons
Vitae.
Danto, Arthur C. 1985. Narration and Knowledge. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Draz, Muhammad Abdullah. 2000. Introduction to the Qurʾān. London: I. B. Tauris.
El-Awa, Salwa M. S. 2006. Textual Relations in the Qurʾān: Relevance, Coherence, and
Structure. London and New York: Routledge.
Faircoulgh, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
———. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
———. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. 2nd ed.
London: Longman.
Givon, Thomas. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New
Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jeffery, Arthur, ed. 1958. Islam: Muhammad and His Religion. Indianapolis/New
York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Keeler, Annabel. 2011. Introduction to the Translation to Tafsīr al-Tustarī by Sahl ibn
ʿAbd Allāh al-Tustarī, xv-lix.Translated by Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler.
Louisville: Fons Vitae.
Kurzban, Robert, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides. 2001. “Can Race Be Erased?
Coalitional Computation and Social Categorization.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 98 (26) 2001: 15387-15392.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.251541498.
 Discourse Strategies and Narrative Repetition in the Qurʾān 107
Lovaglia, Michael J., Jeffrey A. Houser, and Chana Barron. 2002. “Social Development
and Human Evolution: Managing the Ingroup Boundary.” Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Chicago.
Makārim Shirāzī, Nāṣir. 2008. Tafsīr Namūnah. 27 vols. Tehran: Dār al-Kutub al-
Islāmiyyah. Also available at:
https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?reader=1&lid=0&mid=22999&catid=6509&pid=
61884. Accessed June 18, 2016.
Polkinghorne, Donald. 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. New York:
State University of New York Press.
Quṭb, Sayyid. 1967. Fī ẓilāl al-Qurʾān. Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth.
al-Rāfiʿī, Muṣṭafá Ṣādiq. 1995. Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān wa-l-balāghah al-nabawiyyah. Beirut:
Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī.
Rauf, Abdul. 2009. “Life and Works of Mawlana Amin Ahsan Islahi (1904-1997).”
Pakistan Journal of History and Culture 30 (1): 183-219.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of
Racism and anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.
Robinson, Neal. 1986. “The Qurʾān as the Word of God.” In Heaven and Earth; Essex
Essays in Theology and Ethics, edited by A. Linzey and P. Wexler, 38-54.
Worthington: Churchman.
———. 1996. Discovering the Qurʾān. London: SCM Press Ltd.
Sands, Kristin Zahra. 2017. Introduction to the Translation to Laṭāʾif al-ishārāt: Subtle
Allusions, by Abū l-Qāsim ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Qushayrī, ix-xxvi. Translated by
Kristin Zahra Sands. Louisville: Fons Vitae.
Schaller, Mark, and Steven L. Neuberg. 2008. “Intergroup Prejudices and Intergroup
Conflicts.” In Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Charles
Crawford and Dennis L. Krebs, 401-414. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Schaller, Mark, Jason Faulkner, Justin H. Park, Steven L. Neuberg, and Douglas T.
Kenrick. 2004. “Impressions of danger influence impressions of people: An
evolutionary perspective on individual and collective cognition.” Journal of
Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology 2: 231-247.
https://doi.org/10.1556/JCEP.2.2004.3-4.4.
Snævarr, Stefan. 2010. Metaphors, Narratives, Emotions: Their Interplay and Impact.
Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789042027800.
Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Muḥammad Ḥusayn. 1997. Tafsīr al-Mīzān. 22 vols. Beirut: Muʾassasat al-
Aʿlamī li-l-Maṭbūʿāt.
Yūsuf ʿAlī, ʿAbd Allāh, trans. 2009. The Meaning of the Holy Qurʾān: Complete
Translation with Selected Notes. Leicestershire: The Islamic Foundation.
 108 Roghayeh Farsi
Van der Dennen, Johan M. G. 1999. “Of Badges, Bounds, and Boundaries:
Ingroup/outgroup Differentiation and Ethnocentrism Revisited.” In
Ingroup/out-group Behavior in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective,
edited by Kristiaan Thienpont and Robert Cliquet, 37-74. Brussels:
VlaamseGemeeschap, 1999.
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
———. 2000a. “The Reality of Racism: On Analyzing Parliamentary Debates on
Immigration.” In Festschrift fur diewirklichkeit, edited by G. Zurstiege, 211-226.
Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-87330-
9_23.
———. 2000b. “On the Analysis of Parliamentary Debates on Immigration.” In The
Semiotics of Racism: Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by R.
Martin and Ruth Wodak, 85-103. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Van Eemeren, Frans. H., Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Douglas
Walton, John Woods, David Zarefsky, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin, and
Charles A. Willard. 2013. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A
Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments.
London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811306.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001.
Wodak, Ruth. 2001. “The Discourse Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical
Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and M. Meyer, 63-94. London: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n4.