درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

- This study aimed at investigating the translation of address terms from Arabic text of the Quran (ST) into English as well as Persian translations (TTs) based on politeness principle. The purpose was to evaluate the two translations in terms of implementing proper polite address terms. The data were gathered from the Original Arabic version of the Quran as the ST and two different versions of its English translations (Gharib and Yusuf Ali) as well as two versions of Persian translations (Fooladvand and Makarem Shirazi) as the TTs.  In order to analyze the data, Brown and Levinson’s (1987) theory of politeness was used. The most frequent translation strategies were also identified according to Vinay and Darbelnet (2012) as well as Harvey and Higgins (1986) for rendering proper nouns. Moreover, the classification of address terms by Aliakbari&Tohi (2008) and address functions by Biber et al (1999) was also applied. To achieve the objectives, the following steps were taken: address terms were extracted from Arabic, English and Persian texts of the Quran. Then, they were classified to different types, after that politeness principles used in the Arabic text of the Quran and their rendering were compared and contrasted, and finally translation strategies applied to render Arabic address terms into English and Persian were identified. The results of the study revealed that all versions of English and Persian translations depicted the psychological distance between Allah and people as the Arabic version of the Quran. Also, the findings showed that in the translation of address terms from SL into TTs translators did their best to maintain the words of Allah by rendering the words literally.

Shirā’ is one of the most important economic exchanges in Arabian Peninsula at the age of revelation of the Holy Qur’an. Taking critical approach towards the idea of synonymy between Shirā’ and other economic exchanges like Bayʿ and Tijāra, this essay identifies its unique entity and functions. According to evidences, Shirā’ denotes the direct exchange of goods for each other without the medium of money. Moreover, linguistic evidences indicate two origins for the term "Shirā’" merged with each other throughout a linguistic contact. Therefore, "Shirā’" signifies a special type of barter exchange which is described by economic anthropologists as "zero-sum game barter". These results have been strengthened by (a) anthropological data on barters, (b) environmental data on Arabian Peninsula, and (c) Qur’anic usages of this term. Eventually, the reason for metaphorical usages of this term in the Holy Qur’an is also examined.

Shia and Sunni commentators have come to understand some of the rules of the Qur'anic verses, and to understand and analyze these rules as one of the requirements of identifying and classifying various interpretative methods. While they have often not only have not explained the rules they have adopted, but also they have even used interpretive rules without specifying the rules, even under different names. Therefore, in order to evaluate the interpretive methods of the interpreters, one has to discover their unknown rules. The interpretive rule of "Beat one to frighten another" is one of the rules that this paper seeks to streamline its use in the Shia and Sunni interpretations in various times. This rule has been used by most Shia and Sunni commentators since its inception, sometimes by name and sometimes without mentioning the phrase "Beat one to frighten another" and has often been used to justify and analyze the verses blaming the Prophet. In the meantime, Shi''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''ite commentators have used this rule far more in the prophetic transcendence, in line with stricter theological principles in the field of infallibility. Examining many cases of the use of the interpretive rule of "Beat one to frighten another" in the multiple interpretations of Shia and Sunni regarding their time periods, suggests that commentators have never had a fixed and consistent method to use it, and they have often used this rule as a loophole. As even in the context of the verses of blame, not only have they not used this interpretive rule in a fixed way and below the specified verses, but also, when there is no collective way between the Book and the infallibility of the prophets, they have used the rule of "Beat one to frighten another" in a dispersed and unpredictable way along with some other rules.