Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD. Candidate of Quran and Hadith Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Department of Quran and Hadith Sciences, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

3 Associated Professor of Department of Linguistics, Institute for Hummanities & Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

 INTRODUCTION
The two concepts of guidance and misguidance in the Qur'an conceptualized based on the mega-metaphor WORSHIP OF THE GOD IS TO BE ON A PATH. These two concepts are completely dependent on the category of movement. This mega-metaphor includes components such as the conceptualization of divine messengers as a guide (cf. A'raf / 158), following the divine commands as moving towards God (cf. Nisa/ 100), reaching high human degrees in the form of Approaching God (cf. Al-Imran/ 45), and not accepting the worship of God in the form of deviating from the path (cf. Baqarah/ 108). Satan also plays a role here as an effective element in misleading.
The movement basis of the mega-metaphor predominaates the conceptualization of misguidance and the influence of the Satan in misleading. The important role of motion in shaping human thought as one of the most common experiential cognitive domains in all languages (Azkia et al., 2015, p.32) has led the present study to investigate the conceptualization of Satan and its effect on human misguidance based on the category of motion.
In recent years, several studies conducted on Quranic concepts from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. For example, Hooshangi & Saifi (2009) and Gaeminia (2011) have examined examples of conceptual metaphors in the Qur'an. However, the present study is unique in terms of using cognitive linguistics based on the category of movement in the study of how to conceptualize the concept of the devil.
 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

First, all the verses in the Quran were extracted with the keywords of Satan and Iblis, and then, by manual examination, the related verses added to the corpus. Then, by studying the mentioned verses, the verses in which the category of movement played a role in conceptualization became the basis of further studies. In total, in relation to the category of movement in the conceptualization of Satan and Iblis, a corpus with 107 verses consisting of 78 motion events obtained. This corpus became the basis for studying how the Satan/ Iblis conceptualized based on the category of motion.
 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The corpus can divide into two parts: 1- The condition of the Satan/ Iblis himself and 2- the influence of Satan on the misguidance of humans beings
The change of the state of the Satan from the creature who was in the position of angels to the current state initially conceptualized as leaving a specific place without referring to the destination of movement and without force.
Misleading Adam and Eve by Satan conceptualized as slipping, getting them out of a certain place to an indefinite place, and moving from top to bottom. The first stage of the misguidance of Adam and Eve expressed as the departure from the place under the influence of the power of Satan, which refers to the influence of Satan in the "primary misguidance"; In this way, the misleading which is provoked by God includes only those who have already disobeyed His command voluntarily (secondary misguidance), but Satan misleads people without such grounds. In this way, these two completely abstract concepts (primary and secondary misguidance) conceptualized in a complete sensory way based on the category of motion and force schema.
According to the mega-metaphor WORSHIP OF THE GOD IS TO BE ON A PATH, Satan, as the one who obstructs the path of movement and takes man out of his path, throws him from top to bottom, causes him to slip and shake violently, holds him back and dragshim to an unknown place, is conceptualized. Man's daily experience of movement has shown him that the existence of an obstacle in the path of movement and getting out of the path is undesirable. Vibration, slippage, and strong shaking are reminiscent of earthquakes and are very undesirable, and moving from top to bottom is reminiscent of falling, which in addition to being frightening indicates a transition from favorable to unfavorable. In contrast, following the divine messengers conceptualized as moving in an unobstructed, fearless, and upward direction, all of which is desirable in human sensory-motor experience.
In the conceptualization of man who has accepted the temptations of Satan, the knowledge-based metaphor SATAN IS THE PROPHET has the greatest role; in such a way that Satan is conceptualized as a prophet and his false words are conceptualized as the holy book. The concept of following the Satan as an abstract concept placed in the sensory circle of human perception in such a way that the path of worship, if followed by the messenger of God, is a path without obstacles, clear and without fear to the top and destination of God. On the contrary, deviating from this path and placing the Satan in the place of God's messenger and his word instead of the holy book is deviation and movement in pursuit of a moving and unstable destination in a slippery path to an indefinite goal.
In all cases related to the conceptualization of Satan as an effective factor in the misguidance of humans, the destination of the movement is unknown or Satan introduced as a moving and unstable destination.
 

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide a comprehensible sensory picture of the situation and position of the devil in the guidance-misguidance system and the consequences of following the Satan.
The formation of this undesirable image in the human mind based on human experience of movement creates an unfavorable sense of accepting the temptation of the Satan and leads the audience to reject the words of the Satan.

Keywords

  1. Afrashi, A. (2016). Introducting cognitive semantics. Tehran: Institute for Hummanities & Cultural Studies [In Persian]
  2. Al-Azhari, M. (2001). Tahdhib al-lugha. Beirut: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi [In Arabic]
  3. Al-Farahidi, Kh. (1986). Al-Ayn. Qom: Hejrat [In Arabic]
  4. Ali, J. (1993). Al-Mufasal of Arabs history in the Pre-Islamic period. Baghdad: Baghdad University [In Arabic].
  5. Al-Juhari, I. H. (1956). Al-Sihah. Beirut: Dar al-Ilm Lilmalayin [In Arabic].
  6. Al-Mustafawi, H. (2009). Exploration in the words of the holy Quran. Beirut: DKI [In Arabic]
  7. Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, H. (1992). Mufradat alfaz al-Quran. Beirut: dar al-ghalam [In Arabic]
  8. Al-Zabidi, M. (1993). Taj al-Arus. Beirut: dar al-fekr [In Arabic].
  9. Ansarian, H. (2004). Translation of the holy Quran. Qom: Osveah [In Persian]
  10. Azkia, N., Sasani, F., & Afrashi, A. (2015). Lexicalization as a framework for explaining non-simple verbs in Persian. Journal of Language Research, 10 (14), 31-57 [In Persian]
  11. Brinkman, J., Civil, M., Gelb, I., Oppenheim, L., & Reiner, E. (2004). The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
  12. Brun, S.J. (1895). Dictionarium Syriaco-Latnum. Typo. PP. Soc. Jesu: Beryti Phoeniciorum.
  13. Costaz, L. (2002). Dictionarie Syriaque-Francais/ Syriac-English Dictionary. Beirut: Dar El-Machreq.
  14. Dillmann, A. (1865). Lexicon linguae Aethiopicae. Lipsiae: T. O. Weigel.
  15. Dodge, E., & Lakoff, G. (2005). Image schemas: From linguistic analysis to neural grounding. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  16. Elahi Qomshehei, M. (2001). Translation of the Holy Quran. Qom: Fatimah al-Zahra [In Persian]
  17. Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  18. Farsi, J. (1990). Translation of the Holy Quran. Tehran: Anjam-ketab [In Persian].
  19. Fattahizadeh, F., Jalali, S., & Abadi, F. (2017). Semantic analysis of "idlale alahi" in the Holy Quran. Biannual Research Journal of Quranic Interpretation and Language, 5(2), 199-216 [In Persian]
  20. Gesenius, W. (1939). A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testsment. New York: Oxford university press.
  21. Ibn Manzur, M. (1994). Lisan al-Arab. Beirut: darsader [In Arabic]
  22. Jastrow, M. (1903). A Dictionary of the Targumin, The Talmod babli and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic literature. London: Luzac.
  23. Javadi-Amoli, A. (2010). Tasnim. Qom: Esra [In Persian]
  24. Johnson, M. (2005). The philosophical significance of image schemas. In B. Hampe (Ed.), From perception to meaning: Image schemas in cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  25. Johnson, M. (2019). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason (J. Mirzabeigy, Trans.), Tehran: Agah [In Persian].
  26. Kovecses, Z. (2017) Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor (J. Mirzabeigy, Trans.), Tehran: Agah [In Persian].
  27. Kovecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor:A practical introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2016a). Metaphors we live by (H. Aghaebrahimi, Trans.), Tehran: Elmi [In Persian]
  29. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2016b). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought (J. Mirzabeigy, Trans.), Tehran: Agah [In Persian]
  30. Lakoff, G., & Nunez, R. (2017). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being? (J. Mirzabeigy, Trans.), Tehran: Agah [In Persian]
  31. Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor: Metaphor and thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Leslau, W. (1991). Comparative dictionary of Geʻez. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  33. Mashkur, M. J. (n.d.) Coparative dictionary of Arabic, Persian, and Semitic languages, Tehran: Bonyad-e Farhang-e Iran [In Persian].
  34. Meshkini, A. (2002). Translation of the Holy Quran. Qom: al-Hadi [In Persian].
  35. Pourebrahim, Sh. (2014). The conceptualizations of, life in Quranic language. Zabanpazhuhi, 6 (10), 63-83 [In Persian].
  36. Pourebrahim, Sh. , Golfam, A., Agha Golzade, F., & Kord Zafaranlu Kambuzia, A. (2011). A study of the knowledge concept in Holy Quran language: Cognitive semantics framework. Journal of Researches in Linguistics, 3(2), 19-34 [In Persian].
  37. Pourjavadi, K. (1994). Translation of the Holy Quran. Tehran: Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation [In Persian].
  38. Rezaee-Esfahani, M. A., ShirAfkan, H., Homaee, Gh., Esmaeeli, M., & Amini, M. (2004). Translation of the Holy Quran. Qom: darzekr [In Persian].
  39. Smith, P. (1957). A compendious Syric dictionary. Britain: Oxford.
  40. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantics Sstructure. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
  41. Tabatabai, M. H. (1997). Al-Mizan fi tafsir al-Quran. Qom: Jami'a-yi Mudarrisin-i Hawza-yi 'Ilmiyya-yi Qom [In Arabic].
  42. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  43. Taylor, J. (2003). Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. The Holy Quran (2004). Translation of the Holy Quran (Tenth century AH), Tehran: Farhangestan-e-zaban-va-addab-e-farsi [In Persian].
  45. Yasseri, M. (1995). Translation of the Holy Quran. Qom: Bonyad-e Imam Mahdi [In Persian].
  46. Zammit, M. (2002). A comprative lexical study of Qurʼanic Arabic. Boston: Brill.