بلاغة الخطاب الإقناعي وتداولية الجدل الكلامي -تطبيقات حجاجية ومقاربات جمالية في النص العقائدي

Abstract

The relationship between theological schools and argumentative practice is similar to the relationship between language and interpretation. They all agree on the "discourse" but differ in the "methodology." Interpretations of "texts" led to conflicts in "beliefs," and theology became a sterile debate devoid of ethics, literature, or strategies. Each side sought to exaggerate, outdo, and denounce. Were these readings an intellectual gain for the theological system, or were they merely rhetorical embellishment and theological sophistry serving sectarian interests at the expense of the aims of knowledge? Did these disagreements contribute to the development of argumentative tradition and the advancement of religious discourse, or did they hinder the study of life and livelihood in Islamic philosophy in favor of problems of theology, attributes, and metaphysics? Is the debate between theological schools a dialogue, discussion, and argumentation, or merely a defense and conflict? And how was language employed in the principles of argumentation among these schools? And how do we establish new discourses in understanding religious texts that are based on awareness of heritage in a way that serves argumentative practice and responds to rhetorical aesthetics, applied ethics, and employing narrative for the benefit of persuading the recipient?