قرآنی استدلال کی ساخت اور معاصر فکری بیانیے: منتخب قرآنی مقامات کا تجزیاتی مطالعہ

The Structure of Qur’anic Argumentation and Contemporary Intellectual Discourses: An Analytical Study of Selected Qur’anic Passages

Abstract

This study analyses the structure of Qur’anic argumentation and examines its capacity to engage contemporary intellectual discourses. Proceeding from the premise that the Qur’an is not merely a repository of injunctions but a sustained rational address that invites scrutiny, the article investigates how Qur’anic passages formulate claims, marshal evidence, anticipate objections and draw conclusions. The research adopts an analytical and comparative methodology. The analysis draws on classical exegetical sources and on contemporary scholarship in Islamic studies, philosophy and rhetoric. First, it clarifies the key terms of Qur’anic reasoning, namely hujjah, burhan, sultan, bayyinah and jadal, through classical lexicography and exegesis. Second, it develops an analytical framework that combines classical Muslim categories of dialectic and theology with Stephen Toulmin’s layout of arguments and Chaïm Perelman’s theory of audience-oriented argumentation. Third, it applies this framework to selected passages, including Q 21:22 (mutual hindrance), Q 52:35–36 (the argument from dilemma), Q 6:76–79 and 2:258 (Abraham’s dialogues), Q 36:78–82 (resurrection), Q 2:23 and 17:88 (the challenge), and Q 16:125, 29:46 and 3:64 (the ethics of dialogue). The findings are then placed in conversation with four contemporary discourses: scientific naturalism and the New Atheism, secular liberal public reason, postmodern scepticism and the historicity of the text, and internal Muslim debates among revivalist, modernist and traditionalist positions. The article argues that Qur’anic argumentation follows a recurrent four-stage pattern of claim, signs and premises, response to objection, and call to action; that it is audience-sensitive and cumulative rather than purely formal; and that it is inseparable from moral accountability. It further contends that, although this model cannot be reduced to modern formal logic or to the demands of purely secular public reason, it offers resources for a principled, evidence-oriented and civil engagement with contemporary thought. The study concludes with recommendations for curriculum design, interfaith dialogue and further research.