The Rhetorical Argument of Negation and Interrogation in Surah Al-Hum: An Analytical Study

Abstract

This research aims to examine the rhetorical argumentation of negation and interrogation in the Ḥā-Mīm Surahs (Āl Ḥā-Mīm) through an analysis of their semantic and persuasive functions in Qurʾānic discourse. The study proceeds from the premise that negation and interrogation in these surahs are not merely linguistic or syntactic devices; rather, they function as effective argumentative mechanisms that contribute to establishing doctrinal truths, refuting doubts, and addressing both reason and emotion. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach, supported by rhetorical–argumentative and contextual methodologies, to reveal how tools of negation are employed to invalidate false claims and affirm major doctrinal issues such as monotheism, resurrection, and revelation. It also elucidates the role of rhetorical interrogation in achieving purposes such as denial, affirmation, reproach, and intellectual stimulation. In addition, the study seeks to highlight the relationship between the polemical Qurʾānic context and the orientation of the argumentative meanings of these devices. The research concludes that the Ḥā-Mīm Surahs constitute a prominent model of Qurʾānic argumentative discourse, in which negation and interrogation integrate to construct coherent and compelling arguments that progress from rational refutation to psychological impact, thereby enhancing the rhetorical persuasiveness of the Qurʾānic text. The findings further demonstrate that the combination of negation and interrogation produces a complex argumentative effect that reinforces meaning, obliges the addressee through proof, and brings about the intended intellectual transformation.