Civility in Imam Hassan's Speech: A Pragma-Rhetorical Study
Civility in Imam Hassan's Speech: A Pragma-Rhetorical Study
Civility in Imam Hassan's Speech: A Pragma-Rhetorical Study
A Pragma-Rhetorical Study
[email protected]
[email protected]
Received: 2/11/2020
Accepted : 2/12/2020
Abstract
Civil discourse is the discourse of peace and humanity values.
On this basis, civility is defined as the civilized verbal and nonverbal
behaviors; especially: politeness and courtesy. Thus, one can argue
that ‘peace’ and ‘politeness’ constitute the basic concepts in this
respect. This, in turn, makes civility associated with qualities that
are phrased in terms of the virtues and manners of individuals –
tolerance, self-restraint, mutual respect, commitment to other peo-
ple, social concern, involvement, and responsibility (Evers, 2009:
241). It has been noticed that this issue has not been given its due
scholarly investigation from a pragmatic point of view. Hence, the
current study sets itself the task of investigating it, i.e. civility, in a
certain religious context wherein it is believed that this issue can
prevail. This context is represented by speeches delivered by an in-
fallible character embodied by Imam Hassan Bin Ali Talib, the son
of the cousin of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.T). The investigation is
conducted within the framework of pragma rhetoric (interpersonal
rhetoric) with the aims of finding out how civility is pragma-rhe-
torically manifested in Imam Hassan’s speeches. Civility and polite-
ness are universal concepts, but they vary from culture to another.
Therefore, data are analyzed by means of a model which is adapted
to suit Arab and Islamic culture.
1. Introduc�on
Civil discourse is the discourse that includes politeness, peace and
other humanity values. Civility is defined as the civilized verbal and
nonverbal behaviors; especially: politeness and courtesy. Thus, one
can argue that ‘peace’ and ‘politeness’ constitute the basic concepts
in this respect. This, in turn, makes civility associated with qualities
that are phrased in terms of the virtues and manners of individuals
– tolerance, self-restraint, mutual respect, commitment to other peo-
ple, social concern, involvement, and responsibility (Evers, 2009: 241).
It has been noticed that this issue has not been given its due
scholarly investigation from a pragmatic point of view. Hence, the
current study sets itself the task of investigating it, i.e. civility, in a
certain religious context wherein it is believed that this issue can
prevail. This context is represented by speeches delivered by an in-
fallible character embodied by Imam Hassan Bin Ali Talib, the son
of the cousin of Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.T). The investigation is
conducted within the framework of pragma rhetoric (interpersonal
rhetoric) with the aims of finding out how civility is pragma-rhe-
torically manifested in Imam Hassan’s speeches. Civility and polite-
ness are universal concepts, but they vary from culture to another.
Therefore, data are analyzed by means of a model which is adapted
to suit Arab and Islamic culture.
2. Pragma�cs: An Overview
Pragmatics is one of the language levels of analysis and linguistic
branch which traces back with its name to Carles Moris (1938). He
defines this field as “the study of the relation of signs to interpret-
ers”. There are many other old and modern definitions of this field;
one of these definitions is raised by Mey (2009: 744). He points out
that pragmatics “is concerned with meaning in the context of lan-
guage use”. There are some theories and concepts which represent
the bases of this field. The most important theory in this field is the
speech act theory which is proposed by J. L. Austin and developed
by Searle (1969). Yule (1996: 47) defines speech acts as “actions
performed via u�erances.” Some of the famous speech acts are:
stages and its main concern through these stages is to show the var-
ious modes of persuasion. Leech (1983: 15) argues that the central
focus of rhetoric based on how a speaker uses language in a specific
way to impact his addressees. He adopts Halliday’s classification of
rhetoric into interpersonal and textual. Each of the two types is built
on a set of principles, like the politeness principle and cooperative
principle, which include main and sub-maxims.
Kennedy (2007) defines rhetoric as: “the energy inherent in
emotion and thought transmi�ed through a system of signs, includ-
ing language, to others to influence their decisions or actions. When
we express emotions and thoughts to other people with the goal of
influencing (persuading) them, we are engaged in rhetoric.”
4. Pragma-Rhetoric
The marriage between rhetoric and pragmatics is a marriage be-
tween ‘ancient’ and ‘modern’. The main motivation for such marriage
is that the two deals with the way language is used. Archer et al (2012:
148-9) indicate that the meeting point of the two fields lies upon the
way in which language is used, explicitly or implicitly, to guide other
toward a specific act. According to Persson and Ylikoski (2007: 55),
rhetoric is already pragmatic in nature because it deals with some-
thing beyond what is literally said. Rhetoric, like pragmatics, aims to
make a change in reality by using set linguistic devices. However, as
Larsson (1998: 9) refers, the two can be differentiated mentioning
that rhetoric is a�er persuasion and pragmatics is a�er description.
Larrazabal and Korta (2002:1) define the hybrid field in question
as “combining both disciplines in order to explain the intentional
phenomena that occur in most communicative uses of language,
namely the communicative intention and the intention of persuad-
ing”. Walson (2004: 21) indicates that the goal of this field is to dis-
cuss language be effective in certain contexts in order to convince
the addressees. He (2007:18) indicates that rhetorical pragmatics
discusses how a speaker generates reasonable emotions in his ad-
dressees (pathos), how to produce a reliable character (ethos), and
how to represent the available arguments and facts (logos). In ad-
dition, it studies how the rhetorical devices like metaphor and irony
are used to a�ract the audience’s a�ention. The relationship that
combines rhetoric, persuasion and argument is shown in Figure (1).
concern for pragmatics and it lies in the area that joins pragmatics
and rhetoric. Tropes are divided into two types: destabilization and
substitution (McQuarrie and Mick 1996:429).
1. Destabilization Tropes: in this type of tropes, an expression
means beyond what is said and it is le� to the addressee to deal
with the implicature (McQuarrie and Mick1996:433). The most fa-
mous tropes are: metaphor, simile, irony and pun.
a. Metaphor: it is a widely studied rhetorical figure of speech
which is our concern in the current study. The general definition
of metaphor is talking about something in terms of something else
overlaps with it in some aspects. Arends and Kilcher (2010:176)
indicate to metaphor in terms of comparison. In many times the
comparison is between abstract and concrete entities. This facili-
tates our understanding of the abstract phenomena through talking
about them in terms of physical entities. For example, ‘life is a com-
plicated machine’. Metaphor has been studied widely in cognitive
linguistics. One of the sophisticated cognitive linguistic studies is
conducted by Fauconnier and Turner (2002) which is adopted in the
current study.
b. Simile: it is the direct manifestation of metaphor. The com-
parison between the two entities is linguistically encoded by using
“like” or “as” (Cruse, 2006: 165). For example, ‘he is like lion’.
c. Irony: it is the linguistic phenomenon in which the speaker
means the opposite to what he says, for example, when a person
says “what a sunny!” in a stormy day (Xiang Li, 2008: 5). Pragmat-
ically, irony is a strategy of indirect speech acts and sometimes it
generates conversational implicatures (A�ardo, 2001: 165).
d. Pun: it is a type of rhetorical strategy, as Bussmann (1996: 968),
of “words play’’. The speaker combines two words with similar pro-
nunciations and contrastive meanings. Pragmatically, pun is a kind
of ambiguous meaning occurs as a result of flouting the maxim of
manner. It activates the two contrastive meanings at the same time.
praise his fathers to prove for the Islamic society his right in leading
the nation and because his enemies was dispraising his father.
(1) « وﻣﻦ ﺧ�ج ﻣﻨﻪ �ﺎن �ﺎﻓﺮا،( “إن ﻋﻠ�ﺎ �ﺎب ﻣﻦ دﺧﻠﻪ �ﺎن آﻣﻨﺎP. 7)
Ali was a gate in which anyone enters be safe and anyone gets
out be infidel….
(2) «...اﻟﺪا� إ� ﷲ ﺑ�ذﻧﻪ
� اﻟﻤﻧ� أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ
� اﻟ�ﺸ� اﻟﻨﺬﻳﺮ أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ اﻟ�اج
� ( »أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦP. 16)
I am the son of the forerunner and harbinger; I am the son of the
shining light; I am the son that who ergs people to believe in God...
(3) ا� ﷲ ﺻﺎﺋﺐ ﻋ� أﻋﺪاء � ﻟﻘﺪ ﻓﺎرﻗ�ﻢ �ﺎﻷﻣﺲ ﺳﻬﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺮ،»�ﺎ أﻫﻞ اﻟ�ﻮﻓﺔ
«... ﻧ�ﺎل ﻋ� ﻓﺠﺎر ﻗ��ﺶ،( ﷲP. 20)
Oh people of Kufa, yesterday one of God’s arrows le� you; it was
pointed toward His enemies; tormented to Quraish’s Ungodly mebers…
،أ� ﻃﺎﻟﺐ � � �
� � ﻋ� ﺑﻦ
� �ﻌﺮﻓ� ﻓﺄﻧﺎ اﻟﺤﺴﻦ ﺑﻦ
� ﻋﺮﻓ� وﻣﻦ ﻟﻢ
� ﻋﺮﻓ� ﻓﻘﺪ� »أﻳﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﺎس ﻣﻦ
«... أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻌﻠﺖ ﻟﻪ اﻷرض ﻣﺴﺠﺪا وﻃﻬﻮرا،ﻧ� ﷲ � � ( أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦP.51)
O people who do not know me, I am Hassan ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib;
I am the prophet’s son; I am son of the person for whom earth be-
came mosque and thora...
(4) أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ أول ﻣﻦ ﻳﻨﻔﺾ، أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ اﻟﺸﻔﻴﻊ اﻟﻤﻄﺎع،»أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺘﺠﺎب ﻟﻠﺪﻋﻮة
�ﻧ �
� � أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻗﺎﺗﻠﺖ اﻟﻤﻼﺋﻜﺔ ﻣﻌﻪ وﻟﻢ ﺗﻘﺎﺗﻞ ﻣﻊ، و�ﻘ�ع �ﺎب اﻟﺠﻨﺔ،رأﺳﻪ ﻋﻦ اﻟ�اب
«... أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﻧ� ﻋ� اﻷﺣﺰاب،( ﻗ�ﻠﻪP. 51)
I am the son of the person whose prayer is responded; I am the son
of the intercessor; I am the son of the first to shake off dust from his
head, and knock on the gate of heaven; I am son of the prophet with
whom the angels fought; they had never fought with another proph-
et; I am son of the prophet who was advocated against the parties.
(5) أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ، أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎد اﻟﻮرى ﻛﺮﻣﺎ وﻧ�ﻼ،»أﻧﺎ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻦ ﺳﺎد ﻗ��ﺸﺎ ﺷﺎ�ﺎ وﻛﻬﻼ
«...( ﺳﺎد أﻫﻞ اﻟﺪﻧ�ﺎ �ﺎﻟﺠﻮد اﻟﺼﺎدقP. 52)
I am son of the person who became the Quraish as a young and
as an old man; I am son of the noblest and the most generous man;
I am son of the most honest ma…
Allah and you are witnesses that I had not wanted except stopping
war and spreading peace among you. Therefore, fear Allah and accept
your fate; leave Allah guides you; stay in your homes; stop fighting...
� � »ﻮﷲ
(7) ﻟ� ﺗﺬﻟﻮا وﺗﻌﺎﻓﻮا أﺣﺐ إ� ﻣﻦ أن ﺗﻌﺰوا وﺗﻘﺘﻠﻮا ﻓﺈن رد ﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻨﺎ ﺣﻘﻨﺎ
�
� وﺳﺄﻟﻨﺎ � اﻟﻌﻮد ﻋ� أﻣﺮە و�ن �ﻓﻪ ﻋﻨﺎ رﺿ�ﻨﺎ وﺳﺄﻟﻨﺎ ﷲ اﻟﻌﻮن ﻋ،�� ﻋﺎﻓ�ﺔ ﻗ�ﻠﻨﺎ
«...( أﻣﺮەP. 71)
To be humiliated in peace be�er, for me, than being honorable
in war; we will accept if Allah gets our right back while we are in
peace and we will be satisfied also if He do not do; and we ask Him
to grant us His help...
(8) �� � �� أن اﺗﻮ� اﻣﺮ اﻣﺔ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺻﻞ ﷲ
� ﻳﻨﻔﻌ� وﻣﺎ
�
� »ﻣﺎ أﺣﺒ�ﺖ ﻣﻨﺬ ﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﻣﺎ
�
«... !( ﻋﻠ�ﻪ وﺳﻠﻢ ﻋ� أن ﻳﻬﺮق )�ﺴﺎل( �� ذﻟﻚ ﻣﺤﺠﻤﺔ دمh�ps://www.alukah.
net/culture/0/123364/#ixzz5vdJ9mvs1)
I did not like shedding a drop of blood since I had learned what ben-
efits me and what hurts me to take over the nation of Muhammad...
ﱡ
(9) إﻣﺎ أن �ﻜﻮن ﺣﻖ اﻣﺮئ ﻓﻬﻮ أﺣﻖ،»إن ﻫﺬا اﻷﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي اﺧﺘﻠﻔﺖ ﻓ�ﻪ أﻧﺎ وﻣﻌﺎو�ﺔ
َ � �
«... ﻓﻘﺪ ﺗﺮﻛﺘﻪ إرادة إﺻﻼح اﻷﻣﺔ وﺣﻘﻦ دﻣﺎﺋﻬﺎ،�� و�ﻣﺎ أن �ﻜﻮن ﺣﻘﺎ ﻫﻮ،�ﻣ
� �ﻪ
(h�ps://www.alukah.net/culture/0/123364/#ixzz5vdKDOzGA)
The issue that I and Muawiya have disagreed over is either another
person’s right or my own right that I le� to stop fight and spread peace...
b. Antiracial discourse: the discourse must not contain any sign
of any form of racialism. In Imam Hassan’s speeches, no one can
find any sign of racialism. He always uses general words that ad-
dress all human beings without as in the following qoutations.
(1) «...( »أﻳﻬﺎ اﻟﻨﺎس ﺳﻤﻌﺖ ﺟﺪيP. 12)
O people, I heard my grandfather….
�
(2) «...( “�ﺎ اﺑﻦ آدم ﻟﻢ ﺗﺰل �� ﻫﺪم ﻋﻤﺮكP. 15)
O Adam’s son, you still destroy your age...
(3) «...( ”�ﺎ ﺑﻦ آدم ﻋﻒP. 15)
O Adam’s son, leave…
d. Social Concern: the speaker should tackle topics that are im-
portant to his society like poverty, lack of education, and many oth-
er issues that affect life of the society. In the following quotations,
Imam Hassan talks about some significant issues for his society. In
the first quotation, he tackles the ma�er of rain which is considered
as an existential issue for his society and the only source of water.
He also talks about the economic issue like prices. In the second
quotation, he urges unity of the Islamic society which is so impor-
tant issue at that time because of the civil war between Muslims. In
the last two quotations, he indicates importance of education.
� � و�ﺬورﻧﺎ،»اﻟﻠﻬﻢ اﺳﻖ ﺳﻬﻠﻨﺎ وﺟ�ﻠﻨﺎ
(1) �� وﺗ�ﺎرك ﻟﻨﺎ،ﺣ� ﺗﺮﺧﺺ �ﻪ أﺳﻌﺎرﻧﺎ
��
«...�اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤ � � وﻣﺪﻧﺎ أرﻧﺎ اﻟﺮزق ﻣﻮﺟﻮدا واﻟﻐﻼء ﻣﻔﻘﻮدا،( ﺻﺎﻋﻨﺎP. 43)
أﻣ� �ﺎ رب
O Allah, water our plain, mountain, and seeds to make prices
cheaper; O Allah, bless our food; and make livelihood available and
end price rises, amen.
�
(2) ، إﻧﻪ ﻟﻢ �ﺠﺘﻤﻊ ﻗﻮم ﻗﻂ ﻋ� أﻣﺮ واﺣﺪ إﻻ اﺷﺘﺪ أﻣﺮﻫﻢ... »� وﺣﺪة اﻟﺼﻒ ﻗﺎل
�
«...( واﺳﺘﺤ�ﻤﺖ ﻋﻘﺪﺗﻬﻢP. 59)
About unity, he said: any group of people agrees on following
one leader will be stronger and their unity will be harder…
(3) ﻓﺘﻜﻮن ﻗﺪ أﺗﻘﻨﺖ ﻋﻠﻤﻚ وﻋﻠﻤﺖ ﻣﺎ ﻟﻢ،ﻏ�ك
� وﺗﻌﻠﻢ ﻋﻠﻢ،»ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﻨﺎس
«...( ﺗﻌﻠﻢP. 115)
Teach people and learn the other’s sciences to master your
knowledge and learn what you ignore.
� »ﻣﻦ
(4) «...أ�� ﻣﻦ ﻣﺠﺎﻟﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﺎء أﻃﻠﻖ ﻋﻘﺎل ﻟﺴﺎﻧﻪ وﻓﺘﻖ ﻣﺎ رﺗﻖ ﻣﻦ ذﻫﻨﻪ
(P. 118)
Anyone a�ends the scholars’ sessions repeatedly; he will have a
tac�ul tongue and though�ul mind...
e. Responsibility: the speaker should reflect his feeling of re-
sponsibility toward the society through urging people to behave
peacefully, kindly and morally. In the following quotations, Imam
Hassan tackles different topics and insists on many civil values. In
the first quotation he insists on the value of consultation against
7. Conclusion
In light of what have been discussed before, some points can be
concluded in relation to the question that this paper built upon,
these points are:
1. Civility is a pragma-rhetorical device used in Imam Hassan’s
speech.
2. Civility is represented in many forms in Imam Hassan’s
speech, these forms are: polite behaviors, speech loaded with the
human values that are connected with civility.
3. Each of these forms and values is considered as pragma-rhe-
torical sub-device to persuade listeners.
References
• Archer, D. et al (2012). Pragmatics: an Advanced Resource Book
for Students. Routledge: Applied Linguistics.
• Arends, R. and Kilcher, A. (2010). Teaching for Student Learning:
Becoming an Accomplished Teacher. Routledge. Library of Con-
gress Cataloging in Publication Data.
• A�ardo, S. (2001). Humor and Irony in Interaction: From Mode
Adoption to Failure of Deletion. ISO Press, pp. 166-185.
• Aziz, Y. and Lataiwish, M. (2000). Principles of Translation. Beng-
hazi: Dar Annahda Alarabya.
• Bussmann Hadumod (1996). Routledge Dictionary of Language
and Linguistics. Routledge. Translated and edited by Gregory Trauth
and Kerstin Kazzazi.
• Corbe�, E. (1990). Classical Rhetoric for Modern Students. New
York: OUP.
• Cruse, A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edin-
burgh: EUP.
• Evers, A. (2009). Civicness and civility: Their meanings for social
services. Voluntas 20,239-259.
• Fauconnier, G. and Mark T. (2002). The Way We Thank. New York:
Basic Books.
• Grice, Paul. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Reprinted from Syn-
tax and Semantics 3: Speech acts, Cole et al. “Logic and Conversa-
tion”, pp.41-58, (1975), with permission from Elsevier.
• Kennedy, G. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civk Discourse. Ox-
ford: OUP.
• Korta, K. and J. Larrazabal (2001). Pragmatics and Rhetoric for
Discourse Analysis. University of Basque Country (4), pp: 7-13.
• Larsson, S. (1998). Ancient Rhetoric and Modern Rhetoric: Course
paper in The History of Linguistics. Goteborg: Goteborg University.