Most of the exegetes of the Qur’an maintain that the term “rabbi” (My Lord) in the verse rabb-irji‘ūni (My lord! Take me back, Q: 23:99) is noun in vocative (munādā) and the sentence irji‘ū+ni (consisting of verb and direct object) is an imperative sentence pertaining to it (jawāb al-nidā’). Naturally, the sentence occurring after the noun in vocative should agree in number with the noun in vocative. Therefore, the verb “irji‘ū+ni” should have occurred in singular paradigm (irji‘+ni and not irji‘ū+ni). Since the verb (irji‘ūni) has occurred in the form of plural, the collocation of these two phrases (i.e. rabb-irji‘ūni) has become questionable. Most of the Shi’a and Sunni exegetes of the Qur’an believe that the addressee in the sentence rabb-irji‘ūni is God and the application of the plural form is a call of courtesy. However, considering the fact that such a statement has not been prevailing in Arabic, especially in the past centuries, it does not seem appropriate to involve the Qur’anic semantic with such an odd pattern, thus it is obvious that such an interpretation (or justification) is weak. This article aims at presenting a perfect descriptive-analytical report from the Shi’a and Sunni thinkers’ points of view about the verse and criticizing and analyzing them so that it may suggest a novel approach congruent with the linguistic norms to solve this problem. In the linguistic principles it is taken for granted that as a fixed colloquial pattern during the course of conversation between two single parties when selecting the pronouns, the plural form of them is used, although the addressee of either party is merely the opposite single party who is called by his or her name.

To do a proper translation, the meaning of the words as components of a sentence must be carefully discovered and this requires the translator to use the knowledge of semantics. In order to gain the meanings of the Quranic vocabulary, Izutsu explores their meanings in pre-Islamic so-called ignorant-era poetry by employing seven methods contextual definition, word substitution, antonyms, semantic field, negative form of words, synonymy of expressions and usage in non-religious context. This descriptive-analytical research semantically examines the word "rayb (lit. doubt)" using the first four methods applied by Izutsu. This research found that the word "rayb" having come along with “manoon”, "events", "time" and "aeon" means hard events, death, unpleasant events, and so on. But in the Qur'an, the phrase "rayb al-Manoon" appears only once. Among religious and doctrinal concepts, the word “rayb” has different uses in the Qur'an, the true meaning of which is “doubt through enmity and hatred”. Therefore, in order to fully transfer the semantic units to the target language, the descriptive sequence ‘spiteful’ has been proposed for it.

The science of waqf (stop) is one of the branches of the science of recitation, which has long been the focus of Islamic scientists and important works have been written about it. Some of these writings have only stated the general rules of waqf (stop) and ibtida' (start), and some others have moreover specified the positions of waqf in the entire Holy Quran. One of these works is the book "Ilal al-wuquf (the cauaes if stoppings)" by Mohammad Bin Taifur Sajavandi. In this book, he first divided the stoppings into six types, then, according to them, he determined the positions of stoppings in the entire Holy Qur'an. This work, though in most cases in accordance with the established criteria and the Arabic positioning of the words, in some cases does not have this conformity. Since many reciters of the Holy Qur'an perform their stop and start according to these positions, it is necessary to explain the positions that do not correspond to the Arabic standards and positionings of the expressions, so that the reader does not perform wrong waqfs. Hence, through an analytical-critical approach this article makes an attempt to examine examples of these cases according to Sajavandi's views and positions of the expressions after stopping places. It shows that Sajavandi sometimes made mistakes in determining the positions of stoppings, which includes all types of his waqf he mentions.

Metaphor is one of the esthetic elements in any language; however, it has its own particular complexities. It is not for nothing that there exist different methods to translate a metaphor from a source language to a target language, which for long have been applied by the translators. One of the difficulties in the translation of the Qur’an is the translation of the metaphors contained therein. In this article the translation of one hundred metaphors contained in the first five parts (juz’) of the Qur’an done by Ṭabarī (d. 310/922) in his early work (official translation) has been compared with that of Garmārūdī (1941), the contemporary translator of the Qur’an. The goal of this comparison is to investigate the accuracy degree of the two translators along with the variety of the methods applied by them in this field, as well as the change of the methods in the course of time. The findings indicate that despite their effect upon the extent of the translators’ use of different methods, the multi-century temporal difference and the developments and changes in language have not caused so much difference in the variousness of their methods. Of course, this difference in the extent of the use of methods is based on their approach towards the translation of the Qur’an. This approach can be categorized as the sourceoriented method of the early translators and target-oriented method of the contemporary ones.

In the Holy Quran, sometimes one relative pronoun is used with several adjective clauses (2:39) and sometimes the relative pronoun repeats with the adjective clauses (2:62). Accuracy, miraculous elucidation, and divine nature of the Quranic language require that in each of these two modes there should be a certain meaning. Some commentators do not differentiate between these two modes in their interpretations, while the others sometimes (not always) break apart between these two modes. Thereupon, the commentators have not been able to apply their difference as a universal principle in their interpretations. Whether the meaning of these modes can be turned into universal rules applicable in all verses of the Quran or not is what here seems to be the problem? This article seeks to prove the hypothesis that the first mode (nonrepetition of the relative pronoun) always implies the unity of nature, while the second (repetition of relative pronoun with adjective clause) always implies multiplicity and variation. Although the principledness of these two implications is questionable, by applying rhetorical-interpretive methods this article tries to answer all the questions through an interdisciplinary approach. Using a library method, this study is done to index the procedure of relativity modes in the Quran.

According to rhetoric scholars, eloquent speech depends on the eloquence of words and sentences, and "strangeness" stands as an obstacle. There are words in the Holy Qur'an that did not have a clear meaning for the people of Hijaz in the revelation era, and they are called "Gharib al-Qur'an". Through a descriptive-analytical approach and relying on library sources, the present article aims to re-examine the definition of rhetoric (balagha) by focusing on reviewing the requirement of fluency in rhetoric and considering the strange words of the Qur'an. Balagha scholars have divided strange words into good and wild and considered only wild ones to be a hindrance to fluency. They are into this idea that the strange words that are good does not contradict the eloquence of the word. The time-bound, location-bound and domain-bound strangeness are the three branches of good strangeness. According to the author’s opinion, a speech is considered eloquent only and if only it complies with and is appropriate to the current requirements. These requirements are generally followed by fluency; however, fluency is not always a condition of eloquence; sometimes the situation requires the use of strange words. In these cases, using the word “fluent” disrupts the eloquence of the speech. In this view, the eloquence of words has only one criterion, and that is to match the current requirements, and the fluency of words and statements is not a condition within this criterion.