Conceptualizing the Grand Metaphor of 'Argument as War' in the Culture of the Holy Quran Based on Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory

One of the fundamental topics in cognitive linguistics, introduced by Mark Johnson and George Lakoff, is the concept of Conceptual Metaphor. In this theory, one conceptual domain is understood and interpreted through another domain, providing a framework for understanding and expressing abstract and intangible concepts by mapping elements from all levels of life. Within this framework, a Grand Metaphor is a type of conceptual metaphor that does not explicitly appear in the surface structure of a text. Instead, it manifests conceptually throughout the text, forming the underlying cognitive structure of the discourse. This grand metaphor integrates all the Micro-Metaphors within the text, aligning them around a consistent central theme. The Holy Quran, by consistently encouraging reasoning and reflection, presents its intended truths to the audience through both direct and indirect arguments. Conversely, opponents of these arguments engage in opposition, resulting in a form of conceptual conflict. Accordingly, this study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory to conceptualize the Grand Metaphor of Argument as War in the Quranic verses related to muḥājjah (argumentation) and jihād (struggle).The research findings indicate that in the metaphorical chain of the war domain, elements associated with this realm—such as attack, counterattack, retreat, defeat, surrender, and similar concepts—are all reflected within the conceptual domain of argumentation and muḥājjah in the Quranic discourse.