Analysis of the Quranic Text Using intertextuality : A Case Study of Two Lexemes

The aim of the present study was to show how intertextuality could be a viable approach to determine the intended meaning of words in religious texts such as the Holy Quran. In order to do just this, the researcher selected two Quranic words to be the data of the study. These were “ةيشخلا”(alxshiah) and فوخلا (al-xawf). The study argues that the former effected internally (i.e. stemming from the human being himself/herself), but “فوخلا”(al-xawf) is created by either an internal or external force (i.e. stemming from the human being himself/herself or from external factors). Furthermore, “فوخلا” (al-xawf) reflects a real feeling of panic, which causes the heart to pump quickly, but ةيشخلا” “(al-xshiah) does not reflect such a feeling. Finally, we dare to make the claim that who does not fear فاخي””(yaxaf) Allah will be punished but who does not ىشخي” “(yaxsha)Allah will not be punished. INTRODUCTION: RESEARCH AIMS AND PROBLEM The meaning of words is, on the whole, a central aspect of language because many other linguistic aspects (e.g. syntactic, pragmatic, etc.) are strongly tied with it. Wierzbicka (1996) states that to investigate language without taking the meaning into consideration is like studying road signs from the point of view of their physical properties. Indeed, in order to determine the actual meanings of words involved in, say, a text, the common practice seems to look them up in dictionaries. Consequently, many linguists in general and lexiographists in particular have profoundly worked on dictionaries to make them somehow able to determine the meanings wanted free of both text and context. Lexicography, a rather modern linguistic branch, specialized in compiling dictionaries, has occupied a salient position among other branches of linguistics according to its commonplace applications. For example, Mouristen (2010) states that dictionaries are largely the legitimate resource and (and possibly the final) resort to provide us with the meaning of words. He adds that judges, for example, do not prefer depending on context or text to determine the meaning of words concerned with their trials to pass their judgments. That is probably because they do frequently encounter several meaning-based obstacles in which contextual cues and Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.5p.89 legislative definitions do not assert the intended meanings varied by lexis. Accordingly, judges prefer referring to dictionaries. Hence, dictionaries, they believe, are the resources most dependable for determining word meanings (for details, see Mouristen, 2010). It has become almost as a fact that no two words are 100% synonymous (Soare, 2006). Despite this strong-standing fact, dictionaries oftentimes ignore this fact when they define words by attributing them on a one-to-one basis to some related synonyms a state of affairs that does not bring about the complete meanings of the words intended. This fact pushes the researcher to affirm there must be a line of demarcation existed between some Qur’anic words that considered as synonymous. Apart from dictionaries, current approaches in lexical semantics which deal with word meaning have not as yet solved the problem of how to find out word meanings and how to remove ambiguity which causes several problems to language users. To illustrate, although the debate has been going for ages, no single approach that could settle the debate once and for all has emerged. Basically, this means that there isn’t one established approach but a number of individual attempts. In the past, for instance, lexical semantics, the linguistic branch mostly related to determine word meanings, had historical–philological orientation and was mainAdvances in Language and Literary Studies

legislative definitions do not assert the intended meanings varied by lexis.Accordingly, judges prefer referring to dictionaries.Hence, dictionaries, they believe, are the resources most dependable for determining word meanings (for details, see Mouristen, 2010).
It has become almost as a fact that no two words are 100% synonymous (Soare, 2006).Despite this strong-standing fact, dictionaries oftentimes ignore this fact when they define words by attributing them on a one-to-one basis to some related synonyms -a state of affairs that does not bring about the complete meanings of the words intended.This fact pushes the researcher to affirm there must be a line of demarcation existed between some Qur'anic words that considered as synonymous.
Apart from dictionaries, current approaches in lexical semantics which deal with word meaning have not as yet solved the problem of how to find out word meanings and how to remove ambiguity which causes several problems to language users.To illustrate, although the debate has been going for ages, no single approach that could settle the debate once and for all has emerged.Basically, this means that there isn't one established approach but a number of individual attempts.In the past, for instance, lexical semantics, the linguistic branch mostly related to determine word meanings, had historical-philological orientation and was main-ly concerned with etymology.Recently, intertextuality has come to the floor as a viable alternative.

Intertextuality: An Alternative Approach
The term intertextuality was coined by Julia Kristeva in 1960s.Kristeva (1980) defines intertextuality as "any text is constructed as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another.The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least double".Kristevia confirms that if we want to get accurate and precise interpretations of the text, we have to examine and scrutinize the relevant elements inside the text itself.Meaning is build and figured out through drawing a connective network between all elements inside the text.Based upon this discussion, no need to resort to the social and historical factors and elements since they are outside the boarders of the text.Allen (2000:15) states that the beginning of intertextuality dates back to the 1960s.Its emergence is attributed to Julia Kristeva's work.Moreover, Allen confirms that "Kristeva introduces the work of the Russian literary theorist M. M. Bakhtin to the French speaking world.Therefore, as Bakhtin has a central role in forming the foundation of intertextuality, I elaborate more on his ideas which are the backbone of the intertextuality theory".Intertextuality implies the fact that all texts express their meaning by making a network relation to other texts.Allen (2000) claims in order to get the interpretation of a text, the reader has to follow a network of textual relations.Consequently, reading "becomes a process of moving between texts.Meaning becomes something which exists between a text and all the other texts to which it refers and relates, moving out from the independent text into a network of textual relations".
Intertextuality is mainly represented in the entitlement that the meaning of the text is merely obtained and determined from the meaning of the involved words in the text.Furthermore, Intertextuality constitutes a network that combines the words and the texts with each other in relation with the surrounding texts.For Waaijman (2010), intertextuality is viewed as a literary approach that combines and relates texts with each for better interpretation.

Statement of the Problem and Questions
After surveying the literature, the researcher has the courage to claim that there is no one single study which undertook the task of determining the intended meaning of words via the approach of intertextuality.This paucity of research about this particular discoursal issue has sparked off the interest to work on this prominent subject.In general, this study's main problem is to determine the intended meanings of certain words which are much frequently mentioned in the Holy Qur'an without drawing a line of distinctions between them.Therefore, they are interpreted by many of Muslim expositors as the same items.This could be a big problem leads to many arguments and contradictions.
The main aim of the current study is to introduce an effective endeavor by adopting "intertextuality approach" that could specify and determine words meanings without resorting to dictionaries.Specifically, the present study depicts intertextuality as a powerful tool that is used to determine the meaning of words in term of drawing a network relation between words and texts.Based upon the above discussion, the present paper intends to introduce theoretical analytical framework that serves at reinterpreting some religious words that mostly understood as synonymous words have the exact meanings.
In a nutshell, the current study attempts to answer the following questions: i.Is intertextuality accounted as an actual method for defining words and specifying their exact meanings?ii.Would Glorious Quran be more comprehensible if it is interpreted in the guise of intertextuality?iii.Is word meaning rooted in the world (an objective truth) or in the people's experience (a subjective construct)?

LITERATURE REVIEW
In this section, the researcher will let himself into the major works that tackled the approaches of how to determine word meanings, as a major component of the study of semantics, the study of meaning in languages.Probably unlike/ like pragmatics, semantics concerns itself with the relationship between the signifiers and their denotations at the word, phrase and sentence levels.Therefore, semantic investigations have been very much limited to sense relations such as: synonymy, antonym, homonymy, hyponymy, metonymy, etc. Very little, however, has been said about word meaning at the text level, the primary concern of this research paper.
Because of the complex intersections semantics makes with other branches of inquiries such as lexicography, pragmatics, etymology, etc., some researchers working on the problem of determining word meaning have attempted to make use of other tools to lend a helping hand.For instance, Baxter (2009) argues in favor of three sequential steps for determining word meaning: (1) To capture the several contexts and ways in which the word is probably used by detecting word's meanings as they are listed in dictionaries (a deductive study) and its contexts (an inductive study); (2) To narrow down the meaning of the word in the text being studied; and (3) To consult the ancient versions to help narrow down the word meanings (see Baxter, 2009).Baxter (2009) states "because every language has a structure and is a cohesive whole, the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used within its own language, and how that word relates to the meanings of the other words in the language" (Baxter, 2009).
It is quite obvious from Baxter's view the meaning of the word is affected by two dimensions: the position of the word in relevance to its neighboring words, and the competitive way it is used as it is stored in the lexicon of the speaker.For Benjamin (2009), specifying and defining words' meanings in all languages are problematic; so far we could not rely on an accurate and satisfactory method to obtain the exact meanings of words.The problem comes to be more compli-cated when we deal with words in specific contexts.Thus, the necessity of finding out a reliable and an effective approach that could introduce the accurate meanings of words becomes so critical.We cannot resort only to dictionaries to get words meanings since they are not sufficient to present the knowledge we need.
Alongside the problem of determining word meaning as it occurs in isolation, the problem of contexts turns out to be more observable.When we use the same word in several contexts, we get various and different senses.Consistent with Benjamin (2009) the influence of contexts on words meanings makes dictionaries ineffective source of providing the precise information about the word because dictionaries cannot include all the contextual range of meanings where a word might be used.
In spite the fact that dictionaries are regarded the most operational tool for determining words meanings but they cannot give the intentional meaning of certain form of text (text-bound) like religious text.In this respect, the Glorious Quran intends to offer and communicate an unambiguous messages that are profoundly interpreted and understood by the entire world.As addressed by Baxter (2009) God gives us moral lessons that could not be explained by dictionaries.
Spring ( 2003) argues there are enormous differences between determining the meanings of words as they occur in isolation and their meanings when they occur in relation to other words or sentences.The meaning is influenced by several aspects such as contexts, syntactic structures, settings, and the pragmatic functions.Such aspects or factors absolutely bring different meanings of the same word.He refers to "semantic competence" which helps to specify the actual meaning of a sequence of words (Spring, 2003).
Gregg (2010) points out each term or word has a fixed meaning which is confused by our deficient sensory apparatus and our cognitive abilities.Vividly, looking profoundly to the sources of meaning and the reasons behind stating such meaning is the effective role we can do to get that true meanings.In this regard, Gregg speaks "People are sloppy with their terminology.Depending on context and audience, they use terms with varying degrees of precision.Some contexts call for more precision, and so people coin new terms."It is plausible to suggest that the meanings of words are at most subjectively created and recognized according to our experiences in the life.Accordingly, dictionaries are part of human's products (man-made industry) that are excessively related to our cultures and social environments.They are inadequate sources for the actual truth of world (see Mouristen, 2010).Hellwig (2010) proposes that discovering the construction where a word occurs is very paramount to get the denotative meaning of that word.Particularly speaking, in translation, the interpretation is always about the possible meanings not the precise and the exact ones.Translators have never proved to which extend the interpretation is appropriate when they render a text from one language to another.Relatively, Elman (2009) remarks that lexicon is a rich source of knowledge which absolutely influences the interpretations of words as well as the grammatical structures.Furthermore, Elman tackles the matter of dictionaries size.He critically asks "How much information can or should be placed in the lexicon?
After surveying the main problems and mystery of determining words meanings by dictionaries, Adel (2011:44) suggests an alternative tool "intertextuality" to interpret a religious text.He says: Meaning becomes something which exists between a text and all the other texts to which it refers and relates, moving out from the independent text into a network of textual relations.The text becomes the intertext, Adel (2011:44).
Although Adeh (2011) provides "intertextuality" as an alternative means for determining the meanings of words, he does not bring real instances from the Glorious Quran to prove and explain the mechanism and the theoretical operative paradigm of "intertextuality".Thus, the current study intends to provide plenary examples to illustrate to which extend intertextuality could be used as a vital tool at determining the intended meaning of words in the religious text (Glorious Quran).

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this section, we hope to show that intertextuality may prove to be an efficient theoretical construct in handling word meaning in religious texts.In order to do this, our task should then be twofold.First, we try to refute current practices in determining word meanings in religious texts.Second, we try to lay down the basic premises of the alternative approach, against which the data in the next section will be tested.
As for the first goal, we hope to show, following Al-Jarrah (2010; 2011; 2012) that word meanings of a religious text should be discerned without recourse to "dictionary or encyclopedic definitions", "gained scientific knowledge", "occasions of revelation" and/or "metaphorical extensions" -a theoretical stand that runs counter to almost all current practices.As for the second goal, we claim that intertextuality (in its strongest form) could prove a viable alternative.
Current Approach Halliday and Hassan (1976) define a text as "a unit of language in use.It is not a grammatical unit".According to Halliday (1976), a text must have certain components which make it different from other groups of sentences.They state, "A text has texture, and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text….The texture is provided by cohesive RELATION".Halliday (1976) also adds that "Cohesion occurs when the interpretation of some element in the discourse is dependent on that of another".Therefore, it may be difficult to get the meaning of words in a text that is not cohesive; hence it lacks texture.
Kolaiti (2012) comments on Halliday's definition; she states that "the one presupposes the other, in the sense that it would not be effectively decoded except by recourse to it".Cohesion is then a mechanism which enables the text readers to retrieve given, text-bound information irrespective of directionality (i.e., forward or backbaward movement) (for more details see Kolaiti, 2012, Halliday, 1976).The pertinent question, however, rising here is like this: What contributes to enhancing the texture of the text?In what follows, we will let ourselves into detailing how text relations are established in current interpretation practices.The thrust of the argument will be geared by the following research question: What sources of information should interpreters of the religious text use in order to find out word meaning(s)?Linguists (as well as expositors) have available for them many sources of information which have commonly been considered legitimate sources of authentic information that could help determine the meaning of words in all texts, including dictionaries, scientific discoveries, allegoric extensions, context of situation (occasions of revelation), etc.

Dictionaries
To many, the dictionary is no doubt considered the first and the most useful tool that helps get the meaning of words.Fetzer (1991:51) states: The dictionary for an ordinary language, such as English appears to succeed in providing useful definitions for the terms that it contains in spite of resorting to definitional circularity.
Commenting on Fetzer's statement, Wierzbicka (1996) believes that dictionaries often fail to solve the problems of word definitions.She explains the reason for her claim by bringing evidence from dictionary.She states that dictionary defines glare as "to stare angrily or fiercely", and stare being defined as " to gaze fixedly ……., and gaze as " to look long and steadily".Wierzbicka (1996) affirms that dictionary could not show the accurate relationship between "Glare" and "Look".(Wierzbicka,1996).Sled (1972) points out that it is difficult for dictionary users to know what is the best for them, and how much information they could extract from it.Likewise, although Mouristen (2010) believes that a dictionary is vital to observe, it never expresses what the meaning a word must bear in a particular context.

An Alternative Approach: Intertextuality
In the previous section, the main thrust of argument was geared towards the exclusion of "dictionary definitions", "gained scientific knowledge", "occasions of revelations" and "metaphorical extensions" when trying to discern the intended meanings and messages the Glorious Qur'an.In this section, we intend to lay down the basic premises of our adopted approach that we believe could be a viable alternative to current practices of determining word meanings in religious text, namely intertextuality.
First of all, we think it is high time that we stressed our indisputable belief that the Glorious Qur'an is created by God which is undoubtedly autonomous and therefore self-contained.Therefore, all practices which can cast doubt on the sovereignty of the text are refuted altogether.
What this basically means is that the Holy Qur'an, as a self-sufficient text, should provide us with all it takes to figure out its word meanings including both sense relations and reference relations (see Context of situation above).Intertextuality, in its strongest form, is, we believe, the theoretical framework that could make this goal feasible.Word meaning studies in the Holy Qur'an should, we believe, be coached within this framework.An immediate corollary of this article of faith is that the Principle of Compositionality should be revisited.For, the claim has often been like this: words meanings and the relations between them is what gives texts their interpretations.In other words, texts are traditionally thought to acquire their meanings from two sources: (1) the words they consist of, and (2) the relations that hold between these words (see Hammouri et al. 2013).
Our current proposal calls for reinterpreting this Principle of compositionality in that it should go into reverse along the following lines: it is words that acquire their meaning(s) from the text, which determines the relationships that should hold between them.What this basically means is that instead of looking for text meaning from its basic components (bottown-up), we argue for reversing the relationship through looking for word meanings and the relationships that hold between them from the text in which they are used (topdown).Intertextuality could be used as a theoretical platform.Accordingly, finding the meaning of word in a text becomes a continuous process of tracing a 'network of textual relations', to use Kolaiti's words.Adel (2011:43) affirms that: Texts, whether they are literary or non-literary, are viewed by modern theorists as lacking in any kind of independent meaning.They are what theorists now call intertextual.The act of reading, theorists claim, plunges us into a network of textual relations.To interpret a text, to discover its meaning, or meanings, is to trace those relations.Obviously, intertextuality is accounted as a theoretical approach which mainly oriented to draws a network relation between texts.In this regard, cohesion and coherence are significant elements in the process of interpretation.Waaijman(2010) confirms "A text is conceived of as an intersection of fragments, allusions and resonances of other texts".
In the view of Van Dijk (1978), the coherence of a text is showed "only if its respective sentences and propositions are connected, and if these propositions are organized globally at the macrostructure level".Cohesion is motivated by the reference relations that make a bridge between the lexical entities at the macro-and micro-structural levels.Accordingly, when the micro and macro levels of analysis conducted and linked together, then the obtained meaning should fit the semantic and the pragmatic meaning.Dijk (1978) affirms, Sentences are assigned meaning and reference not only on the basis of the meaning and reference of their constituent components but also relative to the interpretation of other, mostly previous, sentences.Thus, each sentence or clause is subject to contextual interpretation.Halliday (1976) claims that the elements of discourse cannot be interpreted on their own simply because each element is dependent on the others.Therefore, to interpret one element in text, it is important to make recourse to the presupposed elements.The relation that holds between elements in cohesive text is referential (endophora and exophora).Whereas exophoric (or reference) relations call for the bond between the linguistic (the text) and the nonlinguistic (the external world knowledge), endophoric (or sense) relations call for cohesive ties between the linguistic element within the text (see Halliday.1976).Another point worthy of mention here is that endophopic relations are of two types: anaphoric and cataphoric.Anaphoric relations look back in the text to get their interpretation, but cataphoric relations look forward in the text to get their interpretation (Halliday, 1976).
Intertextuality, as a theoretical platform within which our current study is coached, uses all types of relations.However, the point of departure from probably all previous endeavors is that we use intertextuality in its strongest form which we put forward as flows: all types of relations (reference and sense) are text bound, and are therefore sought within the boundaries of the religious text itself.It is the text which should provide evidence for our interpretations.External knowledge should never be brought into the text unless it is text-motivated.This is a corollary of the belief that the religious text is the ultimate source of knowledge.Information, we believe, is imported from the text, but it is never exported into it (see also Al-Jarrah et al. 2015, Jarrah 2016, Jarrah and Zibin 2016a,b for discussion along these lines).
Dijk (1987) also claims that there are two levels of semantic structure in a discourse: microstructural and macrostructural.Whereas the former is concerned with the local level of discourse, the latter encompasses the global one.Both levels should be investigated thoroughly to infer the intended meaning of words in a discourse (see also Taha et al. 2013, Taha et al. 2014, and Altakhaineh et al. 2014).

Mechanism
Intertextuality can be employed to work as an effective tool to determine the intended meaning of words by a number of mechanisms.The researcher will introduce each one with some example from the Holy Qur'an, the main source of study data.Lyons (1968:404) stresses "the relationship which holds between words and things is the relationship of reference: words refer to things".

REFERENCE
When we deal with discourses, there are certain words that cannot be interpreted only at the semantic level; they should make references to other things from which we can retrieve information to interpret them.Referential relations are fundamentally considered a kind of cohesion.Halliday and Hassan (1976:33) state that "Both exophoric and endophoric references embody an instruction to retrieve from elsewhere the information necessary for interpreting the passage in question" Since intertextuality is the approach which focuses on the relations that hold between texts (see Waaijman, 2010), it must then use both kinds of references to lay down the interpretation of words.But according to intertextuality, for exophoric references to be authentic, they must be text motivated, i.e. ,some reference is made to them inside the text itself.In other words, we study the situation by the text itself without relying on any other sources.To clarify this point, we need to study the following example: .
And We gave Mûsâ (Moses) the Scripture and made it a guidance for the Children of Israel (saying): "Take none other than Me as (your) Wakîl (Protector, Lord or Disposer of your affairs).
Commenting on this verse, Al-Jarrah (2012) states that it is puzzling for Most Muslim expositors to point out the entity to which the pronoun"‫"ه‬ in ‫اه(‬ َ ‫ن‬ ْ ‫َل‬ ‫َع‬ ‫ج‬ ‫)وَ‬ refers.Current practices have shown that it is at least ambiguous between three interpretations: (1) some would argue that it refers to Prophet Moses; (2) others have claimed that it refers to The God Book; (3) a third group would have a much more compromise claim in that it, they would argue, refers to both Moses and The Good Book simultaneously.

Presupposition and Entailment
Presupposition is defined as "a general property of language use".It can be used to facilitate the process of comprehension.Bonyadi (2011) claims that presupposition can be used as avoidance strategy where the speaker/writer does not mention all the relevant details in his/her discourse.Bonyadi (2011) reinforces his idea by quoting Finch's (2000:165) statement.
If we had to spell out all the details every time we speak, then communicating would be an extremely lengthy and tedious.Being able to assume a certain amount of knowledge on the part of the listeners makes it possible to take shortcuts.The degree of this shortcutting, however, depends on the context in which communication takes place.It worth noting here that there are two kinds of presupposition: semantic presupposition and pragmatic presupposition.(cf, Van Djik,1976;Bonyadi,2011;Behnke, 2011).Whereas semantic presupposition is defined as "the proposition that the receiver of the message assumes to be true" (Bonyadi, 2011:2), pragmatic presupposition, in turn, is defined as "a proposition that a speaker or writer has taken its truth value for granted in his/her statement" (Bonyadi, 2011).It consists of previous information about the knowledge, beliefs, ideology and scale of values that the addressee must be acquainted with in order to understand the meaning of an utterance".

Inference
Inference is a very important process to show how the text can be viewed as coherent whole.For example, a Qur'anic meaning can be inferred by making a link between two separate texts.According to Cun, 2009), "Inference means that process which the reader (hearer) must go through to get from the literal meaning of what is written (or said) to what the writer (speaker) intended to convey".Brown and Yule (1983) state that "since the discourse analyst, like the hear-er, has no direct access to a speaker's meaning in producing an utterance, he often has to rely on a process of inference to arrive at an interpretation for utterances or connections between utterances".Comprehension is entailed from the language user in order to make Inferences.
According to van Dijk (1976), the user of language could "provide the missing links of a sequence on the basis of their general or contextual knowledge of the fact".A language user can rely on the text itself to make inferences to fill the missing propositions to render the text coherent.For, it is not somehow necessary (or even possible) to provide all propositions explicitly; the speaker may choose to leave many of them unmentioned, leaving it to the audience to infer and fill in the gap for themselves.To clarify this point, let us examine the following example taken from Pijnacker ( 2009): (a) A: Would you like some chicken soup?(b) B: I am a vegetarian.
B's answer seems irrelevant unless a pragmatic inference is made.In order to understand B's reply, one must infer that vegetarians do not eat chicken, and therefore does not want to have chicken soup.This inference is a pragmatic one simply because it is not entailed by the literal content of B's utterance.As for our machinery, readers of the religious text should be able to make inferences provided that these inferences are text motivated.

Sample of the Study
The sample of the current study is mostly cited from the Holy Qur'an.
In the present study, the researcher deals with seven examples taken from different chapters of the Holy Qur'an.The selected words are mainly of those recurrent words in the Holy Qur'an.This recurrence provides us some evidence that a text can help both reader and translator render these words fully and truthfully.These lexical words are as follows: The reasons for this choice are many.First, for millions of people, the Holy Qur'an is absolutely regarded as the most reliable text, being mistake-and-contradictions free.Second, it has both large numbers of audience and acceptability in the world, especially the Islamic one.So, by citing examples from the Holy Qur'an, we deal with and make use of invaluable information that is inevitably pertaining to millions (even billions) of people worldwide.
In the same vein, it has been found that a sizeable portion of similar research has been applied to the Bible.These include Benjamin's (2009), which deals with meanings of the bible,which considers the interpretation of Bible in the church, and Waaijman's (2010) which investigates the use of the Bible in mystical texts, to mention only a few.These studies are really serious linguistic endeavors.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section probes into the meaning of two other words which are thought to be near synonyms, namely ‫"خشية‬ " (xshiah) and "‫("خوف‬xawf).As for the machinery, the meaning(s) of these chosen words (as illustrated in major Arabic dictionaries such as al şiћaћ fi ?luġah, and almuћeeţ-is/are first provided.Secondly, the interpretations that are done by some major Muslim expositors of these words are also shown.Thirdly, some attempt is made to look for the "correct" meanings of these words on just intertextuality bases by bringing to light the local and global intuitions these synonymous terms invoke in the Qur'anic text.Fourthly, a comparison is drawn between the meanings illustrated by previous competitive sources (e.dictionaries, commentaries, etc.) and the new meanings arrived at after conducting our "intertext" search.We hope to show that new insights (and therefore understanding) of the Qur'anic text will make the difference.
This part is a comparative investigation of two words "‫("خشية‬xshiah) and ‫""خوف‬ (xawf) that are commonly assumed to be synonymous with each other and rendered in translation as one word (as "fear" in English, for example).As expected, major dictionaries of Arabic never make fine distinctions between them; and unfortunately one is always interpreted by being substituted with the other, leaving us wondered in a circularity that is difficult to escape.They therefore leave the inquirer with the unstated conjecture that the they can be used interchangeably in almost all contexts.
However, our intra-sentential and inter-sentential survey of the occurrences of them in the Holy Qur'an leads us to believe that there significant differences between the two lemmas.
Surprisingly enough, we dare to claim that these two words, ‫"يخشى"‬ (yaxsha) and ‫"يخاف"‬ (yaxaf), are not synonymous or even near synonymous.The evidence magnifying this belief can be deduced from the following verse.
‫س‬ ‫)الحِ‬ And those who join that which Allâh has commanded to be joined (i.e. they are good to their relatives and do not sever the bond of kinship), and fear their Lord, and dread the terrible reckoning (i.e.abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds which Allâh has forbidden and perform all kinds of good deeds which Allâh has ordained).
The "hanging together" of the two words ‫نوشخي"‬ "(yaxshoon) and ‫"نوفاخي"‬ (yaxafoon) in the same verse is, for us, hard-evidence that they should be different.If they denoted the same connotation and meaning, they will not conjoined coordinately.
First of all, Let us try to show how Arabic dictionaries define these two words.As for "‫("فوخ‬xawf), it is defined in lisaan al ʕarab like this: ‫يخافُ‬ ‫م‬ ‫رُ‬ َّ ‫ك‬ َّ ‫َذ‬ ‫ي‬ َ ‫س‬ The reminder will be received by him, who fears (Allâh), Notice how the translation is geared to distinguish between the two terms when they fall in the same verse.But what more worth noting, we argue, is that whereas ‫يخافون"‬ "(yxafoon) collocates with ‫‹›يخشون(‬ ,( ِ ‫َاب‬ ‫س‬ ‫الحِ‬ َ ‫ُوء‬ ‫,"س‬ (yxshoon) makes no similar collocation.On the contrary, it just collocates with Allah, bearing no dreadful consequences in case that it is not attested.

CONCLUSION
As for ‫-‪"(al‬الخشية"‬ xshiah) and ‫الخوف‬ (al-xawf), it turned out that the former effected internally (i.e.stemming from the human being himself/herself), but "‫("الخوف‬al-xawf) is created by either an internal or external force (i.e.stemming from the human being himself/herself or from external factors).Furthermore, ‫"الخوف"‬ (al-xawf) reflects a real feeling of panic, which causes the heart to pump quickly, ‫"الخشية‪but‬‬ "(al-xshiah) does not reflect such a feeling.Finally, we dare to make the claim that who does not fear ‫(""يخاف‬yaxaf) Allah will be pu nished but who does not ‫"يخشى‬ "(yaxsha) Allah will not be punished.