Classifications of Tashbih: Terms, Multiplicity, Ground and Particle

1. Map of the classifications

Every tashbih has four analytical elements: the mushabbah (subject), mushabbah bih (model), wajh al-shabah (ground), and comparison particle. Different arrangements or omissions yield distinct classifications. One example may belong to several classes simultaneously.

By the two terms: simple–simple, composite–composite, simple–composite, and composite–simple.
By number and order: malfuf, mafruq, taswiyah, and jamʿ.
By the ground: tamthil/non-tamthil and mufassal/mujmal.
By the particle: muʾakkad/mursal.

The analytical purpose is to determine which entities are compared and what precise quality or configuration connects them.

2. What simple and composite mean

In this classification, simple (mufrad) means a term treated as one subject or model, even if several words are used to express it. Composite (murakkab) means a scene or configuration formed from interacting details.

Comparing one thing with musk for its fragrance involves individual terms. Comparing dust, flashing swords, a dark night and falling stars depends on a constructed scene.

Thus word count is not the test. Identify whether the comparison depends on a single quality or on a structured combination of features.

3. Simple subject compared with simple model

هَذَا الشَّيْءُ كَالْمِسْكِ فِي الرَّائِحَةِ
This thing is like musk in fragrance.

Hādhā al-shayʾ is the subject, al-misk the model, kāf the particle, and fī al-rāʾiḥah the explicit ground. Two individual terms are compared in a single respect.

Additional descriptive qualifications do not automatically turn a simple term into a composite scene; what matters is the structure of the resemblance.

4. Qualified simple terms

هُنَّ لِبَاسٌ لَكُمْ وَأَنْتُمْ لِبَاسٌ لَهُنَّ
They are clothing for you, and you are clothing for them.

The Qurʾanic clothing metaphor evokes closeness, covering, protection and mutual relation. Its contextual qualifications matter, even though the comparative terms need not be treated as fully composite visual scenes.

In a qualified simple term, the modifier may determine the intended similarity; do not discard it merely because the basic term remains simple.

5. Composite scene compared with composite scene

كَأَنَّ مُثَارَ النَّقْعِ فَوْقَ رُؤُوسِنَا وَأَسْيَافَنَا لَيْلٌ تَهَاوَى كَوَاكِبُهُ
The rising battle dust over our heads and swords resembles a night whose stars are falling.

The subject is not simply dust: it is the entire scene of battle dust and flashing swords. The model is not merely night: it is a night whose bright stars seem to fall through darkness.

The ground is a composite visual configuration—bright moving points within a dark surrounding field. The resemblance resides in the whole organized scene.

6. Analyzing the battle-scene comparison

Do not treat every noun in a composite simile as a separate tashbih. The entire dust-and-swords scene is one structured subject; the entire night-and-stars scene is one structured model.

Reducing it to “dust is like night” loses the parallel between sword flashes and falling stars. The relationships among elements are vital to its rhetorical force.

Composite tashbih therefore analyzes a whole configuration, not a mere inventory of objects.

7. A single subject with a composite model

In a simple-to-composite tashbih, one object is clarified by comparison with a scene containing several interdependent features.

The book describes the shaqīq (a red flower) through ruby-colored banners spread upon emerald-colored spears.

The flower is the single subject; the arrangement of red banners on green shafts is the composite model. The intended resemblance depends on color and visual arrangement together.

8. Why the flower image is composite

“Red as ruby” would convey a single color resemblance. The image of red banners on green shafts adds the flower’s petals and stem as an arranged visual whole.

Subject: a single shaqīq flower.
Model: red banners displayed on green spears.
Ground: a spread of red above or around a slender green support.

Several physical details may be understood in a single subject while the explicit comparative model is a composite image.

9. A composite subject with a single model

Composite-to-simple tashbih presents a subject built from several interrelated features but uses one familiar model to describe it.

The text compares a sunlit day intermingled with pale hill flowers to a moonlit night. Daylight and the flowers form the composite subject, while moonlit night serves as the single model.

The point is not that day literally equals night; a specific composite appearance evokes the recognizable image of moonlight.

10. Four classes by the two terms

The classification depends on the structural status of both compared terms.

TypeSubjectModel
Simple–simpleOne entityOne entity
Composite–compositeOrganized sceneOrganized scene
Simple–compositeOne entityOrganized scene
Composite–simpleOrganized sceneOne entity

First ask whether each term is a unified entity or a coherent configuration. Extra adjectives alone are not decisive.

11. Malfuf: subjects grouped, then models grouped

كَأَنَّ قُلُوبَ الطَّيْرِ رَطْبًا وَيَابِسًا لَدَى وَكْرِهَا الْعُنَّابُ وَالْحَشَفُ الْبَالِي
The moist and dry hearts of birds near the nest resemble jujubes and withered dried dates.

In malfuf, several subjects are mentioned together and their models are then given together. Here moist and dry hearts precede the corresponding jujubes and dried dates.

The pairs are conceptually aligned, but their verbal arrangement is grouped rather than pair-by-pair.

12. Mapping each term in a malfuf simile

The correct pairing is moist heart → jujube and dry heart → shriveled dry date. Color, freshness, and dryness govern which model belongs to which subject.

Reversing these pairings would undermine the sensory resemblance. Malfuf requires more than counting terms: each subject must be matched to its intended model.

The pattern is subject 1, subject 2; then model 1, model 2.

13. Mafruq: each subject with its model

النَّشْرُ مِسْكٌ وَالْوُجُوهُ دَنَانِيرُ وَأَطْرَافُ الْأَكُفِّ عَنَمٌ
The fragrance is musk, the faces are dinars, and the fingertips are like red ʿanam berries.

In mafruq, each subject is immediately followed by its own model. The three pairs are:
fragrance ↔ musk
faces ↔ dinars
fingertips ↔ red ʿanam berries

Each pair has its own relevant likeness. Their presentation is pair-by-pair rather than all subjects followed by all models.

14. Malfuf versus mafruq

Both malfuf and mafruq involve multiple subjects and multiple corresponding models. They differ in the order of presentation.

Malfuf: all subjects are grouped, then all models.
Mafruq: each subject is stated with its model before the next pair begins.

Multiplicity alone does not make an example malfuf. Inspect whether the text groups terms or pairs them successively.

15. Taswiyah: many subjects, one model

صُدْغُ الْحَبِيبِ وَحَالِي كِلَاهُمَا كَاللَّيَالِي
The beloved’s side-lock and my condition are both like nights.

Taswiyah compares several subjects with one model. The beloved’s side-lock and the speaker’s condition are two subjects; nights are the shared model.

The side-lock may resemble night in blackness, while the speaker’s situation evokes dark distress. Each subject can reach the same model through its relevant aspect.

16. Jamʿ: one subject, multiple models

كَأَنَّمَا يَبْسِمُ عَنْ لُؤْلُؤٍ مُنَضَّدٍ أَوْ بَرَدٍ أَوْ أَقَاحٍ
His smile seems to display rows of pearls, hailstones, or white daisy-like flowers.

Jamʿ uses one subject with several models. The visible teeth are compared with ordered pearls, hailstones, and white flowers.

The models offer subtly different aspects: arrangement, brightness, whiteness and freshness. The subject remains singular even though multiple images illuminate it.

17. Four multiplicity patterns compared

The four patterns differ either in relative number of terms or in how pairs are ordered.

ClassSubjectsModels
TaswiyahSeveralOne
JamʿOneSeveral
MalfufSeveral grouped firstSeveral grouped second
MafruqEach with its pairEach with its pair

For taswiyah and jamʿ, count the two kinds of terms. For malfuf and mafruq, trace their verbal arrangement.

18. The defining ground of tamthil

Tamthil is defined by a ground of resemblance extracted from several interrelated features as a unified configuration. The ground is an organized picture rather than one isolated property.

A cluster of stars compared with a luminous bunch of grapes evokes many small bright points arranged together.

The defining question is how the ground of resemblance is constructed, not how many words the writer uses.

19. Tamthil is not identical with composite terms

Composite-to-composite classifies the structure of the two terms, while tamthil classifies the structure of the ground. The notions often overlap but are analytically distinct.

The battle scene of dust and flashing swords versus night and falling stars can be composite in its terms and representational in its composite ground.

Ask two questions separately: what is compared, and what structured resemblance makes the comparison work?

20. Non-tamthil: an uncomposed ground

In non-tamthil, the ground does not consist of an organized configuration extracted from multiple components. It may be a single quality such as shape, color, brightness, or speed.

A star compared to a silver coin for roundness or brightness is non-representational when that one property supplies the ground.

The key distinction is composite configuration versus a relatively simple shared attribute.

21. Worked decisions: tamthil or not

Example 1: “Knowledge is like light in guidance” — one intellectual ground, so non-tamthil.

Example 2: “Flashing swords through dust are like stars falling across a dark night” — a structured image, so tamthil.

Example 3: “A face is like the moon in radiance” — a specific ground, so non-tamthil.

In the second case, the relation among visual parts creates the likeness. In the others, a single property suffices.

22. Mufassal: the ground is explicit

Mufassal is a tashbih in which the ground of resemblance is explicitly stated, whether in a short phrase or fuller explanation.

“A face is like the moon in radiance” names the ground. Similarly, “this thing is like musk in fragrance” expressly states the point of comparison.

Explicit naming reduces ambiguity: the reader is not left to guess which of several possible qualities is intended.

23. Mujmal: the ground remains unstated

Mujmal leaves the ground unstated, even though context allows the reader to infer it.

«النحو في الكلام كالملح في الطعام»
Grammar in speech is like salt in food.

The comparison does not explicitly say “in soundness” or “in proper balance.” The reader infers how each contributes to the quality and suitability of its respective whole.

Mujmal does not mean that the comparison lacks a ground; it means that the ground is not overtly named.

24. Changing an explicit ground to an implicit one

Mufassal: «القائد كالأسد في الشجاعة»
The leader is like a lion in courage.

Mujmal: «القائد كالأسد»
The leader is like a lion.

The terms and particle remain the same; only the explicit phrase naming courage is removed. In the second case, context determines the intended ground.

An implicit ground can allow a wider impression, though it should not automatically be taken as every conceivable shared trait.

25. Muʾakkad: the particle is omitted

Muʾakkad omits the comparison particle, creating a stronger impression of identification between the two terms.

«هُوَ بَحْرٌ فِي الْجُودِ»
He is a sea in generosity.

He is the subject, sea the model, and “in generosity” the explicit ground. No comparison particle appears: therefore the example is muʾakkad and also mufassal.

The expression strongly emphasizes the extent of the subject’s generosity.

26. Mursal: the particle remains stated

Mursal explicitly includes a comparison particle.

«هُوَ كَالْبَحْرِ كَرَمًا»
He is like a sea in generosity.

The kāf marks comparison and karaman makes the ground explicit. The example is therefore both mursal and mufassal.

Mursal versus muʾakkad depends on whether the particle appears, not on whether the ground is stated.

27. Baligh: omitting particle and ground

In tashbih baligh, both the particle and the ground are omitted, creating a compact and forceful predication.

«الْعَالِمُ نُورٌ»
The scholar is light.

The scholar and light are the two terms; neither a particle nor an explicit ground is present. The expression is both muʾakkad and mujmal.

Not every muʾakkad comparison is baligh: “he is a sea in generosity” still explicitly states its ground.

28. Particle and ground: independent axes

Particle presence and ground presence are two separate classificatory axes.

ParticleGroundClassification
PresentPresentMursal + mufassal
PresentOmittedMursal + mujmal
OmittedPresentMuʾakkad + mufassal
OmittedOmittedMuʾakkad + mujmal (baligh)

For example, “Zayd is like a lion” is mursal–mujmal, while “Zayd is a lion in courage” is muʾakkad–mufassal.

29. The comparative genitive construction

وَالرِّيحُ تَعْبَثُ بِالْغُصُونِ وَقَدْ جَرَى ذَهَبُ الْأَصِيلِ عَلَى لُجَيْنِ الْمَاءِ
The wind plays with the branches, as the late-afternoon gold flows over the silver of the water.

“Gold of the late afternoon” aligns the sunset glow with gold, while “silver of the water” aligns reflective water with silver.

The model term is linked to what it describes by an iḍāfah (genitive construction), rather than by an overt particle of comparison, strengthening the identification.

The imagery should not be read as literal gold or silver in the scene; its function is to heighten the visible colors and sheen.

30. One example, several valid labels

«الوجه كالقمر في الإشراق»
The face is like the moon in brightness.

Terms: simple–simple.
Ground: brightness, explicitly stated, so mufassal.
Particle: kāf is present, so mursal.
Tamthil: no; an individual property supplies the resemblance.

A single simile can carry labels from different classificatory dimensions. These labels are compatible rather than mutually exclusive.

31. A worked composite and representational case

«كَأَنَّ مُثَارَ النَّقْعِ فَوْقَ رُؤُوسِنَا وَأَسْيَافَنَا لَيْلٌ تَهَاوَى كَوَاكِبُهُ»
The dust-and-swords scene resembles night filled with falling stars.

Terms: composite–composite: battle scene versus night-and-stars scene.
Ground: a structured visual configuration, hence tamthil.
Particle: kaʾanna is stated, hence mursal.

The properties of the two terms and the structure of the ground are assessed by separate criteria.

32. Consolidation of classifications

By the terms: are the compared entities simple or composite? By number and sequence: is one subject linked to several models, several subjects to one model, or several corresponding pairs arranged in a particular order?

By the ground: is the similarity a simple attribute or a configuration formed from several details, and is it explicitly stated? By the particle: is a comparison marker present or omitted?

These classifications are complementary analytical perspectives. The next textbook section examines aghrāḍ al-tashbīh, the rhetorical purposes of making a comparison.