Divisions of Simile: Single/Composite, Enfolded/Separated, Taswiya/Jamʿ, Tamthīl and Explicitness

1. A new basis for classifying similes

وهو أي التشبيه باعتبار الطرفين المشبه والمشبه به أربعة أقسام
Simile, considered in relation to its two terms—the subject and the comparison term—has four divisions.

Earlier classifications distinguished the terms as sensory or intellectual. The present division asks a different question: is each term a single object of comparison, or a composite configuration formed by several features? Four patterns arise.

These are single to single, single to composite, composite to single, and composite to composite. “Single” does not mean merely one written word; it means the term is not functioning as an assembled scene. This matters when distinguishing a qualified single term from a composite image.

2. The four patterns of compared terms

SubjectComparison termTypeSingleSingleSingle–singleSingleCompositeSingle–compositeCompositeSingleComposite–singleCompositeCompositeComposite–composite

A composite is identified by a coordinated configuration whose resemblance would not remain the same if its elements were considered in isolation. Merely adding a descriptive phrase or circumstance to one thing does not automatically make it a composite term.

First identify both complete compared terms; then determine whether their elements function independently or jointly. This guards against mistaking verbal length for compositional structure.

3. Single to single with unrestricted terms

كتشبيه الخد بالورد
As in likening a cheek to a rose.

The subject is the cheek and the comparison term is the rose. Neither is restricted here by an additional circumstance integral to the comparison. Depending on context, the shared respect may be colour, delicacy, or freshness.

“Unrestricted” does not mean lacking any imaginable qualities. It means the expression does not attach a special condition or relation whose removal would change the simile. In this case, the cheek and the rose suffice as the two compared terms.

4. A qualified single term and its operative restriction

كالراقم على الماء
Like someone writing upon water.

When fruitless work is likened to writing on water, the comparison term is not merely “a writer.” The restriction “on water” is essential because it makes the effort transient and ineffective. Replacing water with a durable tablet could change the point of the image entirely.

This is a qualified single term: fundamentally a single person or agent considered under a relevant activity and circumstance. The number of words in the description does not by itself make it a composite configuration.

5. When both compared terms are qualified

Both terms of a single-to-single simile may carry relevant restrictions. One might compare “a person persistently striving in vain” with “a person repeatedly writing on water.” Each qualification contributes to the intended respect of resemblance.

The subject's qualification identifies the particular situation being discussed; the comparison term's qualification supplies the familiar scene through which that situation becomes clear. Removing either may weaken or change the analogy.

What matters is not the number of qualifiers but whether each side still functions as one term of comparison rather than an irreducible configuration of several interacting elements.

6. One qualified and one unrestricted term

والشمس كالمرآة في كف الأشل
And the sun is like a mirror in the palm of a person with a paralysed hand.

The comparison term is not simply a mirror but a mirror held in an unsteady or impaired hand. That condition affects the imagined movement and play of light; omitting it would remove an important aspect of the likeness. The sun is not expressly qualified in the same way.

This illustrates a mixed qualification: one term is restricted by a relevant circumstance and the other is not. The classification records the actual function of each term, not a requirement that they have identical grammatical structure.

7. Qualified single term versus a composite configuration

A qualified single term presents an object or agent in a specified activity or circumstance. A composite term presents several interrelated elements whose combined arrangement is essential to the resemblance.

Examples:
“A person writing on water” — one agent in a particular futile action.
“A cloud of dust, flashes of swords above it, and the spatial relationship between them” — several elements forming an integrated scene.

The diagnostic question is whether attention falls on one object under a condition or on the configuration produced by several coordinated elements. A phrase is not composite merely because it has several nouns.

8. Composite to composite: resemblance between scenes

وإما تشبيه مركب بمركب
Or a composite scene is likened to another composite scene.

Both compared terms comprise several coordinated features. One classical image likens flashing swords above battlefield dust to bright stars scattered across the darkness of night. It is insufficient simply to equate “dust” with “night” and each sword with an individual star.

The common configuration combines a dark background, gleaming elements, spatial positioning and movement. Treating every element as an isolated simile can therefore destroy the overall effect of the composite likeness.

9. The battlefield-dust and stars image

كَأَنَّ مُثَارَ النَّقْعِ فَوْقَ رُؤُوسِنَا
As though the battle dust stirred above our heads…

The poetic image brings together dust rising in battle and gleaming swords, and matches them to the relationship between darkness and scattered bright stars. Its aesthetic power lies in matching dust plus flashing blades with night plus shining stars as organized scenes.

A set of individual likenesses is not identical to a likeness of the whole arrangement. Equating sword with star alone neglects the spatial relationship that makes the scene striking.

10. Single to composite: a thing compared to a scene

وإما تشبيه مفرد بمركب
And sometimes the subject is single while the comparison term is composite.

The object being explained is one term, yet the image invoked to represent it is a unified arrangement of multiple components. A bright object, for example, may be likened to an entire scene involving light, background and other coordinated details.

The unity of the comparison term is unity of configuration, not necessarily the unity of a physical object. Classification depends on what is imagined and compared rather than word count or superficial grammar.

11. The anemone and ruby banners: single to composite

بأعلام ياقوت نشرن على رماح من زبرجد
Like ruby banners spread upon emerald spears.

The subject is the red anemone (shaqīq), a single flower. The comparison term is neither a ruby alone nor a spear alone: it is the combined image of bright red banners fixed upon green emerald spears. The relationship between red petals and green stems supplies the visual connection.

This is single-to-composite. The flower counts as one subject, while the coordinated red banners and green spears provide the composite reference. Reducing the likeness to anemone equalling ruby would omit the vivid combination of red and green central to the image.

12. Composite to single: an arranged subject

وإما تشبيه مركب بمفرد
Or the subject is composite and the comparison term is single.

The described subject may consist of several interacting elements, while the reference chosen to illuminate it is one more familiar object. A unified arrangement of luminous or coloured elements could, in suitable context, be likened to a moon, provided the configuration itself is the subject.

This is not a trivial reversal of word order. We must establish whether the complex image is the subject being explained or the example brought in to explain something else. The resemblance can involve the effect created by the ensemble.

13. Comparison: composite terms and qualified singles

FeatureQualified singleCompositeCentral focusOne object or agentArrangement of elementsFurther detailsQualifying circumstancesConstituent parts of an imageEffect of omissionChanges a term's conditionMay destroy the overall patternIllustrationA writer on waterSwords in dust and stars in a dark sky

A composite is not simply a long phrase and a single term is not necessarily one noun. Adverbs, attributes and possessive relations may qualify an otherwise single term. The relevant criterion is rhetorical structure: what arrangement is indispensable to the respect of resemblance?

14. Multiplicity of terms: one simile or several?

وإن تعدد طرفاه فإما ملفوف
When the compared terms are multiple, one arrangement is the enfolded form.

This is a different basis of division from the preceding fourfold classification. There we asked whether the terms of a particular simile were single or composite. Here several independent comparisons may be organized in one utterance, and their sequence becomes important.

If two subjects correspond to two comparison terms separately, a long poetic line does not automatically become composite-to-composite. Determine whether each pairing can stand on its own or whether the point is one overall configuration.

15. Enfolded simile: grouped subjects and comparisons

كأن قلوب الطير رطبًا ويابسًا
As though the birds' hearts, fresh and dried…

The example mentions fresh and dried hearts on one side, and jujubes and old dried dates on the other. The first group lists subjects; the second group supplies corresponding comparison terms. The fresh hearts match the jujubes, and the dry hearts match the old dates.

In the enfolded form (malfūf), separate likenesses are packed as one group followed by another. Correct analysis recovers the individual pairings; the whole expression need not be treated as one indivisible composite image.

16. Separated simile: alternating pairs

النشر مسك والوجوه دنانير
The fragrance is musk, and the faces are dinars.

The passage continues with the fingertips and a corresponding comparison. Each subject appears near its own comparison term: fragrance–musk, faces–coins, and fingertips–their relevant likeness.

This is separated simile (mafrūq): rather than listing all subjects followed by all comparisons, the utterance presents one pair after another. Each resemblance can be understood as it occurs, making the arrangement distinct from malfūf.

17. How the two arrangements differ

AspectEnfolded (malfūf)Separated (mafrūq)OrderSubject 1, subject 2; then comparison 1, comparison 2Subject 1 with comparison 1; then subject 2 with comparison 2Recovering pairsCompleted after both listsVisible pair by pairUnderlying unitSeveral independent similesSeveral independent similes

Mentioning several items is insufficient. A reader should be able to identify which subject goes with which comparison term. If the meaning instead depends on the unity of an entire scene, composite resemblance requires separate analysis.

18. Taswiya: several subjects, one comparison term

صدغ الحبيب وحالي كلاهما كالليالي
The beloved's side-lock and my condition are both like nights.

The line has two subjects: the beloved's side-lock and the speaker's condition. Both are likened to one comparison term, dark nights. One may suggest visible blackness and the other gloom or sorrow.

Taswiya places several subjects on an equal comparative footing with a shared model. This does not imply equality in all attributes; the equality concerns the particular aspect relevant to the comparison.

19. Jamʿ: one subject, several comparison terms

وإن تعدد طرفه الثاني دون الأول فتشبيه الجمع
When the second term is multiple but the first is not, it is called a gathering simile.

A single subject is described through several comparison terms. A smile or bright teeth, for instance, may be likened to several luminous or white things. The subject remains one; the reference images are multiple.

This is the converse of taswiya: taswiya = several subjects plus one comparison term, whereas jamʿ = one subject plus several comparison terms. Identify the relationships, not merely the number of nouns in the sentence.

20. Comparing all four multiple-term patterns

TypeDiagnostic structureMalfūfSeveral subjects followed by their several comparisonsMafrūqEach subject placed with its own comparisonTaswiyaSeveral subjects share one comparison termJamʿOne subject has several comparison terms

Illustrative patterns:
“Zayd and Amr resemble a lion and a leopard respectively” — enfolded if two pairings are intended.
“Zayd is a lion and Amr a leopard” — separated.
“Zayd and Amr are both lion-like” — taswiya.
“Zayd resembles both a lion and a mountain” — jamʿ, if separate resemblances are intended.

Always ask how many subjects, how many comparison terms, and in what order they appear.

21. Tamthīl: extracting the shared respect from many elements

إما تمثيل وهو ما وجهه وصف منتزع من متعدد أمرين أو أمور
One kind is representational simile, whose common feature is abstracted from two or more elements.

The defining characteristic of tamthīl is not a sheer abundance of nouns on both sides. Rather, its respect of resemblance is drawn from the relationship of several components. The resulting description is a unified relational condition, such as possessing knowledge without benefiting from it.

The elements may be sensory, intellectual or conceptual. Thus sensory versus intellectual content alone cannot decide whether a comparison is tamthīl; the derivation of the common respect is decisive.

22. Why tamthīl and composite-to-composite are distinct

Composite-to-composite describes the structure of the compared terms, while tamthīl describes the nature of the shared respect. They frequently overlap, but they are not simply two interchangeable definitions.

Battlefield dust with blades flashing above it, compared to night with stars, uses two integrated scenes and derives resemblance from their coordinated pattern. It therefore offers a clear illustration of representational resemblance.

A line may contain many words yet have a simple, individual shared feature. Verbal abundance cannot by itself establish tamthīl. Always distinguish the construction of the terms from the extraction of the common feature.

23. A Qur’anic representational comparison

كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا
Like a donkey carrying books.

This passage from Qur’an 62:5 offers a powerful example of representational comparison. The point is not merely to compare a person with a donkey; it is the condition of bearing learned books without benefiting from their content.

The common respect is not a simple sensory feature such as colour or size. It emerges from the conjunction of carrying books and failing to profit from their knowledge. Reducing the passage to a bare comparison between human and animal loses its rhetorical force.

24. Differences over the scope of tamthīl

A technical difference concerns whether a common respect drawn from multiple actual sensory elements is enough for tamthīl, or whether a narrower description involving an imagined or conceptual composite is required. The broad formulation treats extraction from multiple elements as central, while the treatment associated with al-Sakkākī places a further restriction on this class.

This difference can change the classification of some examples. Battlefield dust and flashing swords readily form an integrated scene under a broad understanding, while a more restrictive framework may require a special non-literal configuration.

Keep the terminological criterion separate from the factual structure of the example. That makes it possible to understand the disagreement without misdescribing the image itself.

25. What makes a simile non-representational

وإما غير تمثيل وهو بخلافه
The other kind is non-representational simile, which is the opposite in this respect.

In non-tamthīl, the common feature is not derived from the coordinated totality of multiple elements in the manner characteristic of tamthīl. For example, “Zayd is brave like a lion” concerns courage, a comparatively independent quality.

Non-representational does not mean rhetorically weak or trivial. A simple comparison can be forceful. The classification addresses how the common respect is obtained, not the absolute beauty or value of the expression.

26. Mufaṣṣal: an explicitly stated respect of resemblance

وإما مفصل وهو ما ذكر وجهه
One type is detailed: the respect of resemblance is explicitly mentioned.

In “Zayd resembles a lion in courage,” the speaker specifies the shared quality. The audience need not guess whether the comparison concerns courage, physical appearance or something else.

Mufaṣṣal depends on stating the shared respect. Whether the simile marker appears is another classification, and whether its terms are single or composite is yet another. A single expression may belong to several divisions at once because they answer different questions.

27. Mujmal: the common respect left unstated

وإما مجمل وهو ما لم يذكر وجهه
The other type is condensed: the common respect is not stated.

“Zayd is like a lion” gives the two terms and the comparison, but it does not explicitly say “in courage.” The audience may still infer the intended quality from context. The simile is mujmal even if its intended meaning is immediately apparent.

Thus mujmal does not mean incomprehensible. Omission is the criterion. Some unstated respects are obvious, while others require reflection or refined literary perception; that is a further distinction.

28. Obvious and subtle features in condensed similes

فمن المجمل ما هو ظاهر وجهه
Some condensed similes have an obvious respect of resemblance.

“Zayd is a lion” or “Zayd is like a lion” may readily suggest bravery in an appropriate context. The common respect is omitted in words but clear in interpretation. Other condensed similes may require specialized literary insight before their intended likeness emerges.

Obvious versus subtle asks how easily the unstated respect is inferred. Detailed versus condensed asks whether it was explicitly named. These are different questions.

29. The seamless-ring example: a subtle likeness

هم كالحلقة المفرغة لا يدرى أين طرفاها
They are like a seamless ring whose two ends cannot be identified.

The visible reference is a ring without a distinguishable beginning or end. When used of a group whose members cannot be decisively distinguished in precedence or merit, the resemblance is not simply circular shape. It concerns the difficulty of singling out one member from the rest.

Understanding the likeness requires moving from the physical image to an abstract relation. The example helps explain a subtle unstated respect: listing the ring's sensory properties alone does not recover the intended rhetorical meaning.

30. When an attribute of a term signals the common respect

Sometimes the common respect is not explicitly named, but an attribute attached to a subject or comparison term strongly signals what the audience should infer. We must still distinguish an attribute of a term from an explicit statement of the shared respect.

A speaker may liken someone to a model whose defining feature is mentioned in the expression. That feature can guide interpretation, but it does not automatically make the simile detailed (mufaṣṣal) if the shared respect itself has not been stated as such.

The example shows why both grammatical placement and rhetorical function matter. Not every adjective in a simile is technically its named common respect.

31. Speech and honey: indicating the resemblance by an entailment

الكلام الفصيح هو كالعسل في الحلاوة
Eloquent speech is like honey in sweetness.

“Sweetness” brings the experience of effective speech close to the listener. Yet the gustatory sweetness of honey and the pleasant effect of eloquent speech are not literally the same sensory property. The relation lies in agreeableness or delight, with sweetness serving as a convenient indication.

A subtle point is that speakers may mention an associated consequence of the common respect rather than the most exact abstract description of the resemblance. One should not insist that the literal physical meaning of every word must apply identically to both sides.

32. How several classifications can apply at once

A single simile may receive several classifications because each division asks a different question.

Structure of terms: Are the terms single or composite?
Number and order: Enfolded, separated, taswiya, or jamʿ?
Nature of the respect: Representational or non-representational?
Expression of the respect: Detailed or condensed?
Ease of inference: Obvious or subtle?

“Zayd is like a lion,” for instance, may involve two single terms, a non-representational respect of courage and a condensed expression because courage is not named. There is no contradiction: each label describes a different basis of analysis.

33. A complete worked rhetorical analysis

Consider “Zayd and Amr are courageous like lions.” There are two subjects, a shared comparison term, and an expressly named respect—courage. This is therefore both taswiya and detailed (mufaṣṣal).

Now consider “Zayd is like a lion and a mountain.” If lion suggests courage and mountain suggests stability as separate resemblances, there is one subject with two comparison terms: jamʿ. If the relevant respects are not explicitly stated, it may also be condensed (mujmal).

Separately determining the terms and their number, the nature of the respect, and whether that respect was expressed or omitted yields a more reliable analysis.

34. Summary and transition to the next division

Single/composite describes the structure of the compared terms. Enfolded/separated describes the ordering of several comparisons. Taswiya/jamʿ distinguishes several subjects sharing one model from one subject receiving several models. Representational/non-representational concerns how the shared respect is derived, and detailed/condensed whether it is explicitly mentioned.

The central principle is to keep the basis of each division consistent. An indicator relevant to one division should not automatically be taken as evidence for another. Several nouns in a line do not necessarily create a unified composite scene.

The next section examines familiar, immediately apparent versus remote, unusual resemblances, where the question becomes how readily the audience moves from subject to comparison term.