ʿIlm al-Bayān and the Foundations of Tashbīh: Signification, Terms and Resemblance

1. From ʿilm al-maʿānī to ʿilm al-bayān

ʿIlm al-maʿānī (علم المعاني) examined how utterances meet contextual requirements: when a report needs emphasis, why a subject or predicate is advanced, and when clauses should be joined. ʿIlm al-bayān (علم البيان) changes the question. It studies how one intended meaning can be expressed through different modes whose clarity and inferential routes vary.

For example:
“Zayd is brave” states a quality directly.
“Zayd is brave like a lion” makes it vivid through comparison.
“A lion advanced onto the battlefield” can refer figuratively to a brave person when context establishes that reference.

The subject analyzes how expression guides the hearer to meaning. Different forms may share a core intention without being semantically identical in every respect.

2. The textbook definition of bayān

«وهو علم يعرف به إيراد المعنى الواحد بطرق مختلفة في وضوح الدلالة عليه»
It is the discipline through which one learns to express a single intended meaning by different methods that vary in the clarity of their indication.

One meaning (المعنى الواحد) is the underlying purpose that can be conveyed through several rhetorical forms. Different methods (طرق مختلفة) does not mean arbitrarily exchanging synonyms; the route by which the audience reaches the meaning may change.

The key phrase is clarity of indication (وضوح الدلالة). Some meanings are directly expressed, while others are reached through resemblance, contextual evidence or an associated implication. Those distinctions ground the study of simile, metaphor and kināyah.

3. Different degrees of clarity

An ordinary literal word can convey its conventional sense immediately. A simile invites the audience to identify a shared attribute. Kināyah may direct attention to a quality through something regularly associated with it.

Consider:
“He is generous” directly names the quality.
“He gives like the rain” highlights wide-reaching beneficence by analogy.
“His door is always open to those in need” can suggest generosity through an associated practice.

The last sentence does not prove generosity in every imaginable context; its surface meaning may also be intended. Thus the route and strength of indication depend on context, not simply on substituting one expression for another.

4. Three kinds of lexical signification

«ودلالة اللفظ إما على تمام ما وضع له، أو على جزئه، أو على خارج عنه»
A word indicates either the whole meaning for which it was established, part of that meaning, or something outside it.

These relations are called muṭābaqah (مطابقة), taḍammun (تضمن), and iltizām (التزام). The first two involve the stipulated meaning itself or one of its constituents. The third involves a distinct but necessarily associated concept.

SignificationWhat the word conveys
MuṭābaqahIts complete stipulated meaning
TaḍammunA constituent of that meaning
IltizāmA meaning outside it, but necessarily connected

5. Muṭābaqah and the whole intended sense

In muṭābaqah (المطابقة), a term signifies the complete meaning for which it is established. In the standard logical analysis, “human” signifies the kind characterized as a rational living being; taking that meaning as a whole is correspondence.

Likewise, “book” can signify a book according to its complete ordinary sense. “Whole” here concerns the composition of the stipulated meaning; it does not mean all individual books in existence.

If one extracts the constituent “living being” from the concept of human, one has moved toward taḍammun. The same word can be approached through distinct semantic relations depending on whether the entire concept, an internal part, or an associated implication is being considered.

6. Taḍammun and a constituent meaning

Taḍammun (التضمن) concerns a constituent already included in the meaning established for a word. In traditional analysis, the concept “human” contains such components as living being and rationality; indicating one constituent is inclusion rather than indication of the full definition.

A constituent need not be a detachable physical piece. Conceptual definitions have analyzable parts: rationality is a component of the intended conception, not a physical fragment of the person.

An important limitation is that an accidental property is not automatically an internal component. People can write or run, but writing and running are not, merely for that reason, constituents of the definition of “human.” The category depends on conceptual inclusion.

7. Iltizām and an external implication

Iltizām (الالتزام) signifies a meaning external to the term's stipulated sense and its internal components, yet connected to it by an intelligible necessity. For instance, a conception such as a roof may lead the mind toward the support on which it rests; that support is not a constituent named by the word itself.

A spontaneous association is not enough. “Book” might remind one of a market, a pen or a school; such recollections do not thereby become necessary implications. The relevant connection must be justified.

The textbook introduces this distinction as preparation for metaphorical and indirect expression, where the audience moves from the surface sense of an expression to another intended meaning.

8. The condition of a mental necessary connection

«وشرطه: اللزوم الذهني»
Its condition is mental necessitation.

Luzūm dhihnī (اللزوم الذهني) requires a mental link by which understanding the stipulated meaning makes the additional implication intelligible. The point is not merely an observed coincidence between two things.

Not every implication is apprehended equally quickly. Some are obvious on reflection and others require thought; degrees of clarity are possible. The technical relationship still differs from a chance memory triggered by an expression.

9. Distinguishing an established sense from its implication

Analytical questionResult
Is the entire established meaning intended?Muṭābaqah
Is an internal constituent intended?Taḍammun
Is a distinct, mentally necessary implication intended?Iltizām

For “human,” the complete established concept represents correspondence; one defining element, such as animality, represents inclusion. A consequence external to those conceptual components may represent implication if the required mental connection exists.

This method prevents every indirect meaning from being collapsed into the same category. The critical boundary is between an internal component and an external implication.

10. An initial distinction: majāz and kināyah

«ثم اللفظ المراد به لازم ما وضع له إن قامت قرينة على عدم إرادته فمجاز، وإلا فكناية»
When a term is used for an implication of its established meaning, it is majāz if a contextual indication prevents intending the original sense; otherwise it is kināyah.

In majāz (المجاز), an indication blocks the literal reading while guiding the audience toward a transferred sense. In kināyah (الكناية), an associated meaning is intended but the original sense may still be possible.

This is the chapter's opening distinction, not the complete subsequent taxonomy. Later sections examine metaphor and kināyah in their own right. For now the critical analytical feature is whether there is a literal-blocking context (قرينة مانعة).

11. Why simile, majāz and kināyah follow

«ثم منه ما يبتني على التشبيه فتعين التعرض له، فانحصر في الثلاثة»
Some of the subsequent material rests on simile, so it must first be discussed; the study is thus organized into three topics.

The primary discussions are simile (التشبيه), figurative usage (المجاز), and indirect allusion (الكناية). Simile makes a shared attribute apprehensible; majāz transfers usage beyond the original lexical assignment; kināyah directs the audience toward a related meaning.

Simile is treated first because comparison underlies understanding many instances of metaphor. That does not mean every form of majāz is similarity-based; other figurative relations exist and belong in the later discussion.

12. The meaning of tashbīh

«التشبيه الدلالة على مشاركة أمر لأمر في معنى»
Simile is an indication that one thing shares a meaning or quality with another.

Sharing (مشاركة) does not make the two objects identical in every respect. The comparison picks out a particular attribute. “Zayd is brave like a lion” does not assert that Zayd belongs to the biological species of lions; it evokes resemblance in courage.

One term is ordinarily the subject being characterized and the other supplies a recognized model for the quality. Unless the relevant point of similarity can be identified, the comparison risks remaining vague.

13. The four pillars of a simile

In “Zayd is brave like a lion,” four elements can be identified:
Mushabbah (مشبه): Zayd, the subject whose quality is described.
Mushabbah bih (مشبه به): the lion, the comparison model.
Particle (أداة التشبيه): “like,” expressing the link.
Point of resemblance (وجه الشبه): courage, the shared attribute.

The first two are the two terms (الطرفان). Not every simile states all four components explicitly; some are understood from context. A sound analysis still distinguishes their functions.

The comparison does not claim that Zayd has every attribute of a lion. It selects the attribute relevant to the speaker's purpose.

14. How the two terms differ in function

The two terms of simile are not merely interchangeable grammatical constituents. The mushabbah is what the speaker seeks to characterize, while the mushabbah bih is the familiar or striking model used to illuminate the quality.

In “The student is fresh like a flower,” the student is the subject and the flower supplies the comparison. Reversing the imagery—“The flower resembles this student's face”—creates a different rhetorical direction even if the same ideas recur.

The formal topic of reversed simile (التشبيه المقلوب) is treated later. Here it is enough to see that similarity of meaning does not erase differences in the terms' communicative roles.

15. Expressed and unexpressed comparison markers

Arabic uses markers such as the comparative kāf (كـ) in “Zayd is like a lion” and kaʾanna (كأنّ) in “It is as though Zayd were a lion.” English “like” and “as if” perform comparable functions.

A simile can remain intelligible without an overt comparison marker. Under the right context, “Zayd is a lion” may function as a condensed resemblance in courage while both terms remain in the utterance.

Not every unmarked expression has the same technical classification. One must consider whether the compared terms are present, whether context blocks a literal reading, and how the expression is grammatically constructed.

16. Why a simile is not identical with metaphor

«زيد أسد»
Zayd is a lion.

Both the person and the animal are expressed; with courage intended, a resemblance can be understood. By contrast, “I saw a lion addressing the troops” can use the word “lion” to denote a brave human, provided the context clearly excludes the animal.

The source keeps the definition of simile distinct from technical forms of explicit metaphor (الاستعارة التحقيقية), implied metaphor (الاستعارة بالكناية), and tajrīd (التجريد). Having an element of resemblance does not make every rhetorical construction the same type.

Full analysis belongs to later sections. For the present lesson, preserve the distinction between an expressed comparison and a term transferred to an associated referent.

17. Understanding condensed comparison in a Qurʾānic expression

«صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ»
Deaf, mute, blind.

In context, this expression strongly depicts a refusal or inability to receive guidance; it does not require that every person described has physically lost the stated faculties. The words are from Qurʾān 2:18.

With compressed simile-like or figurative descriptions, identifying the context and the intended characteristic is essential. A literal dictionary gloss alone does not explain why bodily disabilities are invoked to convey a moral or cognitive state. The passage illustrates the need for contextual rhetorical analysis, not unrestricted substitution of every literal sense.

18. Sensory and conceptual terms of comparison

The two terms of simile (طرفا التشبيه) may both be sensory, both conceptual, or one of each. The criterion is how the compared objects or notions are apprehended: by the outward senses or through intellect and conception.

CombinationTeaching example
Sensory–sensoryThe visible redness of a face compared with a rose
Conceptual–conceptualTwo abstract moral qualities compared in a shared respect
Sensory–conceptualVisible light compared with knowledge, which is not itself seen

This teaching classification introduces the types. The source also treats imagined and hypothetically conceived items, so “sensory” is not always synonymous with presently existing material objects.

19. The sensory includes all outward senses

“Sensory” does not mean “visual” alone. The source includes colors and shapes, sounds, fragrances, tastes and tactile properties such as warmth, hardness and softness.

Sight: “red like a rose” — visible color.
Hearing: “clear like a bell” — auditory character.
Smell: “fragrant like musk” — odor.
Taste: “sweet as honey” — flavor.
Touch: “soft as silk” — tactile softness.

These are instructional examples showing that a sensory point of resemblance (وجه شبه حسي) may arise from any of the outward senses. The classification must attend to the specific attribute, not merely the fact that the compared objects are tangible.

20. How to recognize a conceptual term

Knowledge, life, courage, patience and ignorance are not perceived as colors, sounds or tactile qualities. We understand them conceptually. We may see a courageous person acting bravely, but courage itself is not a visible pigment or physical outline.

Thus “knowledge is light” compares a conceptual term, knowledge, with a perceptible model, light. The fact that one term is sensory does not make both sensory.

This distinction prevents two common errors: identifying the terms before considering their mode of apprehension, and assuming that the nature of a term automatically determines the nature of the shared point of resemblance. These must be assessed separately.

21. Real sensory objects, fancied objects and imagination

The source allows for imagined (خيالي) and fancied (وهمي) items when discussing sensory and intellectual terms. A construction may not exist externally, yet be imaginatively assembled from elements whose shapes or qualities are perceptible.

For example, an invented bird with wings made of flame recombines familiar sensory features into a nonexistent picture. This differs from a purely abstract concept whose intelligibility is not supplied by assembling visible parts.

The distinction is between actually existing outside the mind and being representable as a sensory image. One cannot decide the technical category merely by asking whether an object currently exists in the world.

22. Why the shared point must be identified

A successful analysis states in what respect two terms are compared. “Zayd is like a lion” might evoke courage, strength or intimidating presence depending on context. “Zayd is like a lion in courage” determines the precise point.

The two terms (الطرفان) answer, “What is being compared?” The point of resemblance (وجه الشبه) answers, “In which feature, condition or arrangement do they share something?”

A comparison may emphasize color, loudness or the complete organization of a scene. A generic comment such as “both are beautiful” is not enough unless beauty really is the operative and textually supported similarity.

23. The point of resemblance must genuinely belong to both

«وهو إما غير خارج عن حقيقتهما»
The point of resemblance may be internal to the realities of the compared terms.

The source distinguishes a constituent-related commonality from an attribute additional to the terms' essential natures. In the latter case a property—such as a quality or an organized configuration—can be shared without constituting what each thing is.

The necessary constraint is that the proposed point genuinely fits both terms, whether actually or within a justified imagined construction. A feature found in one object but unrelated to the other cannot simply be named as the comparison's valid point of resemblance.

24. Sensory and intellectual points of resemblance

A sensory point of resemblance (وجه الشبه الحسي) is grasped through an outward sense, such as redness, loudness or softness. A conceptual point (وجه الشبه العقلي) concerns an abstract quality or function, such as courage, generosity, knowledge or guidance.

“The face is red like a rose” compares sensory terms by a sensory quality. “Knowledge guides like light” compares a conceptual subject with sensory light, while the point—guidance or revealing the way—is itself conceptually understood, not a color.

It follows that the classification of the two terms and that of the shared point are distinct. An adequate answer may need to state both.

25. One, multiple and composite points of resemblance

The point of resemblance may be single (مفرد), such as redness or courage; it may comprise several distinguishable features; or it may consist of a composite configuration (مركب) in which multiple features form one coherent pattern.

FormCentral feature
SingleOne attribute, such as redness
MultipleSeveral separate features, such as brightness and warmth
CompositeAn arrangement forming a unified scene or shape

A long expression is not necessarily composite. What matters is whether the comparison is made through an organized overall configuration rather than through independently listed attributes.

26. A composite image: the Pleiades

«وقد لاح في الصبح الثريا كما ترى كعنقود ملاحية حين نورا»
The Pleiades appear at dawn like a blossoming cluster.

The verse does not merely compare the color of one star with one flower. It presents many small bright elements grouped in a particular arrangement. To call the point of resemblance simply “whiteness” would miss the configuration that makes the comparison striking.

The source uses this kind of image to develop the idea of a composite sensory appearance (هيئة مركبة). Individual components may be visible, but the comparison concerns the way they form a unified scene.

27. The composite scene of dust and swords

«كأن مثار النقع فوق رؤوسنا وأسيافنا ليل تهاوى كواكبه»
The raised battle-dust above our heads and our swords are as though a night in which stars are falling.

The image is not fully analysed by matching dust with night and swords with stars separately. Each side presents an organized scene: darkness, moving points of brightness and their interaction within a single setting. The shared feature is the overall configuration.

To analyse a composite comparison, map the features of each side and identify the one coherent appearance emerging from them. This distinguishes it from a mere list of unrelated similes.

28. Movement as part of a composite image

«والشمس كالمرآة في كف الأشل»
The sun is like a mirror in the hand of someone whose hand trembles.

The comparison is more than the roundness of the sun or the brightness of a mirror. The imagined movement, shimmering and shifting visual appearance contribute to the image as a whole.

The source treats such formations as composite when motion combines with shape, light or another characteristic to produce a unified perceptual impression. A full analysis first recognizes the elements and then explains their combined rhetorical effect.

29. Consolidation and the next stage

A reliable simile analysis proceeds in stages. First identify the two terms. Then examine the marker of comparison, whether expressed or omitted. Next determine the point of resemblance and whether it is sensory or conceptual, single or composite.

Example 1: “Zayd is brave like a lion” — Zayd and lion; the shared point is conceptual courage.
Example 2: “The face is red like a rose” — sensory terms; the shared feature is visible redness.
Example 3: dust and flashing swords compared with a night of falling stars — a composite visual configuration.

The next level develops the purposes of simile (أغراض التشبيه) and further divisions: not merely what the comparison contains, but what rhetorical effect it is meant to produce.