Imaginative and Implicit Metaphor, Reinforcement, and Critiques of al-Sakkaki

1. A word retains its lexical status when qualified

أن إضافة الكلمة إلى شيء أو تقييدها واقترانها بألف شيء لا يخرجها عن أن تكون كلمة
Adding a complement or qualification to a word does not make that word cease to be a word.

The distinction between a single-word figure and a transferred composite expression cannot be decided by counting all the words in a phrase. If a particular word undergoes a change of signification, its being followed by a qualifier does not remove that transfer.

أظفار المنية
The claws of death.

This phrase contains more than one word, but we must still identify which element bears the figurative signification. Genitive construction by itself does not turn every such expression into composite metaphor.

2. Where the transfer lies in a conventional expression

أراك تقدم رجلاً وتؤخر أخرى
I see you putting one foot forward and drawing the other back.

The expression can depict hesitation in a person who cannot settle on an action. It presents a scene with verbs and their complements; the intended meaning is not necessarily physical steps but indecision.

The analytical question is whether the whole represented situation has been transferred, or an individual term has changed its meaning. A sentence being grammatically composite is not the same as its figure being composite in scope.

3. Locate the rhetorical operation precisely

The first task in a rhetorical analysis is to locate the site of transfer. If the words describing physical steps compose a scene applied to hesitation, assigning the entire figure to a single isolated word may be inadequate.

In أظفار المنية, however, one must distinguish the ordinary sense of “claws” from the assertion that death possesses them. A claim about a word and a claim about predication are analytically different.

This distinction supports the ensuing debate over imaginative metaphor and metaphor by implication.

4. What non-realization means in imaginative metaphor

بما لا تحقق لمعناه حسّاً ولا عقلاً
With something whose intended content has no sensory or intellectual realization in that respect.

Some technical accounts of imaginative metaphor use this qualification. It does not say that claws never exist in animals. Rather, the special image of claws belonging to death does not exist externally as the rhetoric imagines it.

We must distinguish a familiar sensory property from its imagined attribution to an entity that lacks a body. The established concept of claws and the invented death-with-claws image are not identical objects of analysis.

5. The governing image in the example of death

وإذا المنية أنشبت أظفارها
And when death sinks in its claws.

Death is portrayed as a destructive power resembling a predator that grips prey with claws. Death is overtly named, but an animal property is attributed to it.

Subject compared: Death, whose power and grip are being conveyed.
Comparison source: A clawing beast, not expressly named here.
Associated feature: Claws, imagined as belonging to death.

These elements must be separated before examining the competing technical descriptions of the figure.

6. The imagined form in al-Sakkaki’s account

In the reported account of al-Sakkaki, death is first imagined as analogous to a predator; then a hypothetical image resembling an animal’s claws is constructed for death. This is not a literal anatomical property but an imaginative representation.

The argument does not deny the real existence of claws in animals. It concerns an imagined claw-like form attributed to death. Calling that representation “claws” follows the rhetorical picture.

This reading requires separate attention to the transferred expression and to the context that directs it away from its ordinary reading.

7. Why “claws” may be treated as an explicit metaphor

لفظ الأظفار فيكون استعارة تصريحية
On this account, the word “claws” is classified as an explicit metaphor.

In this interpretation, the familiar word for real claws is applied to a hypothetical form imagined for death. The overt word belongs to the source image, while the intended form is imagined; hence the label “explicit.”

This is not the unanimous analysis of the rhetorical schools. Other analyses assign “claws” a role as an associated feature or an imaginative clue. The dispute concerns where the figure is located.

8. The genitive relation as a contextual clue

والقرينة إضافتها إلى المنية
The contextual clue is the attachment of “claws” to death.

Real claws are a known animal feature, but death is not a bodily predator possessing limbs. Accordingly, the genitive link between “claws” and “death” directs the audience beyond a merely anatomical reading.

The clue indicates why the literal reading is not intended in this context. The resemblance basis accounts for the shared notion of grip, power, or destruction. Their logical functions should not be confused.

9. Is imaginative metaphor dependent on implicit metaphor?

One account associates imaginative metaphor with implicit metaphor: first the subject is assimilated to a comparison source, then a feature peculiar to that source is attributed to the subject.

A significant feature of al-Sakkaki’s exposition is that the imagined representation can be analyzed on its own, not always under the same requirement of an explicit prior implicit-metaphor construction used by other theorists.

This is more than a terminological dispute. It asks whether the transfer belongs to a word, to an imagined attribution, or to their combination.

10. Comparison of analyses of “the claws of death”

AnalysisFocusRhetorical result
Implicit metaphorDeath is covertly likened to a predatorThe predator remains unstated
Imaginative attributionClaws are imagined for deathAn abstract reality becomes vivid
Specific explicit-metaphor reading“Claws” is used for a hypothetical claw-like formA transferred word is identified

The readings share the governing scene but differ on the location of metaphorical transfer. Memorizing labels is insufficient unless the analyzed word, subject, and associated feature are also identified.

11. Disambiguating imagination and illusion

Wahm in this rhetorical discussion should not be reduced to the everyday sense “false belief.” It may designate an invented, quasi-sensory representation the mind constructs for something non-bodily.

The claws of death are not literal organs of death, yet the mental picture forcefully conveys death’s grip. The rhetorical efficacy of a representation must be distinguished from the physical truth of a bodily claim.

A figure can therefore have an intelligible imaginative content even when the imagined entity has no corresponding external anatomy.

12. Why some analyses are criticized as strained

Some critics object that al-Sakkaki’s interpretation requires a lengthy mental construction: invent a hypothetical claw-like form for death and then transfer the word for real claws to that form. This may appear too elaborate for an immediately grasped expression.

The objection does not deny the rhetorical force of the language. It questions how many speculative steps must be postulated in explaining the listener’s understanding.

Describing an interpretation as “remote” or “strained” is a specific theoretical criticism, not an automatic rejection of its author’s entire system.

13. Naming, minimal resemblance, and imagined predication

One response allows that even a minimal aptness may motivate naming an imagined form after a familiar form. The resemblance between hypothetical and actual claws can thus explain a figurative application.

But another issue remains: if the imagined judgment does not assert a physical fact, how exactly does it relate to real anatomy? Some accounts call the act imaginative predication, while others frame it as a verbal metaphor.

The disagreement concerns not merely whether a label is apt, but the kind of predication being made.

14. The disputed example of the north wind’s hand

يد الشمال
The hand of the north wind.

Giving a hand to the wind similarly attributes a bodily property to a non-bodily agent. Compared with “the claws of death,” it raises the question whether “hand” has been transferred from its ordinary sense or whether a hand-like relation has been imagined for the wind.

This shows why “abstract subject plus bodily feature” does not automatically determine a full technical classification. Context and the claimed locus of transfer must be considered.

15. Verbal transfer versus attributing a thing to a thing

جعل الشيء للشيء
Attributing one thing to another.

Some imagined figures are analyzed not primarily as using one word for another meaning, but as ascribing a feature to a subject that does not possess it literally.

The claws of death and the hand of the north wind can be examined from this angle. Counting the words without investigating predication would erase the distinction between verbal transfer and imaginative attribution.

16. What qualification and imagination have in common

A reinforced metaphor (tarshīḥ) supplies features appropriate to the comparison source, as when an orator called a “lion” is further described with leonine traits. Imaginative metaphor can also involve a feature peculiar to the unstated comparison source.

Because of this overlap, some readings bring imagination close to reinforcement. Yet one account treats imagined attribution as central to constructing the scene, while reinforcement strengthens an already established metaphor.

Mentioning an associated feature alone does not make the two operations identical.

17. An example distinguishing reinforcement from imagination

Suppose an orator is called رأيت أسداً يخطب—“I saw a lion preaching.” The transfer from a brave man to a lion has already taken place. Further lion-associated details may function as reinforcement.

In “death sinks in its claws,” however, the word “death” remains and claws are attributed to that non-bodily subject. The associated feature participates in making the imagined attribution itself.

Neither figure physically transfers animal organs to a human or to death. Both are rhetorical, but their structures differ.

18. Two questions that should not be merged

AspectReinforcementImaginative attribution
Main questionWhat feature intensifies the figure?What nonliteral feature is imagined?
FocusA property suitable to the source imageAttributing a source feature to the subject
EffectStrengthens the metaphorCreates a vivid imagined form

This is a pedagogical distinction, not a claim that all rhetorical schools use identical definitions. Re-analyzing the components of one expression may alter its technical label.

19. The Qur’anic image of a failed bargain

أُولَٰئِكَ الَّذِينَ اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ فَمَا رَبِحَت تِّجَارَتُهُمْ
They are those who bought error for guidance, so their trade gained no profit. (Al-Baqarah 2:16)

Choosing error in place of guidance is described through a commercial transaction; the phrase about the trade yielding no profit continues the same image. In discussing imagination and reinforcement, this asks which transferred term establishes the metaphor and which connected feature intensifies it.

The verse is not describing literal merchandise. Its force comes from presenting a moral exchange as a vivid failed bargain.

20. The transfer in “purchasing misguidance”

اشْتَرَوُا الضَّلَالَةَ بِالْهُدَىٰ
They purchased error in exchange for guidance.

Literal purchasing involves giving up one thing to obtain another. Here the intended meaning is abandoning guidance and choosing error. The shared feature is exchange and preference.

The transferred use of “purchased” establishes the central metaphor. The continuation “their trade gained no profit” sustains the commercial field and strengthens the image. An associated detail may therefore reinforce a figure already introduced.

21. Two roles of source-associated details

A feature associated with the comparison source can play at least two roles. First: a metaphor is already established and the feature reinforces its image. Second: the original subject is explicitly present, and the associated feature itself reveals an imagined attribution.

The commercial term in “purchasing error” is the primary metaphor, and “profit” continues it. In “claws of death,” death is stated while claws direct attention to the unstated predator.

Different rhetorical traditions may classify details of the second kind differently, so the underlying analysis is more important than a bare label.

22. Two readings of what “death” refers to

A central disagreement concerns what the word “death” denotes. In one analysis, death remains its ordinary referent while a predator’s feature is figuratively attributed to it; imagined attribution is then central.

Another formulation rhetorically claims that death belongs to the class of predators. That claimed classification must not be mistaken for literal linguistic convention or physical zoology.

The reading affects both how implicit metaphor is located and how the expression “claws” is classified.

23. Claimed inclusion in the class of predators

تدخل المنية في جنس السبع للمبالغة في التشبيه
Death is rhetorically included in the class of predators to intensify the comparison.

The claim does not alter the conventional meaning of the word “death,” nor does it give death a literal body. It presents death’s overpowering force as though it seized prey like a beast.

Claimed generic membership expresses a far stronger identification than an overt “like” construction. That rhetorical force motivates the account, even while theorists differ over its precise technical formulation.

24. The objection to positing two classes of predators

If death is claimed to belong to the class of predators, some analyses distinguish actual predators from a hypothetical predator-like instance represented by death. A criticism asks whether this requires two inconsistent real species under one expression.

The issue returns to established convention versus interpretation. Building an imagined member of a class does not abolish the conventional meaning of the class-name.

The hypothetical instance belongs to rhetorical conception, not to zoological classification, so ordinary referents, figurative inclusion, and linguistic assignment must be kept distinct.

25. Using a subject word versus transferring its meaning

In some accounts of implicit metaphor, the word naming the original subject—such as “death”—remains visible. But another question is whether that word is used in its ordinary sense or is rhetorically treated as a member of the comparison source’s category.

Being overtly mentioned, being a transferred word, and undergoing a claimed expansion are not the same linguistic acts. Conflating them obscures the technical differences between implicit, imaginative, and explicit metaphor.

First identify the expression actually uttered, then the referent intended, and then the role of the clue and source-associated feature.

26. What the objection does and does not establish

For some theorists, implicit and imaginative metaphor are linked like a principal figure and its necessary sign: attributing a peculiar feature of the comparison source to the subject reveals the unexpressed comparison.

Another theory grants the imagined form its own conceptual status and may classify the applied word as a verbal metaphor. Definitions from different theories cannot simply be superimposed to produce a contradiction without first stating their premises.

The point at issue is how imagining claws for death relates to the suppressed predator comparison.

27. Why the word “claws” is the decisive evidence

If “death” is still taken in its ordinary sense, why is “claws” attached to it? The word is not ornamental surplus. It marks the predator-image through which death’s overwhelming power is expressed.

إضافة نحو الأظفار قرينة التشبيه المضمر
An attribution such as “claws” serves as a clue to an implicit comparison.

A link is thus established between the associated feature and the contextual clue. Removing that clue can weaken the sign of the implicit comparison; naming the predator overtly would change the construction’s form.

28. Two distinct questions about metaphor and clue

Where has a word been transferred? is a question about the metaphor itself. What prevents a literal reading? is a question about the clue. Treating them separately clarifies difficult examples.

One interpretation of “claws of death” focuses on the transferred word “claws”; another centers the imaginary attribution of claws to death. Either way, attaching claws to death generates the unusual relationship that signals the rhetorical image.

A striking relation should not automatically receive one label without identifying the theory under which it is being classified.

29. A structured comparison of the examples

ExpressionSubjectMain rhetorical feature
Claws of deathDeathPredatory feature imagined for death
Hand of the north windWindBodily limb ascribed to a non-bodily agent
They purchased errorChoosing errorTransferred use of a commercial act
Their trade made no profitResult of that choiceExtension of the commercial image

Distinguishing transferred words, imaginative attributions, and reinforcing details prevents multiple incompatible definitions from being collapsed into one account.

30. A four-stage method of analysis

Four stages help analyze difficult cases.
1. Expression: Which word appears and what is its ordinary signification?
2. Intended content: Which concept or scene does the audience understand?
3. Predication: Is a special property being attributed to something that lacks it literally?
4. Theory: Does the commentator locate the figure in a word or in an imagined attribution?

For “the claws of death,” identifying “death” and “claws” separately precedes classifying the image as implicit, imaginative, or—under a specific analysis—explicit metaphor involving the term “claws.”

31. What the theoretical disagreement teaches

The discussion establishes an important principle: a single rhetorical example may receive different technical labels because the location of analysis differs. One author identifies transferred language as primary; another emphasizes imaginative attribution of a source-specific feature.

A satisfactory answer must therefore explain not merely “this is an imaginative metaphor” or “this is explicit metaphor,” but also which theory applies the term and why.

The following discussion continues the consequences of these analyses before moving to conditions of effective metaphor.