Purposes, Classifications, and Rhetorical Degrees of Simile

1. A composite resemblance: the remaining criterion

A composite respect of resemblance is not merely a list of several properties. The arrangement, position, movement, and overall configuration matter. If the components are separated, the intended likeness may disappear.

For instance, comparing flashes of lightning with an object repeatedly opening and closing is about the manner and repetition of motion, not brightness alone. A posture whose limbs occupy a particular arrangement likewise produces a unified visual configuration.

The diagnostic question is whether the likeness concerns one independent quality or a structured whole made of interacting details.

2. Deriving a resemblance from several qualities

A simile may gather several sensory traits such as colour, flavour, smell, motion, or sound. Several traits do not automatically produce several independent similes: they may jointly constitute one likeness.

Conceptual traits can also combine. A person compared with the sun may be likened in eminence, visibility, or general benefit, not merely light. Yet the intended trait must be established by context; every conceivable similarity is not necessarily relevant.

Thus multiple aspects in one likeness differ from several separate comparisons.

3. A resemblance understood through opposites

Contrasting features can make a comparison more striking. The resemblance is not necessarily in the opposed qualities themselves; it may lie in the relationship, overall effect, or shared intelligible feature.

For example, pairing light and darkness in contrasting truth and falsehood emphasizes their opposition. Without a relevant common consideration, merely saying two opposite things resemble one another is not a reasoned simile.

Analysis must identify the contrasting traits and then the precise respect in which a comparison or correspondence is intended.

4. The particles of comparison

Common comparison markers include كَـ (“like”), كَأَنَّ (“as though”), and مِثْل (“similar to”). The kāf ordinarily precedes the term compared to, whereas kaʾanna presents a clause as a comparison. The marker changes the degree of explicitness.

«كَأَنَّ زَيْدًا أَسَدٌ»
It is as though Zayd were a lion.

The resemblance is explicitly marked. Removing the marker can intensify a statement, but distinguishing an emphatic simile from metaphor still requires examining grammar and context.

5. Main rhetorical purposes of simile

A simile does more than announce a shared property. The speaker aims to clarify, establish, or make a particular idea about the subject effective. We must therefore identify both the respect of similarity and its rhetorical aim.

Common aims directed toward the subject are:
1. Showing possibility of something surprising.
2. Explaining its condition.
3. Indicating the degree of a quality.
4. Confirming or fixing the quality in the hearer’s mind.
5. Embellishing or disparaging the subject.
6. Presenting it in an unusual, striking form.

More than one aim can coexist; context determines the dominant one.

6. Showing that a surprising claim is possible

When a claim about the subject appears impossible or remote, a comparable case can make the claim intelligible. This is the purpose of showing possibility.

If a young person attains an unexpectedly high rank, another unusual but possible case may answer the objection. The comparison need not establish equality in every respect; it shows that the proposed situation need not be impossible.

This differs from confirming a quality already admitted: the primary question here is “Can such a thing occur?”

7. Describing a condition and its degree

Explaining a condition makes the nature of a previously unclear quality known. Explaining its degree assumes the broad quality is understood but specifies its intensity.

Examples:
“His face is radiant like the moon” can explain the kind of radiance intended.
“Its darkness is like the deepest night” can emphasize how dark it is.

The linguistic structures may resemble one another, but the informative purposes differ. The context identifies which purpose dominates.

8. Establishing a quality firmly

Confirmation or establishment makes a statement more firmly present to the audience. A familiar, often sensory image gives a conceptual assertion force that an abstract description might lack.

For example, likening futile effort to a vivid unsuccessful action does more than assert failure; it provides an image of failure and its outcome.

The effect can resemble a demonstration, but a simile is not necessarily a formal proof. Its chief mechanisms are visualization, clarification, and persuasion.

9. Embellishing and disparaging

A comparison may make the subject attractive, honourable, or desirable by borrowing the favourable associations of what it is compared with. This is embellishment. It may instead evoke aversion through an ugly or repellent image: disparagement.

A noble character compared with light can be made admirable; wrongful behaviour likened to filth can be made repellent.

Good analysis identifies the intended evaluative change in the hearer, not merely whether the image is pleasant or unpleasant.

10. Making the familiar striking or rare

Striking novelty (istiṭrāf) presents a familiar subject through an unexpected comparison, making the listener notice something unusual.

A commonplace scene likened to a rare and intricate phenomenon may be effective not only for the shared trait but also for its imaginative freshness. Novelty still requires a perceptible basis of comparison: unrelated odd words are not eloquence.

The purpose combines a new viewpoint with an intelligible but surprising imaginative link.

11. When the purpose concerns the comparator

Most purposes illuminate the subject of comparison, but a purpose may instead exalt the comparator. The usual order is reversed so that something ordinarily used as the standard is itself likened to the object being praised.

«وَبَدَا الصَّبَاحُ كَأَنَّ غُرَّتَهُ وَجْهُ الْخَلِيفَةِ حِينَ يُمْتَدَحُ»
Morning appeared, as though its bright forehead were the caliph’s face while he was being praised.

Rather than comparing the caliph’s face to daybreak, the verse reverses the direction to exalt the face as the stronger standard of radiance.

12. Reversed simile and the claim of superiority

In a reversed simile, the expected direction of comparison is inverted. The object ordinarily treated as the subject is rhetorically presented as the standard of the quality, suggesting that it possesses that quality more perfectly.

Ordinary form: “The caliph’s face shines like dawn.” Dawn is the familiar standard.
Reversed form: “Dawn is like the caliph’s face.” The face becomes the supposed standard.

The superiority is a rhetorical claim, not a measurable physical identity. The inversion must have a meaningful effect.

13. An implicit simile supporting a claim

Not every comparison explicitly lists its terms and a marker such as “like.” A speaker may make a claim and then offer another case that supports or illustrates it; the comparison is inferred from the relation between the two statements.

For example: “Great merit can appear at an early age; some plants bear abundant fruit quickly.” The second proposition functions as an analogy for the first.

This implicit simile is more than simply deleting the comparison marker: the likeness arises from the argumentative or explanatory relation between clauses.

14. Simile is not mere equality

Stating that two things share a trait equally does not always achieve the usual rhetorical effect of a simile. In ordinary simile, a more familiar or clearer comparator helps explain the subject.

Saying “Two people are the same height” is an ordinary comparison. Describing one as “tall like a palm tree” supplies a visual standard.

Yet special aims, reversed simile, or imaginative novelty can make comparisons effective even without a simple hierarchy. Logical validity and rhetorical force are separate questions.

15. Number and arrangement of the compared terms

The terms of comparison may each be a single entity, or one or both may be whole configurations. “Single” here does not mean “spelled as one word”; it means a unit not analysed as a structured arrangement of components.

Single against single: “The child’s face is like a flower.”
Compound against compound: the scene of swords flashing through dust compared with stars falling through darkness.

A single subject may also be compared with a compound image. Analysis begins by locating the unity of each side.

16. Grouped versus paired multiple comparisons

When several subjects are paired with several comparators, their order matters.

In grouped comparison (malfūf), several subjects are mentioned first and several comparators afterward; order or context identifies the pairings.

In separated or paired comparison (mafrūq), each subject appears with its comparator before the next pair.

TypeArrangement
MalfūfSubject A, subject B; then comparator A, comparator B
MafrūqSubject A–comparator A; then subject B–comparator B

This classification concerns the arrangement of terms, not whether the respect of likeness is sensory or conceptual.

17. Combining comparators and equating subjects

In tashbīh al-jamʿ, one subject is compared with multiple comparators; each may illuminate a facet of the intended quality. For instance, a person may be likened to a lion in courage and a mountain in steadfastness.

In tashbīh al-taswiyah, multiple subjects are brought under one comparator or standard in a particular respect.

The diagnostic question is whether the structure has one subject and several standards, or several subjects sharing one standard. The actual mapping of terms must be checked.

18. The defining feature of tamthīl

In tamthīl (representational simile), the respect of resemblance is a configuration abstracted from several interacting elements. Having many words on each side is not the defining condition; the whole arrangement produces the likeness.

«كَأَنَّ مُثَارَ النَّقْعِ فَوْقَ رُءُوسِنَا وَأَسْيَافَنَا لَيْلٌ تَهَاوَى كَوَاكِبُهُ»
It is as though the dust stirred above our heads and our swords were a night whose stars were falling.

Dust, shining swords, darkness, and falling stars produce an integrated scene. Splitting it into “dust is night” and “swords are stars” misses the composite image.

19. Representational and non-representational simile

In a non-representational simile, the common element can be one independent quality, even if explaining it takes several words. In tamthīl, the quality is abstracted from the relationship among several components.

“Zayd is brave like a lion” — courage is a single respect.
“Swords flashing in clouds of dust are like falling stars in a dark night” — a structured scene is the respect.

Al-Sakkākī’s treatment includes terminological subtleties; not every later phrasing of tamthīl should be imposed without qualification. The governing pedagogical criterion remains the actual nature of the shared image.

20. Implicit and explicit respect of similarity

A detailed simile (mufaṣṣal) explicitly states the respect in which the comparison holds. A summary simile (mujmal) leaves it unstated, to be inferred from context, convention, or imagery.

Detailed: “Zayd is like a lion in courage.” Courage is named.
Summary: “Zayd is like a lion.” Courage may be understood, but is not stated.

Mujmal does not necessarily mean unclear or weak. A highly familiar comparator can make omission both intelligible and powerful.

21. A readily apparent or concealed ground of similarity

In a mujmal simile, the omitted likeness may be immediately obvious from common associations, or it may depend on a subtle historical or literary reference.

Obvious: “He is like a lion” conventionally suggests courage.
Hidden: Comparing someone to an obscure event or object may require specialized knowledge to recover the intended trait.

A successful figure still gives its intended audience sufficient clues. Obscurity without guidance does not automatically constitute eloquence.

22. The role of explicitness and first impression

Some likenesses are grasped immediately, while others require reflection. This helps distinguish near or obvious comparisons from remote or unusual ones.

Near: brightness shared by the moon and a radiant face.
Remote: comparing a moving object with a carefully constructed optical scene; several inferential steps may be required.

Bādī al-raʾy denotes the first, immediate view. A well-grounded remote comparison can reward contemplation, but sheer difficulty does not make a figure superior.

23. Common and rare forms of simile

A near, familiar simile reveals its likeness almost immediately. A remote, uncommon simile calls for a less expected conceptual transition.

Near: “Cheeks are red like roses.” The colour connection is direct.
Remote: comparing a shifting light with a mirror held by a trembling hand; motion and reflection must be imagined together.

Neither class is intrinsically superior. A simple image can be exceptionally apt; an ingenious but strained remote one can fail rhetorically.

24. Conditional simile

A conditional simile introduces a restriction under which the comparison would fully hold. The condition is part of the image’s rhetorical logic, not an incidental grammatical ornament.

«عَزَمَاتُهُ مِثْلُ النُّجُومِ ثَوَاقِبًا لَوْ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِلثَّاقِبَاتِ أُفُولُ»
His resolve is like brilliant stars, if only those brilliant stars did not set.

The shared brilliance is qualified by the difference in permanence: the subject is praised as enduring, whereas stars disappear from view. The condition sharpens the comparison.

25. Explicit and unmarked simile

With regard to the comparison marker, a simile is mursal (explicitly marked) when the marker is mentioned and muʾakkad (emphatic or unmarked) when it is omitted.

Marked: “Zayd is brave like a lion.”
Unmarked: “Zayd is a lion.” The omitted marker presents the resemblance with greater force.

Deletion can intensify the apparent closeness of the terms, but context and grammatical structure are required before classifying a statement as emphatic simile rather than metaphor.

26. Omitting both marker and stated likeness

If both the marker and the explicit respect of likeness are omitted, the resemblance is asserted with particular force. This is conventionally called tashbīh balīgh when the expression genuinely functions as a simile.

«زَيْدٌ أَسَدٌ»
Zayd is a lion.

With both terms present, the interpretation is that Zayd resembles a lion in courage so closely that the comparison is rhetorically presented as identity. This is not literal zoological identity. A different structure in which one term replaces another with a contextual clue leads into the discussion of metaphor (istiʿārah).

27. Degrees of rhetorical emphasis in simile

One meaning can be expressed with different degrees of explicitness and emphasis:
1. “Zayd is like a lion in courage”: both marker and respect are explicit.
2. “Zayd is like a lion”: marker present, respect omitted.
3. “Zayd is a lion in courage”: marker omitted, respect stated.
4. “Zayd is a lion”: both omitted.

Omission may strengthen the rhetorical claim, but maximum omission does not guarantee maximum eloquence. The audience must still recover the intended likeness and the expression must suit the occasion.

Emphasis, clarity, and contextual appropriateness therefore require separate judgment.

28. Ellipsis and the boundary with metaphor

Some of the four basic elements of simile—the subject, comparator, marker, and respect—may be omitted, but different omissions can lead to different figures.

If both terms remain and the marker and respect are omitted, the structure may be an emphatic simile. If one expression is used for something else with a clue excluding literal reference, the question is one of metaphor or figurative usage.

“Zayd is a lion”: conventional emphatic simile with both terms.
“I saw a lion on the battlefield”: with context establishing a courageous person as intended, the use of “lion” raises the issue of metaphor.

The distinction prepares for the next section on literal and figurative usage.

29. Worked analysis: dust and swords

«كَأَنَّ مُثَارَ النَّقْعِ فَوْقَ رُءُوسِنَا وَأَسْيَافَنَا لَيْلٌ تَهَاوَى كَوَاكِبُهُ»
The dust stirred above our heads and our swords seem like a night in which stars are falling.

Subject: the battle scene made by dust and swords.
Comparator: a dark night with bright falling stars.
Marker: kaʾanna.
Respect: the coherent pattern formed by many shining moving objects within a dark background.

Classification: tamthīl with a composite respect. Reducing the similarity to “brightness” or “darkness” alone loses the organized image.

30. How multiple purposes coexist

A simile can simultaneously describe, establish, and embellish a quality. “His manners are pleasant like flowers” may describe the manners, make them attractive, and help the hearer retain an image of them.

Nevertheless, analysis should not list every possible purpose without justification. The speaker’s context, the listener’s prior knowledge, and the selected shared trait identify the leading aim.

First analyze the wording, then justify the rhetorical purpose. Multiple aims are possible, but each needs evidence.

31. Integrated method and the next chapter

For every new simile, use four stages.
1. Identify the subject, comparator, and marker.
2. Identify the respect: stated or implied, sensory or conceptual, single or composite.
3. Classify the structure: reversed, implicit, grouped, paired, combined, representational, detailed, summary, marked, or emphatic—as actually applicable.
4. Establish its purpose: possibility, condition, degree, confirmation, embellishment, disparagement, or striking novelty.

Caution: These taxonomies are not mutually exclusive. One simile may be representational, summary, and explicitly marked at once, because each label tracks a different feature.

The next chapter, al-ḥaqīqah wa-l-majāz, examines whether a word is used in its assigned meaning or in another meaning through a relationship and contextual clue.