Tawjīh, Serious Intent in Jest, Feigned Ignorance, Qawl bi-l-Mūjib and Iṭrād

1. The final group of semantic ornaments

Semantic figures can allow two contrasting readings of one utterance, conceal a serious intention in joking speech, or frame known information as if it were unknown. An opponent’s wording may be turned against their intended claim; names and ancestry may also be arranged with exceptional fluency.

FigureCharacteristic featureTawjīhTwo distinct, potentially opposed readingsHazl intended as earnestnessA serious intention underneath jestTajāhul al-ʿārifPresenting what is known as if unknownQawl bi-l-mūjibTurning someone’s utterance against its intended pointIṭrādA fluent sequence of names or lineage

In each case the specific semantic effect matters more than the outward form alone.

2. Definition of al-tawjīh

«إيراد الكلام محتملاً لوجهين مختلفين»
Presenting an utterance so that it can bear two different interpretations.

Here “different” is not merely a pair of close synonyms: the figure is especially concerned with opposed directions such as praise and blame. The words remain unchanged while the interpretive outcome depends on context and the aspect considered.

Not every vague sentence is tawjīh. Both readings need a meaningful relation to the expression and its rhetorical setting; empty obscurity is not a semantic ornament.

3. Two interpretations must be genuinely distinct

Tawjīh places two distinct interpretive possibilities before the hearer. One may amount to praise and another to criticism; one may sound like a blessing and another like a curse.

For illustration, “his door is always open” can praise hospitality in one setting or criticize an inability to secure the house in another. Such a case illustrates the possibility of contrary evaluations, provided both arise plausibly from the expression and its setting.

If the wording or a decisive context fixes only one meaning, the figure’s productive tension disappears.

4. The two faces of «layta ʿaynayhi sawāʾ»

«خاط لي عمرو قباءً، ليت عينيه سواء»
ʿAmr sewed a cloak for me; would that his two eyes were alike.

If one of his eyes is healthy and the other impaired, “alike” could mean that both become healthy or that both become impaired. The first reading is a blessing, the second a curse.

The words are identical. What changes is the eye taken as the standard of comparison. Two possible comparisons produce opposed outcomes within one utterance.

5. Where the ambiguity is located

In “would that his eyes were alike,” the ambiguity need not be traced to two unrelated dictionary meanings. The central word expresses equality, but the standard of equality is left unassigned.

1. Take the healthy eye as the standard and both would become healthy.
2. Take the impaired eye as the standard and both would become impaired.

Tawjīh may therefore operate through the relation expressed by a whole statement, rather than a single word’s multiple lexical senses.

6. Tawjīh and discussion of ambiguous expressions

Discussion of tawjīh also mentions expressions open to interpretation from different perspectives. With some ambiguous expressions, one meaning may be more readily apparent and another more remote. But the defining rhetorical interest of tawjīh remains the possibility of opposed interpretations.

A word with several lexical meanings is not thereby automatically an instance of tawjīh. We must still ask whether its possible readings create meaningfully contrasting outcomes.

The wider study of ambiguity concerns multiplicity of meaning; tawjīh specifically draws rhetorical effect from contrasting readings of a single expression.

7. Tawjīh versus tawriya

Tawriya ordinarily uses a word with a nearer and a more remote meaning: the nearer presents itself, while the remote is intended. Tawjīh centers on two opposed possible outcomes of one utterance, whether or not one is nearer than the other.

CriterionTawjīhTawriyaPrimary contrastOpposed readingsNear and remote sensesWhere it occursA word or full judgmentUsually a multivalent wordRhetorical aimPraise versus blame, etc.Remote intention under a near apparent meaning

The example of the two eyes is best analyzed through its two competing outcomes, not merely through lexical proximity.

8. Jest that intends something serious

«الهزل الذي يراد به الجد»
Jesting speech through which a serious intention is conveyed.

Jest names the apparent mode, while earnestness names the intended point. An utterance may sound teasing or playful yet expose a fault, correct a habit, or deliver a pointed rebuke.

Not every amusing phrase qualifies: the serious purpose must be genuinely present, with humor serving as its mode of communication.

9. The boastful Tamīmī and the joking rejoinder

«إذا ما تميمي أتاك مفاخراً»
If a man of Tamīm comes boasting to you.
«فقل عد عن ذا كيف أكلك للضب»
Then say: leave that aside—how do you eat the lizard?

The speaker does not answer the boast by debating ancestry directly. A seemingly comic question about food undercuts the boast. The humor is the form, while the serious intention is disparagement of the display of pride.

This is a rhetorical example of social satire, not adequate evidence for general claims about the actual customs of an entire people.

10. The serious purpose behind the joke

The poem first establishes a boast, then replies with an apparently off-topic question. The shift supplies the comic surface, while the actual purpose is to belittle ostentatious boasting.

Were the reply an entirely innocent joke, the intended criticism would disappear. Conversely, the direct statement “your boast is worthless” would be earnest rebuke without this humorous form.

Recognizing the difference between surface manner and communicative purpose is essential to identifying the figure.

11. Jest, irony and direct blame

Serious intent in jest uses an amusing surface to carry a serious point. Ironical mockery (tahakkum) can employ apparently favorable words to intend the reverse. Direct blame names the fault openly.

ModeHow the intention is conveyedJest intended as earnestnessSerious point underneath joking speechTahakkumA contrary meaning under apparent praise or favorDirect blameExplicit assertion of a defect

These modes may overlap in practice, so contextual evidence and intended effect remain decisive.

12. The nature of feigned ignorance

«سوق المعلوم مساق غيره لنكتة»
Presenting something known as though it were not known, for a rhetorical purpose.

This is often called tajāhul al-ʿārif. The speaker knows the fact, but frames it in the manner of an inquiry or uncertainty, to express wonder, praise, criticism, rebuke, astonishment, or another literary purpose.

Not every question qualifies. Some questions genuinely request information. The figure requires both underlying knowledge and a recognizable communicative reason for the simulated inquiry.

13. Why the alternative name matters

The expression “tajāhul” can literally suggest acting ignorant. In discussing divine speech, some rhetoricians therefore favor the more neutral phrase “presenting the known as though unknown.”

The actual point is that an interrogative form can serve a wise purpose despite complete knowledge of its answer. It does not attribute deficient knowledge to the speaker.

The name of a literary figure should not be confused with a literal psychological claim about the speaker. In scripture, the rhetorical purpose must be identified without alleging ignorance.

14. The question addressed to Moses

«وَمَا تِلْكَ بِيَمِينِكَ يَا مُوسَىٰ»
And what is that in your right hand, O Moses?

This Qur’anic question (Ṭā Hā, 20:17) asks about something already known to God. Its interrogative wording does not imply any lack of divine knowledge. The form directs attention and prepares for what follows in the narrative.

The example shows that interrogative syntax and genuine need for information are not identical: an interrogative can serve other communicative purposes.

15. Wonder and lament in the tree-address

«أيا شجر الخابور ما لك مورقاً»
O trees of the Khābūr, why are you still in leaf?
«كأنك لم تجزع على ابن طريف»
As if you had not grieved for Ibn Ṭarīf.

The poet knows that trees normally produce leaves. The question is not a botanical inquiry. It expresses grief so intense that the landscape’s continuing growth appears to be at odds with mourning.

The feigned question is the literary device; lament and wonder are its intended emotional purposes.

16. Feigned uncertainty in praise

«ألمع برق سرى أم ضوء مصباح»
Is it a lightning flash passing by, or the light of a lamp?

Such poetic questioning can heighten the praise of a radiant scene or face by making its brilliance comparable to lightning and lamplight. The speaker’s outward uncertainty dramatizes the intensity of what is seen.

The sequence is: observed radiance → an apparently uncertain question → praise of exceptional beauty. The question performs a literary function rather than requesting actual identification of the light source.

17. Feigned uncertainty used for blame

«أدري أقوم آل حصن أم نساء»
I wonder: are the people of Ḥiṣn men or women?

The question is not a genuine attempt to identify the group. It presents the speaker’s insulting judgment through a pose of uncertainty, questioning their courage in the conventions of historical invective.

The source is an example of traditional poetic disparagement, not a factual claim about a population. Its device lies in pretended uncertainty deployed to express blame.

18. Feigned inquiry in love poetry

«يا ظبيات القاع ...»
O gazelles of the plain!
«أليلى منكن أم ليلى من البشر»
Is Laylā one of you, or is she among humankind?

The poet knows that Laylā is human. The question instead magnifies her elegance by presenting her beauty as virtually indistinguishable from that of the gazelles.

Here feigned ignorance functions as praise and intensified comparison. The same device can serve lament, criticism, or rebuke in other settings.

19. Identifying the purpose of feigned ignorance

For feigned ignorance, the key question is not merely whether an interrogative appears, but what the speaker intends by asking about something already known.

Outward questionPurpose“What is in your right hand, Moses?”Directing attention and preparing the scene“Why are you leafy, trees of Khābūr?”Lament and wonder“Is it lightning?”Praise of beauty“Are the people of Ḥiṣn men or women?”Derisive criticism“Is Laylā among you, gazelles?”Praise of a beloved

Similar interrogative wording may serve different ends; context determines its interpretation.

20. Definition of qawl bi-l-mūjib

Qawl bi-l-mūjib turns a feature of another speaker’s words to a purpose different from the one that speaker intended. The reply may appear to accept a word or description while leaving the original argument without its intended force.

This is not mere repetition or unconditional agreement. Its effect depends upon retaining an aspect of the opponent’s wording while redirecting the underlying claim.

The classical discussion gives two principal forms: transferring an attributed quality to another subject, and taking an expression in a different meaning that its wording can bear.

21. First form: affirming a quality of another subject

In the first form, an opponent introduces a quality as the basis for a preferred judgment. The response establishes that same quality of a different, rightful subject, without conceding the opponent’s intended conclusion.

The pattern is:
1. The opponent uses an attribute to support a claim.
2. The response assigns that attribute to another referent.
3. The wording’s force is preserved, but the original claim is overturned.

The reply works by locating the attribute correctly, not merely by flatly denying it.

22. The claim of “the mightier” and “the humbler”

«لَئِن رَّجَعْنَا إِلَى الْمَدِينَةِ لَيُخْرِجَنَّ الْأَعَزُّ مِنْهَا الْأَذَلَّ»
If we return to Madinah, the mightier will surely expel the humbler from it.

This is part of the hypocrites’ statement in Qur’an 63:8. The speaker meant “the mightier” to designate his own faction and “the humbler” to designate the Muslims, thereby claiming the right to expel them.

The rhetorical answer turns on who actually deserves the quality of might or honor, rather than abandoning the terms used by the claimant.

23. The response: “honor belongs to God”

«وَلِلَّهِ الْعِزَّةُ وَلِرَسُولِهِ وَلِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ»
And honor belongs to God, His Messenger, and the believers.

The reply retains the concept of honor but establishes its proper bearers. This defeats the hypocrite’s assumption that his own group possesses the superiority asserted in his statement.

The figure lies in redirecting the very attribute on which the adversary relied. It is not agreement with his claim, but a reply that turns its chosen language against its intended conclusion.

24. Why the reply is not a blanket concession

The first form does not require an answer to debate every secondary assertion by the adversary. It focuses on the decisive attribute and establishes that attribute where the adversary did not intend it to apply.

In the Qur’anic case, the reply does not investigate every possible circumstance of expulsion. It resolves the primary boast by establishing who truly possesses honor.

Compare merely saying “no one possesses honor” with saying “honor belongs to God, His Messenger, and the believers.” The second locates the quality, which is central to this rhetorical technique.

25. Second form: a different plausible meaning

In the second form, a word in someone else’s speech is taken in a different meaning from that speaker’s intention, provided the expression can genuinely bear that meaning. Often the difference appears when the respondent supplies a different complement or relation.

First, the original speaker intends complaint, blame, or accusation. Second, the respondent reuses the word under another plausible relation. The resulting answer preserves the wording while redirecting its force.

An arbitrary misreading would not qualify; the alternative must be linguistically credible.

26. The word thaqilta in a poetic exchange

«قلت ثقلت إذ أتيت مراراً»
I said: you have become burdensome by coming repeatedly.
«قال ثقلت كاهلي بالأيادي»
He replied: I have burdened your shoulders with acts of generosity.

The first speaker uses thaqilta as a complaint about troublesome visits. The respondent reuses it to signify the “weight” of benefits conferred. The phrase “with acts of generosity” fixes the new relation.

One expression is preserved, while its complement and rhetorical force change—an instance of the second kind of qawl bi-l-mūjib.

27. Comparing the two forms of qawl bi-l-mūjib

First formSecond formThe rightful bearer of another speaker’s quality changesA different plausible meaning or complement of a word is suppliedHonor established for the believersThe word “burden” redirected to acts of generosityQuality preserved; referent reassignedWord preserved; intention and relation altered

Both forms begin with someone else’s wording, but neither concedes the speaker’s intended claim.

Unlike tawjīh, where one utterance supports opposed interpretations, qawl bi-l-mūjib requires a response to another person’s actual statement.

28. Definition of al-iṭrād

«أن تأتي بأسماء الممدوح أو غيره وأسماء آبائه على ترتيب الولادة»
To mention a person’s name and the names of their forebears in genealogical order.

A further requirement is «من غير تكلف في السبك»—without strained construction. A long list of ancestors is not automatically an ornament merely because it is long.

The figure depends on appropriate sequencing, correct genealogical direction, and ease of expression, so that the names fit naturally into the rhetorical composition.

29. What genealogical sequence requires

Iṭrād follows the chain from a named person to successive ancestors. Thus in the schematic expression “Zayd son of ʿAmr son of Khālid”, the sequence advances from Zayd to his father and then to the prior generation.

Three things matter: a coherent genealogical relation, orderly progression, and unforced wording. An interrupted or artificially packed series of names may fail to attain the rhetorical elegance of iṭrād.

The figure is about ease and sequence in naming, not mere quantity of lineage information.

30. A linked pedigree in verse

«إن يقتلوك فقد ثللت عروشهم»
If they kill you, you will already have shaken the foundations of their power.
«بعتيبة بن الحارث بن شهاب»
Through ʿUtaybah son of al-Ḥārith son of Shihāb.

The poem carries a person’s name into the father’s and grandfather’s names without scattering the order or forcing the syntax. This fluent lineage sequence is the defining feature of iṭrād.

Its effect is not dependent on the sounds of the individual names, but on ordered ancestry integrated smoothly into the verse.

31. The noble son of a noble lineage

«الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم ابن الكريم»
The noble one, son of the noble one, son of the noble one, son of the noble one.
«يوسف بن يعقوب بن إسحاق بن إبراهيم»
Joseph son of Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham.

This well-known hadith wording presents Joseph and his ancestors in correct and fluent genealogical order. The repetition of *al-karīm* also brings the virtue of nobility into view.

Two distinct features coexist: the unforced progression of lineage and the repeated attribution of honor. The ordered pedigree should not be confused with mere word repetition.

32. Fluent iṭrād versus strained enumeration

Iṭrād requires names to follow one another naturally. If the reader has to reconstruct the family sequence repeatedly or if irrelevant words interrupt the lineage, the elegance of the construction weakens.

“Zayd son of ʿAmr son of Khālid” supplies an intelligible chain. By contrast, “Zayd, Khālid, ʿAmr” merely lists names and does not itself establish a genealogical sequence.

Even repeated use of “son of” is not enough. The rhetorical criterion is proportion, order, and fluent composition, not the longest possible list.

33. A comprehensive comparison of five figures

FigureRelation in the wordingDiagnostic questionTawjīhOne utterance, opposing readingsDo the possibilities really contrast?Serious jestEarnest purpose beneath humorWhat serious point is made?Feigned ignoranceKnown matter cast as unknownWhy is a known matter questioned?Qawl bi-l-mūjibAnother’s words turned against their intentionWhich attribute or meaning was redirected?IṭrādOrdered and fluent pedigreeIs the lineage coherent and unforced?

All five primarily embellish the organization of meaning, rather than depending on rhyme, paronomasia or patterned endings; they belong to the semantic ornaments.

34. Worked classification across the figures

Case 1: “Would that his eyes were alike”: the equality can bless or curse—tawjīh.
Case 2: Answering a boast with a comic question about food: outward jest, serious criticism—earnest jest.
Case 3: Asking a question about something known to express admiration—feigned ignorance.
Case 4: Turning the complaint “you are burdensome” into “burdened with generosity”—qawl bi-l-mūjib.
Case 5: Joseph son of Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham, fluently ordered—iṭrād.

Identify the figure by the relationship that produces its effect rather than by superficial similarity of wording.

35. Transition from semantic to verbal ornaments

The semantic ornaments studied so far arrange meaning through opposition, correspondence, questioning, exceptions, implication, and the redirection of someone else’s wording. The final five figures further develop these semantic strategies.

The following section turns to verbal ornaments, where resemblance in sound, letter pattern and verbal form becomes central. Jinās (paronomasia) is its first major topic.

In short, a semantic ornament is primarily grounded in relations of meaning, while a verbal ornament is distinguished by formal or sonic relations between words. Both can contribute to effective, contextually appropriate rhetoric.