The Definition of Simile, Related Metaphorical Forms, and Its Four Elements

1. The chapter of simile and its place in rhetoric

التشبيه
Simile: relating one thing to another on the basis of a shared quality.

Simile is foundational to ʿilm al-bayān because metaphor also depends on some resemblance. Yet not every resemblance-based expression counts as technical tashbīh. Sometimes the name of one of the compared things is transferred to the other, producing metaphor rather than a plainly stated comparison.

“Zayd is brave like a lion” names both sides and their relation. In “I saw a lion delivering a speech,” a context pointing to a courageous human makes “lion” figurative rather than an ordinary explicit comparison.

This lesson defines simile, locates related forms of metaphor, distinguishes emphatic simile, and establishes the four essential elements of comparison.

2. Linguistic and technical uses of tashbīh

In its broad lexical use, tashbīh means establishing likeness between two things. The everyday sense of resemblance is wider than the category used for technical rhetorical analysis.

In rhetoric, technical tashbīh is a specific act of indicating shared meaning. Merely mentioning two things with one shared action is not sufficient. The technical category is distinguished from forms such as explicit metaphor, metaphor by allusion, and tajrīd (abstraction).

Examples:
“Zayd ka-l-asad fī al-shajāʿah” — Zayd is like a lion in courage: an explicit simile.
“Jāʾa Zaydun wa-ʿAmr” — Zayd and ʿAmr came: a shared event, but not automatically a simile.

This distinction prevents every expression of shared activity from being misclassified as a rhetorical comparison.

3. The technical definition of simile

فالتشبيه الاصطلاحي هو الدلالة على مشاركة أمر لأمر في معنى
Technical simile is the indication that one thing shares a meaning with another.

Participation means that a quality pertains to both terms, even though its degree may differ. In “Zayd is like a lion in courage,” courage is the shared quality; the speaker does not claim that human and lion have identical natures or all the same properties.

The definition contains three parts:
“al-dalālah” — speech indicates a meaning.
“mushārakat amr li-amr” — one thing is associated with another through sharing.
“fī maʿnā” — the sharing concerns a particular quality or meaning.

Further qualifications prevent other resemblance-based rhetorical figures from being wrongly included.

4. What indication means in the definition

Simile concerns not merely resemblance that may exist in reality but the way an expression communicates that resemblance. A speaker selects a quality and directs the listener to relate the two terms through that quality.

In “Khalid’s face is bright like the moon,” not every property of the moon is attributed to Khalid. Beauty or luminous appearance is the selected comparison, understood in a restricted respect.

Two people can be grammatical subjects of the same action without the speaker intending a figure of similarity. Reporting a shared fact and using shared quality to construct a simile are distinct communicative functions.

5. Why metaphor depends on simile

Metaphor borrows the word for one thing and applies it to another. That transfer has force because a point of resemblance is understood between them. Simile consequently provides the conceptual basis for understanding metaphor.

Simile: “Zayd ka-l-asad” — Zayd is like a lion.
Metaphor: “Raʾaytu asadan yarmī” — I saw a lion shooting arrows. If the context identifies a brave human archer, the term “lion” is borrowed figuratively.

Both involve likeness but express it in different linguistic ways. Technical simile explicitly indicates a shared quality; metaphor transfers a name across the comparison.

6. What is expressed in an explicit metaphor

In istiʿārah muṣarraḥah (explicit metaphor), the word belonging to the comparison target (mushabbah bih) is stated, while the intended thing (mushabbah) is not directly named. Context shows that the borrowed word is not intended literally.

In “raʾaytu asadan yarmī”:
Mushabbah: a courageous person — not explicitly named.
Mushabbah bih: a lion — named by “asadan.”
Shared quality: courage — what licenses the transfer.

“Yarmī” (shooting) can help identify the intended human archer. The utterance figuratively names the courageous person rather than plainly equating two separately stated terms.

7. The form of metaphor by allusion

In istiʿārah bi-l-kināyah (metaphor by allusion), the mushabbah is mentioned while the mushabbah bih is not stated directly. Instead, some distinctive attribute of the omitted comparison target is associated with the expressed subject.

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

Here al-maniyyah (death) is named, while the predatory creature to which it is likened is not. The image of “its claws” evokes that creature. The expression makes the sudden and inescapable grip of death vivid.

This placement of the expressed and omitted terms differs from explicit metaphor.

8. Imagined claws and the imaginative metaphor

In the image of death's “claws,” aẓfār does more than merely hint at a missing animal-name. It creates the imaginative impression of death as an entity that can seize and tear its prey.

The discussion of istiʿārah takhyīliyyah (imaginative metaphor) concerns such imaginative attribution. Actual bodily claws are not claimed to belong to death; the language dramatizes its overwhelming grip.

The device shares resemblance with simile, but the imagined property itself is not thereby an independent, formally expressed simile. This matters especially where one side appears only through the distinctive properties of the other.

9. Tarshīḥ: extending the borrowed image

In tarshīḥ, a metaphor is supported by details appropriate to the borrowed comparison image. Such elaboration reinforces the figurative picture rather than necessarily creating a separate comparison.

If a brave human is figuratively called a “lion,” further references evocative of the lion can strengthen that metaphorical portrayal. The added details do not automatically become individual technical similes.

The crucial distinction is between reinforcing an existing borrowed image and explicitly establishing a new comparison between two things. Tarshīḥ belongs to the former analytical function.

10. Tajrīd: drawing out a second person-like instance

Tajrīd is a rhetorical manner of extracting, as it were, another instance of a person or quality from the person himself, thereby intensifying a description. It may involve resemblance, but its structure is not the same as straightforward simile.

لقيت من زيد أسداً
I met, from Zayd, a lion-like man.

The expression treats “a lion” as though drawn out of Zayd himself. It does not mean that a real beast emerged from him; the purpose is to magnify his courage by presenting it almost as an independent heroic figure.

Reducing tajrīd simply to “Zayd is like a lion” misses its distinctive mode of rhetorical exaggeration.

11. Distinguishing metaphor, allusion, and abstraction

These three devices may all convey something beyond a surface reading, but they work differently.

DeviceDefining feature
MetaphorA word is borrowed for another thing on the basis of resemblance
KināyahA related sense is intended without excluding the possibility of literal intent
TajrīdA second image or instance is figuratively drawn from a person to magnify a quality

Although these devices are associated with simile, they cannot all be reduced to the same technical category. Proper analysis must consider the word's use, intended meaning, and how each side of the resemblance is expressed.

12. Shared meaning is not identical to simile

قاتل زيد عمراً — Zayd fought ʿAmr.
جاءني زيد وعمرو — Zayd and ʿAmr came to me.

The first conveys interaction between two participants; the second reports that two people share the action of coming. Neither fact alone means that one individual has been represented as resembling the other.

In technical simile, shared meaning functions as a rhetorical comparison. Merely reporting participation in an act serves a different purpose. We therefore cannot apply the technical definition to every grammatical occurrence of shared action or meaning.

13. Why the technical definition excludes metaphor

لا على وجه الاستعارة التحقيقية والاستعارة بالكناية والتجريد
Not by way of explicit metaphor, metaphor by allusion, or abstraction.

This qualification is necessary because all three may involve resemblance. If “sharing a meaning” were treated as sufficient on its own, metaphor and tajrīd would be absorbed into technical simile and the classifications would lose their usefulness.

“Zayd ka-l-asad” explicitly presents both comparison terms, whereas “raʾaytu asadan yarmī” borrows the word “lion” for a human being. The basis in resemblance can be common, but the mode of signification differs.

14. Emphatic simile and the omitted particle

زيد أسد
Zayd is a lion.

The particle ka- (“like”) or a word such as mithl is absent, yet both Zayd and lion are stated. The purpose is not to turn Zayd literally into an animal, but to intensify the attribution of courage to him.

In tashbīh balīgh (emphatic simile), the comparison particle and often the explicitly stated point of likeness are omitted. This strengthens the claim of resemblance. Because both comparison terms can still be present, omission of “like” alone does not make every such expression an explicit metaphor.

“Zayd ka-l-asad fī al-shajāʿah” states the shared quality openly; “Zayd asad” conveys it with concision and force.

15. Why emphatic simile is not automatically metaphor

In “Zayd is a lion,” both the mushabbah and the mushabbah bih are expressed. The sentence makes a forceful claim of likeness; it does not simply omit Zayd and replace his name by “lion.”

By contrast, in “I saw a lion shooting arrows,” where the context determines that a human is intended, the man's name is absent and the word “lion” has been transferred to refer to him.

Analytical test: the presence or absence of “like” is not decisive by itself. Ask whether one term has been borrowed as the name of the other, or whether two expressed terms are brought together in a forceful predication of shared quality.

16. The Qurʾānic example: deaf, mute, blind

صُمٌّ بُكْمٌ عُمْيٌ
Deaf, mute, blind.

These words occur in Sūrat al-Baqarah (2:18) in a portrayal of people's spiritual condition. They are not necessarily asserting a literal, total loss of bodily faculties; rather, they vividly represent a failure to hear, express, and see the truth.

This formulation appears in the discussion of emphatic simile because the descriptions are attributed with extraordinary intensity, as though the persons had become those conditions themselves. Its comparison-based force remains relevant even without an expressed particle such as “like.”

The object is to understand the rhetorical force, not to make an unsupported physiological claim about the people described.

17. Situational indication and the force of discourse

When a comparison or metaphor omits elements that could otherwise be expressed, situational clues and the overall force of the discourse help determine the intended meaning.

Qarīnat al-ḥāl: information from the surrounding situation that clarifies the speaker's purpose.
Faḥwā al-kalām: the implication carried by the sentence's internal connections and broader sense.

“Zayd is a lion,” uttered to commend bravery, is understood as praise of a courageous human. “A lion was delivering a speech” can point to a figurative referent through the speaking action.

Thus one should not classify omitted comparison markers and borrowed nouns solely by looking at how short the expression is; context and meaning matter.

18. Overview of the four elements of simile

وهي أربعة: طرفاه المشبه به والمشبه ووجهه وأداته
And there are four: its two terms (mushabbah bih and mushabbah), shared aspect, and marker.

1. Al-mushabbah — the entity whose likeness is presented.
2. Al-mushabbah bih — the entity to which it is compared.
3. Wajh al-shabah — the shared quality underlying the comparison.
4. Adāt al-tashbīh — the comparison marker or linguistic device conveying likeness.

In “al-ʿālim ka-l-baḥr fī siʿat al-ʿilm,” the scholar is the mushabbah, the sea is the mushabbah bih, breadth of knowledge is the shared aspect, and “ka-” is the particle. Identifying these elements prepares for the subsequent divisions of simile.

19. Mushabbah and mushabbah bih: the two terms

طرفاه المشبه به والمشبه
Its two terms are mushabbah bih and mushabbah.

In “al-walad ka-l-qamar fī al-jamāl”:
Mushabbah: al-walad — the boy, whose beauty is being described.
Mushabbah bih: al-qamar — the moon, whose beauty supplies the comparison.

They share a selected quality, but need not possess it equally. Often the more familiar or striking example serves as the mushabbah bih, helping the listener understand the description of the mushabbah.

These labels do not simply mirror grammatical subject and predicate; they identify the rhetorical roles of the compared terms.

20. Wajh al-shabah: the shared aspect

وجه الشبه
The shared aspect (wajh al-shabah) is the quality or meaning in which the two compared terms are related.

In “Zayd is brave like a lion,” it is courage. In “the child's face is bright like the moon,” it may be brightness or beauty, as determined by the context.

The two terms do not need to resemble one another in every respect. Simile generally selects one feature among many possible qualities. The speaker may intend a particular dimension even where several are potentially shared.

The shared aspect can be understood without being explicitly stated; omission from the wording does not entail absence from the comparison.

21. The function of the comparison particle

أداة التشبيه
The comparison marker is a word or expression by which likeness between the two terms is communicated.

“ka-”: “Zayd ka-l-asad” — Zayd is like a lion.
“mithl”: “Huwa mithl al-baḥr fī al-sakhāʾ” — He is like the sea in generosity.
“kaʾanna”: “Kaʾanna wajhahu qamar” — His face is as though it were the moon.

The marker may be expressed or omitted. In “Zayd is a lion” the relation of likeness is understood without a separate particle. Thus identifying four analytical elements does not mean that all four must appear verbally in every example.

22. Applying expressed and omitted elements

ExpressionExpressed elementsUnexpressed part
Zayd ka-l-asad fī al-shajāʿahBoth terms, marker, shared aspectNone
Zayd ka-l-asadBoth terms and markerShared aspect unstated
Zayd asadBoth termsMarker and aspect unstated

The underlying comparison remains courage, but the degree of explicitness changes. In “Zayd asad,” omission gives the likeness greater force.

The table does not mean that the omitted marker must always be recovered as exactly the same word. The intended relation and shared feature must be identified in context.

23. Four analytical elements are not four mandatory words

Listing four elements is a means of analysing the comparison, not a rule that every sentence must contain four independent words. Speakers may omit a marker or the shared aspect for rhetorical force.

In “al-ʿilm ka-l-nūr” (“knowledge is like light”), both terms and the marker appear. The point of likeness can be understood as clarifying what was obscure or dispelling ignorance.

In “al-ʿilm nūr” (“knowledge is light”), both terms remain but the marker is absent. The force of guidance or illumination is communicated more directly.

Method: identify the intended comparison, assign the four analytical roles, then determine which are verbally expressed and which depend on implication or context.

24. Worked comparison with all four elements

الجندي كالأسد في الشجاعة
The soldier is like a lion in courage.

Mushabbah: al-jundī — the soldier whose courage is described.
Mushabbah bih: al-asad — the lion serving as the familiar standard.
Wajh al-shabah: al-shajāʿah — courage, the shared feature.
Adāt al-tashbīh: ka- — the explicit marker of likeness.

If “fī al-shajāʿah” is removed, the shared quality must be understood contextually. If “ka-” is also omitted and the expression becomes “al-jundī asad,” it acquires the force of emphatic simile.

Conclusion: the same comparison can be stated with different degrees of explicitness while the analytical roles remain distinct.

25. Four foundations for the coming classifications

This lesson has defined simile as indicating shared meaning and distinguished its technical form from metaphor, allusion, and tajrīd.

The two terms: identification of mushabbah and mushabbah bih is necessary to locate the comparison.
The shared feature: wajh al-shabah establishes the respect in which likeness is claimed.
The expression of linkage: presence or omission of a comparison marker affects explicitness and rhetorical force.
Context: the meaning and clue, as well as the visible wording, matter when distinguishing emphatic simile and metaphor.

In the next section, the classifications of simile follow from the properties of these elements, especially the nature of the two terms and the shared aspect.