The Unifying Relation: Rational, Estimative and Imaginative Links

1. Three forms of the unifying relation

A jāmiʿ is a link that can make coordination of two independent clauses rhetorically appropriate. Agreement in the type or function of the clauses alone is insufficient: nearby sentences must also share a meaningful connection.

The three major types are the rational (ʿaqlī), estimative (wahmī), and imaginative (khayālī) links. The classification concerns different modes of apprehending a connection; it does not assume that all three have identical logical force.

2. The source terms: intellect, estimation and imagination

«الْقُوَّةُ الْعَاقِلَةُ الْمُدْرِكَةُ لِلْكُلِّيَّاتِ»
The intellectual faculty that apprehends universals.

«الْقُوَّةُ الْمُدْرِكَةُ لِلْمَعَانِي الْجُزْئِيَّةِ»
The faculty apprehending particular meanings.

The intellect grasps universal concepts and general relations. Estimation apprehends particular meanings attached to sensed individuals but not directly presented by an external sense, such as the threat posed by a specific animal. Imagination retains sense-images after their objects are no longer present.

3. The sheep and the wolf: image versus meaning

«كَإِدْرَاكِ الشَّاةِ مَعْنَى الذِّئْبِ»
As when a sheep apprehends a particular meaning associated with a wolf.

The animal sees the wolf’s visible form, while recognizing an individual threat or hostility is different from perceiving its colour and shape. The distinction is between a sensory image and a particular non-sensory meaning.

The example illustrates a traditional taxonomy of cognition; it is not an exclusive empirical account of every psychological or biological cause of fear.

4. Common sense, imagery and the compositive faculty

The common sense (ḥiss mushtarak) is traditionally treated as the shared site of the sense-forms delivered through the external senses. Imagination retains those forms when the objects are absent, while the compositive or cogitative faculty separates and recombines preserved images and certain particular meanings.

Someone may have observed a tree, a blue sky and a bird on separate occasions, then mentally compose them into one scene. That composition differs from immediate vision. This internal meeting-place helps explain how the mind can link two statements.

5. Comparing the faculties

FacultyWhat it apprehendsRelevance to rhetoric
IntellectUniversals and universal relationsConceptual identity, resemblance, correlation
EstimationIndividual non-sensory meaningsFelt or conceived contrast between particulars
ImaginationRetained sense-imagesRemembered juxtaposition of images
Compositive facultySeparation and recombinationBringing relations together mentally

The important question is how the concepts represented by the clauses come together in the mind—not whether their words happen to share letters.

6. Defining the rational link

«الْجَامِعُ بَيْنَ الْجُمْلَتَيْنِ إِمَّا عَقْلِيٌّ»
The link between two things may be rational.

A rational jāmiʿ is a relation through which the intellect finds reason to bring two concepts together in the compositive faculty. It rests on an intelligible conceptual connection, not merely on someone's chance experience of seeing the things together.

The notable patterns include unity of conception, similarity, and correlation or relational pairing. They must be distinguished instead of being treated as interchangeable.

7. Unity of conception through abstraction

«اتِّحَادٌ فِي التَّصَوُّرِ»
A kind of unity within conception.

When particular circumstances and external individuating features are abstracted away, two distinct objects can be conceived under a common universal. Zayd and ʿAmr remain different persons, but both fall under the conception of humanity.

The unity is not their numerical identity as external individuals. It is an intellectual unity of what is conceived. Thus rational linkage should not be reduced to repeating a word.

8. Similarity at the level of a shared kind

«أَوْ تَمَاثُلٌ»
Or similarity between the two.

Tamāthul means that two things remain distinct while resembling one another in some relevant kind or characteristic. Two writers, for example, may share a recognizable professional activity, or two scholars may work in a common discipline.

The statement that both things merely 'exist' or are 'physical' may be too broad. Effective coordination calls for a similarity genuinely relevant to the discourse.

9. Identity of conception versus resemblance

CategoryPrimary linkImportant limit
Unity in conceptionA shared universal after abstractionExternal individuals do not become numerically one
SimilarityResemblance between distinct conceptsNot every generic overlap is sufficient
CorrelationTwo statuses conceived in relation to one anotherUnderstanding one calls for the other

The example of teacher and student points primarily to a pair of mutually relevant relations, not simply to two similar objects.

10. Correlation as a relational pair

«أَوْ تَضَايُفٌ»
Or a reciprocal relational connection.

Pairs such as father and son or cause and effect are conceived through mutual reference: fatherhood is relative to a child, and an effect is understood in relation to a cause.

This is an intelligible conceptual relation, hence a rational link. A pair of words often mentioned together in ordinary conversation is not automatically an instance of technical correlation.

11. The estimative link and apparent association

«أَوْ وَهْمِيٌّ»
Or the link may be estimative.

An estimative jāmiʿ is a relation through which estimation brings two representations together in the compositive faculty without necessarily using the same conceptual route as rational linkage. It may depend on felt contrast, difference, or mutual opposition.

'Estimative' does not simply mean 'false' or 'meaningless.' The term identifies a mode of mental association distinct from strict intellectual correlation.

12. A perceived contrast: whiteness and yellowness

«كَلَوْنَيْ بَيَاضٍ وَصُفْرَةٍ»
Like the two colours white and yellow.

Both belong to the category colour, an intelligible commonality. But estimation may bring them together by emphasizing their divergence or comparison within a particular setting.

One must not assume that whiteness and yellowness are strict logical contradictories in every technical sense. The relevant feature here is their mental comparison or contrast.

13. A poetic trio: sun, patron and moon

«ثَلَاثَةٌ تُشْرِقُ الدُّنْيَا بِبَهْجَتِهَا»
Three bring radiance to the world through their splendour.

«شَمْسُ الضُّحَى وَأَبُو إِسْحَاقَ وَالْقَمَرُ»
The morning sun, Abū Isḥāq, and the moon.

The poet joins the sun and moon with Abū Isḥāq by evoking brightness and distinction. They do not belong to a single external natural kind, but poetic comparison brings them together.

A rhetorical relation can depend on figurative resemblance and mental evocation, rather than a common material classification.

14. Opposition between two positive qualities

«أَوْ يَكُونَ بَيْنَ تَصَوُّرَيْهِمَا تَضَادٌّ»
Or the two conceptions may stand in opposition.

Black and white can function as contrasting positive qualities when considered in an appropriate subject and respect. Describing different things by those colours achieves effective coordination when comparison is intended.

In logic, contrariety concerns positive opposed qualities that cannot coexist under the relevant conditions. This is different from strict contradiction or mere dissimilarity.

15. Faith and disbelief: explaining the relevant contrast

«وَالْإِيمَانِ وَالْكُفْرِ فِي الْمَعْقُولَاتِ»
And faith and disbelief among intelligible meanings.

Faith and disbelief can be analysed in different theological and logical respects. In one account, disbelief is treated in relation to the absence of faith, which is not simply the same as the opposition of two equally positive attributes.

The rhetorical point is the conceptual contrast. Different logical analyses should not be flattened into one universal classification.

16. Quasi-opposition: sky and earth

«أَوْ شِبْهِ تَضَادٍ كَالسَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ»
Or something resembling opposition, such as sky and earth.

Sky and earth are distinct entities, not two positive qualities competing to occupy exactly the same subject. Yet the imagination of height and depth evokes their opposition.

This is quasi-opposition, not strict contrariety. Rhetorical association may arise from a comparison that resembles opposition without satisfying all its logical conditions.

17. Distinguishing opposition from quasi-opposition

PairRelationKey distinction
Black / whiteAn example of contrarietyOpposed qualities under the relevant conditions
Sky / earthQuasi-oppositionTwo entities contrasted as high and low
White / yellowPerceived comparisonA contrast evoked between two colours

The estimative link thus includes more than a single strict logical relation. Different forms of contrast can draw ideas together while remaining technically distinct.

18. Prior and posterior in representation

«فَإِنَّ الْأَوَّلَ هُوَ الَّذِي يَكُونُ سَابِقًا عَلَى الْغَيْرِ»
The former is what stands prior to the other.

The discussion distinguishes certain relations by asking which conception is prior and how the second is evoked relative to it. There is no single fixed order for every comparison; the relevant conception and its relation determine the sequence.

In one context 'height' may call up 'depth,' while another begins with depth. The mental order of association is not necessarily the same as universal chronological priority.

19. Why estimative opposition resembles correlation

«يَنْزِلُهُمَا مَنْزِلَةَ التَّضَايُفِ»
It treats the two as though they stood in a correlative relation.

The intellect may find opposition or incompatibility, yet estimation quickly recalls one opposite upon encountering the other. In this respect the pair behaves as if the members called one another to mind.

This is a likening to correlation, not the claim that every contrary is literally a relative such as 'father' and 'son.' The issue is mental association, not a change in the external essences of things.

20. The imaginative link: a prior association

«أَوْ خَيَالِيٌّ»
Or the link may be imaginative.

An imaginative jāmiʿ arises when imagination brings two images together in the compositive faculty, especially because they have been associated before. The presence of one image prompts the recollection of another.

Such association may grow from individual experience, repeated observation, or familiar usage. The concepts need not share an intellectual identity or true logical contrariety.

21. Why association must precede the coordination

«تَقَارُنٌ فِي الْخَيَالِ سَابِقٌ عَلَى الْعَطْفِ»
An association within imagination that precedes coordination.

Mentioning two things together does not by itself prove that there was already an imaginative jāmiʿ. The relevant link should be present sufficiently beforehand to let one image evoke another for the audience.

In this account imaginative association is a ground for the conjunction, not a relation automatically created merely because the conjunction was uttered.

22. Habit, circumstance and personal variation

«وَأَسْبَابُهُ أَيْ أَسْبَابُ التَّقَارُنِ فِي الْخَيَالِ مُخْتَلِفَةٌ»
And the causes of that association differ.

A calligrapher may associate a pen with an inkpot, while a student associates a book with a classroom. Such links depend on prior encounters. Someone without the relevant experience may not make the same association.

Thus imaginative linkage changes with audience, place, time and custom. It does not operate as an equally necessary universal logical principle for everyone.

23. Why imaginative associations cannot be exhaustively listed

«وَتَبَايُنُ الْأَسْبَابِ لَا يَضْبِطُهُ الْحَصْرُ»
The variation of the causes cannot be exhaustively enumerated.

Habits, circumstances, education, social practices and past observations differ among people. It is therefore impossible to provide one fixed list of every circumstance that makes two images mentally co-occur.

This matters for waṣl: mastering the definition of jāmiʿ is insufficient unless one can explain how the intended audience would associate the particular representations.

24. A diagnostic comparison of all three links

LinkChief basisIllustration
RationalConceived unity, similarity or correlationTeacher and student
EstimativeApprehended contrast or near-contrastBlack / white; sky / earth
ImaginativeMemory of images previously linkedThe familiar pair pen and inkpot

More than one association can apply to the same pair. To justify waṣl, identify the relation actually relevant to the audience and purpose of the utterance.

25. Why identifying jāmiʿ demands rhetorical judgment

«وَلِصَاحِبِ عِلْمِ الْمَعَانِي فَضْلُ احْتِيَاجٍ إِلَى مَعْرِفَةِ الْجَامِعِ»
A student of ʿilm al-maʿānī has a particular need to recognize the unifying relation.

Many judgments about faṣl and waṣl turn on the connection between clauses. Rational links are important, but contrasts apprehended through estimation and associations formed through imagination also demand attention because they depend on audience experience.

A conjunction is not rhetorically justified by syntax alone: it should express a fitting semantic relationship under the circumstances of the speech.