When he came with the truth of their description, he followed it by giving an example, increasing the revelation and completing the explanation. The Arabs have a tradition of giving examples, and the scholars bring forth examples and parallels, which is not hidden in revealing the hidden meanings and lifting the veils from the truths. This allows you to see the imagined in the form of the realized, the presumed in the context of the certain, and the absent as if he is present. In it is a rebuke for the stubborn opponent and a suppression of the rebellious spirit. For some reason, Allah has increased examples in His clear Book and in all His other Books. They are widespread in the words of the Messenger of Allah, blessings and peace be upon him, and in the words of the prophets and sages. Allah, the Most High, said: "And these examples We set forth for the people, and none will understand them except the scholars." And from the chapters of the Gospel is the chapter of examples. The term 'example' in their original speech means a likeness, which is a counterpart. It is said: example, likeness, and counterpart, like similarity, resemblance, and likeness. Then the common saying that is represented in its source is called an example. They did not give an example, nor did they see it worthy of being conveyed, nor deserving of circulation and acceptance, except for a saying that has strangeness from some aspects. Hence, it has been preserved and protected from change. If you say: What is the meaning of their example being like that of one who kindled a fire, and what is the example of the hypocrites and the example of the one who kindled a fire until one of the examples was likened to its companion? I say: The example has been borrowed as a metaphor for the brave, for a situation, quality, or story, if it has significance and strangeness, as if it were said: Their astonishing situation is like that of one who kindled a fire. Likewise, His saying: "The example of Paradise which the righteous have been promised" means: And in what We have narrated to you of the wonders: the story of the astonishing Paradise. Then He began to explain its wonders. And for Allah is the highest example: meaning the description that has significance of greatness and majesty. "Their example in the Torah": meaning their description and the situation that is astonishing. And since the example has a meaning of strangeness, they said: So-and-so is an example in good and evil, thus deriving from it a description of the astonishing situation. If you say: How is the group likened to the individual? I say: The term 'the one' is placed in the position of 'the ones', as in His saying: "And you engaged as those who engaged." And what permitted placing 'the one' in the position of 'the ones' and did not allow placing 'the standing' in the position of 'the standing ones' or similar attributes are two matters: One is that 'the one' being a connector to describe every known entity as a whole, and its frequent occurrence in their speech, and because it is extended by its connection, it is deserving of simplification. Therefore, they weakened it by omission, so they omitted its 'ya' and then broke it, and then they limited it to the 'lam' alone in the names of the doers and the acted upon. The second is that its plural is not like the plural of others with 'waaw' and 'noon'. Rather, that is a sign of increased indication. Do you not see that all other connectors are in the plural form, and the singular among them is singular? Or it is intended to denote the kind of those who kindled a fire. Or the group or the crowd that kindled a fire is meant. Although the hypocrites and their kind are not likened to the kind of the one who kindled a fire, their story is likened to the story of the one who kindled a fire. Similar to His saying: "The example of those who were burdened with the Torah, then did not carry it, is like that of a donkey carrying books." And His saying: "They look at you with the look of one who is faint from death." The fuel of the fire: its brightness and the height of its flame. And among its relatives: it is said 'to rise in the mountain' when it ascends and elevates, and the fire is: a subtle, luminous, hot, and burning essence. And light: its brightness and the brightness of every luminous thing, and it is the opposite of darkness. Its derivation is from 'fire' which illuminates when it moves because it has movement and disturbance in it, and light is derived from it. And illumination:

The excess of illumination. The proof of that is His saying: "He is the One who made the sun a source of light and the moon a light." And it is transitive in the verse. It is possible that it is intransitive, attributed to what is around it. The feminine form is used to carry the meaning because what is around the fire is places and things. This is supported by the reading of Ibn Abi Abilah (Dha'at). There is another aspect, which is that the pronoun of the fire is hidden in the action. The shining of the light of the fire around it is made equivalent to the shining of the fire itself, on the condition that 'ma' is either an augmentative or a relative in the meaning of the places. And 'Hawlahu' is in the accusative as a circumstantial phrase, and its composition indicates rotation and surrounding. It is said that 'Hawlah' refers to the general because it revolves. If you say: Where is the answer to the question? I say: There are two aspects: one is that its answer is "Allah has taken away their light." The second is that it is omitted as it was omitted in the saying: "So when they took him away." It was permissible to omit it due to the length of the speech with the safety from confusion regarding what indicates it, and the omission is preferable to the affirmation due to its brevity, while expressing the quality that the one who kindled the fire has obtained with something more eloquent than the words in conveying the meaning, as if it were said: So when what is around him illuminated, it extinguished, and they remained groping in darkness, bewildered and regretful for the loss of the light, disappointed after their toil in reviving the fire. If you say: If the answer is assumed to be omitted, what does "Allah has taken away their light" relate to? I say: It would be an independent statement. As if when their condition was likened to that of the one who kindled the fire whose flame was extinguished, a questioner interjected and said: What is it that resembles their condition to that of this one who kindled the fire? It was said to him: Allah has taken away their light. Or it could be a substitute for the example in a clarifying manner. If you say: The pronoun in this case returns to the hypocrites, what does it return to in the second case? I say: It returns to the one who kindled the fire because it is in the meaning of the plural. As for the gathering of this pronoun and its singularity in "Hawlahu," it is to carry on the wording at times, and on the meaning at other times. If you say: What is the meaning of attributing the action to Allah, the Exalted, in the saying: "Allah has taken away their light"? I say: If the fire was extinguished due to a heavenly cause, wind, or rain, then Allah, the Exalted, extinguished it and took away the light of the one who kindled it. Another aspect is that the one who kindled the fire in this case is one whose fire is not pleasing to Allah. Then it could either be a metaphorical fire like the fire of temptation and enmity towards Islam, and that fire has a short duration of burning and little persistence. Do you not see His saying: "Whenever they kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it"? Or it could be a real fire kindled by the misguided to reach through its light some sins, and to guide themselves in paths of mischief, so Allah extinguished it and frustrated their hopes. If you say: How is it correct for the metaphorical fire to be described as illuminating what is around the one who kindled it? I say: It is outside the method of the suggested metaphor, so reflect on it well. If you say: Why was it not said "Allah has taken away their light"? Due to His saying: "So when it illuminated"? I say: Mentioning the light is more eloquent because light indicates an increase. If it were said: "Allah has taken away their light," it would imply the departure with an increase and the remaining of what is called light, while the aim is to remove the light from them entirely and to obliterate it completely. Do you not see how it was mentioned afterward "and left them in darkness"? And darkness is an expression of the absence of light and its obliteration, and how it was gathered, and how it was made indefinite, and how it was followed by what indicates that it is an ambiguous darkness in which two shapes cannot be seen, which is His saying: "They do not see." If you say: Why was it described as illuminating? I say: This is in accordance with their saying: "Falsehood has a surge, then it diminishes. And the wind of misguidance has a gust, then it quiets down, and the fire of the thistle is like the impulse of every ambitious one."

The difference between 'adhhabahu' and 'dhahaba bihi' is that the meaning of 'adhhabahu' is: He removed it and made it go away. It is said: 'dhahaba bihi' if he took him along and went with him. And 'dhahaba al-sultan bi-malihi' means: He took it. (So when they took him) and (then every god would have taken what he created). From it: 'dhahabtu bihi al-khayla.' The meaning is: Allah took away their light and held it, (and what He holds, there is no sender for it), so it is more emphatic than 'idhhab.' The Yemeni read: 'Azhaba Allah noorihim.' And 'taraka' means: to throw away and leave, if it is attached to one, like their saying: 'tarakahu tarak dhabi dhillihi.' If it is attached to two things, it implies the meaning of 'to make.' It runs in the manner of the actions of the hearts, like the saying of Antarah: 'So I left him as the beasts of prey devour him.' [For I pierced with the spear the sound cloth of his garments ... The noble is not forbidden from the spear.] 'I left him as the beasts of prey devour him ... They consume the beauty of his fingers and wrist.' This is from the Mu'allaqa of Antarah ibn Shaddad al-Absi. He says: 'I pierced with the strong, dry spear his garments,' meaning his heart and innards, so it is a metaphor for them. Or I pierced his garments meaning I arranged them with his body by inserting the spear into them. It is narrated: 'Ihabahu,' meaning his skin. And the noble ... until the end: an objection indicating that the custom of the noble is to be generous with everything, even with their souls for the spears. And in it is a kind of mockery. 'I left him' means: I made him. 'Jazar al-siba' - with movement - means: its share and its food from the meat. 'Nahashahu' and 'nashahu' means: he took it with his mouth and bit it. 'Qadhmuhu' means: he bit it with the front of his teeth. So the saying 'yaqadmun' is a substitute. And he expressed 'the beauty' for the beautiful thing as an exaggeration: meaning they eat his beautiful fingers and beautiful wrist. It is narrated instead of this line: 'What is between the top of his head and the wrist.' And 'ma' is extra, and 'bayna' is a circumstance for the eating. And it is permissible that 'ma' is a relative pronoun replacing the pronoun of the object. And 'qalat al-ra's' means: its top, like 'qalat al-jabal' and 'qinatihi.' And from it is His saying: (And He left them in darkness). Its origin is: they are in darkness, then 'taraka' entered and both parts were made accusative. And darkness is the absence of light. And it is said: an attribute that contradicts light. Its derivation is from their saying: 'What prevented you from doing such and such?' meaning: what held you back and occupied you, because it obstructs sight and prevents vision. Al-Hasan read (dhulumat) with a silent lam and the Yemeni read (in dhulmah) in the singular. And the omitted object from (they do not see) is like the abandoned one that is disregarded in thought, not like the intended one, as if the action is not transitive at all, like (ya'mahoon) in His saying: (And He leaves them in their transgression, wandering blindly). If you say: how did you compare their state to that of the one who has kindled a fire? I say: in that they, after the lighting, stumbled in darkness and became entangled in confusion. If you say: and where is the light in the state of the hypocrite? And is he ever anything but confused, stumbling in the darkness of disbelief? I say: what is meant is what they briefly illuminated by benefiting from the word that flowed on their tongues, and beyond their illumination by the light of this word is the darkness of hypocrisy that casts them into the darkness of Allah's wrath and the darkness of eternal punishment. And it is permissible to compare it to Allah's taking away the light of the one who has kindled a fire, the knowledge of Allah of their secrets and what they were exposed to among the believers and the mark of hypocrisy they bore. The most appropriate is that what is meant is the sealing, due to His saying: (Deaf, dumb, blind). And in the verse is another interpretation: that when they were described as having bought misguidance with guidance, this parable followed to represent their guidance that they sold with the illuminating fire around the one who has kindled it, and the misguidance that they bought and were sealed upon their hearts with Allah's taking away their light and leaving them in darkness. The indefinite article 'fire' is for magnification. Their senses were sound, but when they closed their ears to listening to the truth, they refused to speak it with their tongues, and to look and perceive with their eyes, they became as if their senses had been extinguished and their foundations upon which they were built for feeling and perception had collapsed, like His saying: 'Deaf when they hear good that I am mentioned with ... And when I am mentioned with evil in their presence, they listen.' [If they hear a slander, they fly with it in joy ... While what they hear of good they bury.] 'Deaf when they hear good that I am mentioned with ... And when I am mentioned with evil in their presence, they listen.

Ignorance has befallen us from their enemy... What a wretched pair ignorance and cowardice are.

This is from Laq'anab ibn Um, the son of Dhamrah. And Dhamrah is his father. And Um is the nickname of his mother. He says: If they hear. And it is narrated: they permit, as in they hear, in weight and meaning, from the two sides of the word falsehood and lies that they spread, as if they were flying with it among the people out of their joy in what they have taken from me.

So, the flying is a clear metaphor for that. Malik said, following Al-Farra: It is permissible to respond to the present tense with the past, although the majority have prohibited it in preference. And whatever they heard from the words of Salih, they concealed. Thus, the burial is also a clear metaphor. They are deaf: meaning like the deaf, so it is a strong simile and a metaphor according to the difference of opinion. And if something bad is mentioned about them, they listen and pay attention. It is narrated 'sabah' with a dammah: what one is insulted with. And it may be narrated: 'sab'a', with a saakinah ta and an hamzah. And it is narrated: and they do not hear. And it is narrated: they were deaf, in the past tense, instead of deaf. And it is narrated: all of them listened badly:

Meaning all of them listened, and it is on the condition of the 'fa', because it is the response to the condition. It is possible that it is on the basis of precedence and delay: meaning all of them listened if something bad was mentioned, which is more suitable to what preceded. And making them the very ear is an exaggeration. And it is possible that the ear is a description that applies to the singular and the plural, due to their ignorance and their cowardice, and their weakness against their enemy. And it is said: it is on the condition that they gathered in ignorance. The two qualities are the two traits. And cowardice with two dammahs is a language in it. And it is a fine expression of the embellishment, because it came in dual and was explained with two names, the second of which is conjoined to the first, which is good.

Deaf to what has harmed him is the listener.

Deaf to the thing that I do not want... And I hear the creation of Allah when I want. [Deafness is deafness, like fatigue is fatigue. So 'deaf' - with an open 'sad' - is a present tense verb. And if you made it a noun on the news with a hidden pronoun, it would be appropriate for 'I hear' which is conjoined to it. The meaning is that my state is like the state of the deaf, so it is a metaphor for that. And 'I hear': meaning I act according to the hearing, so it is also a metaphor. And it is possible that it is a euphemism. He says: I do not listen to what I dislike. And I hear the words of the creation of Allah when I want, by being beloved to me, or when I want to hear.]

So I deafened Amr and blinded him... from generosity and pride on the day of pride. [He says: When I displayed my boasting and my noble qualities, I deafened Amr: meaning I made him like the deaf. And I blinded him: meaning I made him like the blind, so deafness and blindness are clear metaphors. The intended meaning is that I silenced him and restrained him from speaking about pride and generosity during my boasting to him.

And it is said: I deafened him and blinded him: I found him deaf and I found him blind: meaning as if he were so, as mentioned before.]

If you say: What is his method according to the scholars of rhetoric? I say: The method of their saying 'they are lions' for the brave, and 'seas' for the generous. However, this is in attributes, and that is in names, and the metaphor has come in names, attributes, and actions altogether. You say: I saw lions, and I met deaf ones to good, and the darkness of Islam.

And the truth illuminated. If you say: Is what is in the verse called a metaphor? I say: There is disagreement about it. The scholars agree on calling it a strong simile, not a metaphor, because the borrowed thing is mentioned, and they are the hypocrites. And the metaphor is only applied where the mention of the borrowed thing is concealed, and the speech is made free of it, suitable to be intended by what is transferred from it and what is transferred to it, were it not for the indication of the situation or the implication of the speech, like the saying of Zuhayr:

'At the lion, whose weapons are drawn... whose mane has claws that have not been trimmed.'

From Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulma's Mu'allaqa, he praises Husayn ibn Dumdum for his courage against his enemy with good planning, so he did not frighten many houses. Or the meaning is that he confronted him alone, so he did not frighten houses, meaning the people of the houses who would assist him. And 'where' is a substitute for 'with', and it is possible that 'with' refers to an ambiguous place added to 'where' in meaning by adding it to the sentence. And 'Um Qash'am' is the name for death. He likens it to a traveler on the path of metaphor. The 'journey' is imaginative, and the second 'with' is a substitute for the first. He stripped the praised one of his qualities to highlight another person for his completeness in bravery, so he borrowed the lion as a direct metaphor for him. And 'shaki' means fully armed, stripped because it fits the one being compared. Al-Farra' said it is the reverse of 'shayk', meaning one with thorns and sharpness. And 'muqadh' means large, as if he were thrown with flesh and cast away. He has a mane, meaning tangled hair on his shoulders. His claws have not been trimmed: all this is an embellishment because it fits the one being compared. And in his saying 'his claws have not been trimmed': it is a type of elaboration called 'al-ighal', which he concluded with the verse to emphasize the comparison, like the saying of Al-Khansaa about her brother Sakhr: 'as if he were a banner with fire on its top.' And thus you see the eloquent sorcerers among them as if they forget the comparison and turn away from imagining it. Abu Tammam said: 'And he ascends until the ignorant thinks he has a need in the sky.' This is for Abu Tammam praising Khalid ibn Yazid al-Shaybani and mentioning his father. The pronoun 'ascends' refers to Yazid. He borrowed the ascent from physical elevation for moral elevation as a direct metaphor, then built upon it what is based on elevation in place as an embellishment and completion for exaggeration in the comparison, because that assumption cannot be based except on seeing him truly ascending. And the assumption - like knowledge - sometimes takes its object directly and sometimes with a preposition. He specified the ignorant to indicate that this assumption is wrong, and it seems to be a stripping of the metaphor, but it was concealed by the appearance of embellishment. And it was conveyed that the mention of the ignorant is a precaution against the assumption of the need of the praised one and the situation, to claim that he is in utmost perfection. And his narration of 'thought' in the past is well-known, and it is on the condition of an oath: 'By Allah, the ignorant has indeed thought that.' Some said: 'Do not think that there is a man in his robe, for therein is rain and a lion that is flowing and abundant.' This is for Al-Zamakhshari. He likens the praised one to rain in the abundance of goodness and generosity, and to the lion in the abundance of courage, and he borrowed them for him as a direct metaphor, and built upon that a prohibition for people from thinking that there is a man in his garment, to indicate the forgetfulness of the comparison and the claim of unity. And 'the flowing' means abundant in flow, so it refers back to the rain. And 'the abundant' which has many cubs, meaning offspring from the lions, so it refers back to the lion, thus there is a wrapping and unwrapping, and there is a semblance of opposition as he combined what is feared and what is hoped. And there is a subsequent pun between 'rain' and 'lion', and between 'flowing' and 'abundant.' And it is not for anyone to say: 'He omitted their mention altogether by deleting the subject, so I can climb to call it a metaphor because it is in the status of what is stated,' like the saying of someone addressing Al-Hajjaj: 'A lion to me, and in wars a strutting ostrich that flees from the whistle of the whistler.' 'A lion to me, and in wars a strutting ostrich... Why did you not repeat it to a gazelle in battle... But your heart was in the wings of a bird.'

Irmān ibn Ḥaṭṭān, the killer of al-Ḥajjāj. It is narrated that Shabīb al-Khārijī, his mother Juhayzah, and his wife Ghazālah, were of great insight. They entered Kūfah with one thousand and thirty horsemen, while at that time al-Ḥajjāj was there with thirty thousand fighters. They fought him for a whole year until he fled from them. Irmān reproached him for that, saying: 'Are you like a lion?' The majority do not accept the metaphor due to the intention of mentioning the one being compared. However, al-Taftazānī permitted it on the basis that the mentioned is an individual among its individuals, not its essence. And 'like' is related to 'lion' for its meaning of courage and strength, while 'in wars' is related to 'ostrich' for its meaning of cowardice and weakness. This is evident according to the opinion of the scholar, because the lion is a metaphor for any brave one, and the ostrich is a metaphor for any coward. As for the opinion of the majority, they are fixed in their meanings as they remain true to their realities, unless it is said that since it occurred in the context of comparison, the description upon which the similarity is based should be considered. It is permissible for them to relate to the meaning of comparison, or to an omitted state of the omitted subject according to the view of Sibawayh. 'Al-Fatkh' - with the vowel - means softness and spreading in the fingers and wings. 'Al-Fatkhā' is a description derived from it. And 'tanfar' is a description of the ostrich, meaning it panics and becomes terrified at the slightest sound it hears. He described it as being extremely weak to indicate that the one being compared is likewise. Then he reproached him by saying: 'Why did you not confront that woman in battle?' You did not do that, but your heart was trembling and agitated, as if it were in the wings of a bird, which is a form of eloquent comparison. It is narrated: 'Why did you not step forward to Ghazālah?' And the meaning of 'they do not return' is that they do not return to guidance after they have sold it, or from misguidance after they have purchased it, recording upon them by nature. Or it is intended that they are like the confused ones who remain stagnant in their place, not moving, and do not know whether to advance or retreat. And how can they return to where they started from?