← Encyclopedia
Skill
Introduction
When a poet describes eyes as like two stars, a heart as having burned, and a generous man as having much ash, are these three images the same rhetorical device? No, even though all three fall under poetic imagery. Why does one sometimes feel stronger than another even though all three describe the very same thing? Understanding the difference between simile, metaphor, and metonymic indirection is not a matter of memorizing rigid definitions but of tracking what has been omitted from the relation and what remains visible.
Definition and distinction
Simile (tashbih) is an explicit relation between two terms, the compared (mushabbah) and the standard of comparison (mushabbah bih), linked by a visible comparison particle (like, as, as if) and a shared point of resemblance, with both terms remaining stated in the sentence. Metaphor (isti'ara), by contrast, is a simile with one term omitted: if only the standard of comparison is stated and the compared term is dropped, it is called explicit metaphor (tasrihiyya); if the compared term is stated and given a word or action characteristic of the omitted standard, it is called implicit metaphor (makniyya). Metonymic indirection (kinaya) differs fundamentally: it is an expression intended to convey a necessary consequence of its literal meaning rather than the direct meaning itself, while still allowing the literal meaning to be intended simultaneously, which distinguishes it from majaz (figurative substitution), where the literal meaning is entirely excluded.
It is also worth noting that rhetoric manuals describe another type of metaphor, isti'ara tamthiliyya (representational metaphor), where a composite meaning made of several elements is likened to another composite meaning drawn from an entirely different situation, rather than a single word matched to a single word. This type is more intricate than an isolated explicit or implicit metaphor, because the relation holds between two complete situations rather than two isolated terms, so identifying it requires more careful judgment than simple, single-word examples.
To illustrate with a teaching example composed here, not a quotation from published poetry, consider three phrasings of one idea, generosity:
Simile: "His hands are like an ocean of giving that never runs dry"
Implicit metaphor: "His hands stretched out an ocean that never runs dry"
Metonymic indirection: "His house has much ash" (meaning frequent cooking for guests, a necessary consequence of generosity, not the literal ash alone)
In the first phrasing both terms, hands and ocean, appear with the particle like, making it explicit simile. In the second, the word ocean, the standard of comparison, is dropped and the verb stretched out, fitting it, is used instead, an implicit metaphor. In the third there is no visible comparison at all, only a reference to a side effect, ash, indicating its cause, frequent cooking and generosity, without denying that his house may literally have much ash too. If we wanted an explicit metaphor for the same idea, we might say "an ocean that never runs dry opens its doors to guests," where the compared term, his hands or his generosity, is dropped entirely and only the standard of comparison, the ocean, remains.
Practical application
Step 1: Ask whether both terms of the relation are stated together with a visible comparison particle. If yes, you are looking at simile, not metaphor, regardless of how striking or unusual the image feels.
Step 2: If one term is omitted, identify which one remains: only the standard of comparison remaining means explicit metaphor; the compared term remaining with a trait or action of the omitted standard means implicit metaphor.
Step 3: If no comparison relation exists at all, but rather a phrase pointing to an indirect meaning that could still carry the literal meaning too, look toward kinaya, not metaphor, confirming that the literal meaning remains logically possible even if it is not the sole intended sense.
These steps can be applied to one ambiguous sentence by showing it to two different readers and asking each what omitted term they picture. If both converge on the same likely term, that is evidence of a clear implicit metaphor; if they diverge, the phrasing may be genuinely ambiguous and require wider context to classify precisely.
Context that changes meaning
These three terms belong to ilm al-bayan, whose rules were codified early in the Arabic rhetorical tradition, and they traditionally apply to classical verse and elevated prose alike without a fundamental difference in definition. In modern poetry (tafila and prose poems), these same devices remain in use, but their density and layering often increase, so multiple metaphors may interlock within a single sentence without clear comparison markers, making the boundary between simile and metaphor harder to draw than in classical verse's more explicit formulas.
Limits and common errors
A common mistake is labeling any figurative phrase metaphor without confirming the actual absence of a comparison particle and of one of the two terms; mere exaggeration or imaginative language alone does not prove metaphor. Another error is conflating kinaya with majaz mursal; both omit a comparison particle, but kinaya permits the literal meaning alongside its consequence, while majaz typically excludes the literal meaning. One should also avoid assuming every beautiful expression is necessarily a named rhetorical figure; some linguistic beauty arises from word choice or rhythm rather than a definable comparative relation. A further mistake is judging an image's quality purely from its rhetorical category; an explicit simile can be more eloquent than a clichéd metaphor if it serves meaning more precisely, since rhetorical classification is a descriptive tool, not an automatic ranking of merit.
Conclusion
First determine whether both terms appear together with a visible particle, a simile, whether one has been omitted, a metaphor, or whether no comparison relation exists at all but an indirect reference that still allows the literal meaning, a kinaya, before naming any poetic image.