Discussion on the existence of metaphor and its absence: The verses (

The questioner : Yes. Shaykh, what is your opinion on the question of metaphor? When did this arise? I mean, did this disagreement exist in the era of Imam Ahmad?

The Shaykh : No, not until later.

The questioner : So they respond to them with that matter. They respond to it.

The Shaykh : The truth is that metaphor in supplication is difficult. I mean, can you say in the Qur'an what can be negated? No, absolutely not. Then he says that the truth is that metaphor is what one would assume the opposite of, were it not for the context. We say this context made it a literal truth. And then, metaphor leads to false meanings; it leads to negating the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); it leads to invalidating legal rulings in jurisprudence where they are interpreted as metaphorical. So it opened the door to evil. Therefore, Ibn al-Qayyim called it "the taghut" in his *Al-Nuniyyah*. He called it "the taghut" because it was used to invalidate the legal truths. Yes.

The questioner : I mean something else. I mean that since it was not known in the era of Imam Ahmad, when they cited the statement of Imam Ahmad that it is metaphorical, was it not known in the era of Imam Ahmad?

The Shaykh : You know that the one in need interprets everything according to his need, yes? And the shared and common terms in this field. What is the meaning of a shared term? A shared term is one that indicates multiple meanings literally. The eye, for example, is literal in the flowing eye, the seeing eye, and the coin eye. It is literal, not metaphorical. But the lion, according to the classification, is metaphorical. The lion in the predatory animal is literal, and in the brave man is metaphorical. Look, the word "lion" is also literal and metaphorical, involving comparison and metaphor. If I said, "I saw a lion devouring a sheep," what is the lion?

The questioner : An animal.

The Shaykh : Where is the predatory animal? I saw a lion slaughter a sheep and pronounce the name and say takbir. Is it a human or not? The brave man. What made this meaning this way and the other that way? The context and the word, yes. The common term is one that indicates all its meanings without difference.
And the ambiguous term, as they say, if it is accepted, is one that indicates its meanings with difference. For example, "strength" is weak for us.
Our strength is weak, but strength for Allah is strong, and all of it is called strength. Some people call this ambiguous. Why? Because a person doubts whether the word "strength" is used in its literal meaning for Allah and for the human being?
And that is due to the difference of its instances in meaning. Some say it is from the common terms, but it is a common term whose meaning differs according to what it is added to. And this is what the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred.
Is it metaphor? I am speaking to you and I say "metaphor." I am speaking to you. The kaf is the object. Did I hit you?
No. But if I said, "I spoke to so-and-so until blood flowed from him," what does that mean?
I wounded him. So they say it is metaphor. We do not know, is it this or that? So if you wish, review the words of Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) in *Mukhtasar al-Sawa'iq*. He spoke well on this. And when a person reviews the books of rhetoric, the matter is clear: speech is divided into literal and metaphorical. But if he returns to the other speech, it becomes clear to him. Now we have taken three, we have taken five minutes. Now, listen and read.