Clarification of the Truth and Metaphor in Language and the Qur'an?

The questioner : We request clarification regarding the concept of truth and metaphor in the language of the Arabs and in the Noble Qur'an, especially since some of the scholars of the past say that there is truth and metaphor, and what we learned in schools and universities is based on this foundation. However, what we learned from Ibn Taymiyyah, and our trust in his knowledge, created something in our souls. So we request clarification?

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you. Perhaps that is the reason. I am reassured by the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah without doubt or hesitation, in addition to my awareness of some of the rules, or some of the guidelines, that the same scholars who assert truth and metaphor mention. Combining these two things has removed any doubt or suspicion in my mind regarding what Ibn Taymiyyah says. The reason for this, or perhaps I should say another phrase, is that the comprehensive statement regarding reassurance in what Ibn Taymiyyah says is the following: What some linguistic scholars call metaphor, and their naming of it as such is correct, the disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and these scholars at that point is a verbal disagreement. And what does not stand up for them, or what they do not accept, regarding their claim that this is metaphor, the matter is easier; it is rejected from its origin. Is that clear up to here?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Now, one of the guidelines mentioned by the same scholars who assert truth and metaphor is that the original state of all speech is truth, and that one does not resort to metaphor in any Arabic sentence unless truth is impossible. This is an established fact among them. If we look at these two points: the first is the linguistic terminological point, which is that the original state of all speech is truth, not metaphor, unless truth is impossible; and the other point is that much of what those people call metaphor terminologically, Ibn Taymiyyah does not call metaphor, but rather truth. For example, among the examples that fall under the types of metaphor you referred to is the metaphor of omission, such as in the saying of Allah the Exalted: . Any book or any interpretation from the later interpretations influenced by the scientific grammatical terminology will tell you that this is metaphor. Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), due to his precision in this science, in which he is not a specialist, but rather he is a specialist, because the great scholars specializing in various sciences, when they sat with him and discussed with him, said, "It is as if he is a specialist in whatever he is researching, in any science he researches." So when he comes to a verse like this, he says, "They call it metaphor, and there is no dispute in terminology, but this naming contradicts their treatment of this name, where they say the original state of speech is truth, and if it is impossible, it is resorted to as metaphor." Now, when the Arab hears such divine speech: , what comes to his mind, and what does he understand from this sentence? Is it the meaning they call metaphor, or the meaning they call truth? They call it metaphor. Ibn Taymiyyah says, "No, this is truth..." The Arab, no one can understand from it what they call truth. What they call truth means no one understands its walls, its mountains, its rivers, its valleys, but rather the people of the village. So what they called metaphor, which for Ibn Taymiyyah is truth, and at that point, there is nothing to justify or permit a person to turn away from this truth to metaphor, because two meanings are not understood from this text, one apparent and the other possible; the other is not possible at all. And so, by analogy, when Ibn Taymiyyah denied metaphor, he did not deny it absolutely, but he denied a type of metaphor in which linguists are lenient in calling it metaphor from one side, while for Ibn Taymiyyah it is truth. And he denied what they expand in applying metaphor to some expressions, because they do not fall under the rule: if truth is impossible, resort to metaphor. So at that point, there should be no doubt or hesitation in this statement of Ibn Taymiyyah, especially what is related to the divine attributes, whether it is mentioned in the Book or in the Sunnah, because Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) cannot be compared to His creations, so it is said, for example, in some expressions that express one of His attributes, that it is metaphor, because at that point we fall into what Ibn Taymiyyah and his like, such as Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah and others, call denial of the divine attributes. Yes, this is what we can say on the occasion of this question.
Al-Halabi: Our ShaykhThe Shaykh : Al-Shanqiti (may Allah have mercy on him) has a large book that prohibited the permissibility of metaphor in the revealed text for the sake of worship and inimitability.

The Shaykh : Good.
Al-Halabi : Yes, meaning he researched the issue extensively, and he quoted from Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) in al-Sawa'iq...

The Shaykh : al-Sawa'iq
Al-Halabi : ... metaphor

The Shaykh : Indeed
Al-Halabi : Meaning he speaks at length.

Another questioner : He speaks about this in the end of I'la al-Bayan. I saw this research, but a person tries to be reassured.

The Shaykh: Correct.