Purpose and Introduction: This article analyzes the historical and structural aesthetics of simile and allegory through the lens of intellectuals and pioneers of rhetoric, from Qudama ibn Ja'far to Al-Sakkaki. The study seeks to clarify the differing viewpoints of rhetorical experts throughout history and to examine the differences between allegorical simile. Simile, as a rhetorical device, manifests in diverse forms and categories, fundamentally grounded in its four main components. Similes are fundamentally classified based on their comparative basis, distinguishing between allegorical similes and non-allegorical similes, along with other rhetorical characteristics. In Arabic rhetoric, allegorical simile is a crucial literary device that elucidates intricate concepts by juxtaposing them with more accessible, concrete examples or narratives. This strategy aids the listener in comprehending the intended meaning more effectively through mental picture and visualization. In allegorical simile, the basis of comparison is implicit and abstract, resulting from the amalgamation of several aspects, rendering it subject to interpretation and not readily identifiable. Conversely, in non-allegorical simile, the basis of comparison is apparent and unambiguous, necessitating no interpretation. Rhetoricians hold divergent perspectives on the concept and interpretation of allegorical simile. Frequently, they fail to distinctly differentiate this type of simile from associated rhetorical devices such as allegorical metaphor, compound simile, and proverbial simile.
Methodology: This study utilizes descriptive, analytical, and comparative methodologies to investigate rhetorical experts' perspectives on allegorical simile. The author employs primary materials and classical rhetorical texts to examine the historical evolution and structural dimensions of this idea. The article commences with a detailed analysis of the viewpoints of Qudama ibn Ja‘far, Abu Hilal al-‘Askari, Ibn Rashiq al-Qayrawani, Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani, and Al-Sakkaki concerning allegorical simile. This section delineates the definitions, interpretations, and examples supplied by each of these scholars. Subsequent to the descriptive analysis, the study advances to a comparative and analytical discourse, wherein the author scrutinizes the parallels and disparities among these experts' perspectives on allegorical simile. The research utilizes a historical methodology, examining the development and metamorphosis of the thought from Qudama ibn Ja‘far to Al-Sakkaki. This approach allows the author to monitor the evolution of the definition and usage of allegorical simile in the history of Arabic rhetoric. The study seeks to evaluate the rhetorical and artistic significance of allegorical simile within this historical framework.
Findings: The research findings indicate that Qudama ibn Ja‘far, in his work Naqd al-Shi‘r, fails to specifically categorize allegorical simile as a separate entity. He examines allegory as a characteristic of "harmony between wording and meaning," correlating it with metonymy and metaphor. Abu Hilal al-‘Askari shares a comparable perspective to Qudama, integrating allegory with metonymy and metaphor. In his analysis of simile, he characterizes the third type as the transformation of an obscure concept into a clear one, which corresponds with the definition of allegorical simile. Ibn Rashiq al-Qayrawani categorizes allegory as a subset of metaphor, comparing it with similarity. He references instances from poetry and the Hadith, regarding allegory as a synthesis of simile and metaphor. Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani differentiates between allegorical and non-allegorical similes, clearly delineating the distinctions between the two. He believes that allegorical simile necessitates interpretation (ta'wil) due to its implicit and not immediately obvious basis of comparison. He regards interpretation as a fundamental approach for comprehending allegorical simile. Al-Sakkaki characterizes allegorical simile as a type of simile that employs a non-literal basis for comparison, originating from several components. He, however, disagrees with Jorjani regarding the circumstances pertaining to the feature of allegory. He deems interpretation superfluous in the simile of allegory and underscores the composite nature of allegory's appearance.
Discussion and Conclusion: A simile is a form of comparison that abstracts from multiple elements and is not readily identifiable. Rhetoric scholars are divided on the issue, with the primary contention arising between Jorjani and Sakaqi. Rhetoric scholars occasionally fail to differentiate between simile and other rhetorical devices, including compound simile, metaphor, and allegory. This article examines the definition and characteristics of simile, as well as the scholarly controversies around it. Their perspectives are scrutinized, and the distinctions among simile, compound simile, metaphor, and allegory are also investigated. Ultimately, the author asserts that, although variations in the definitions and conditions of allegorical simile, all scholars recognize its rhetorical and artistic importance. The study emphasizes that allegorical simile is a significant rhetorical device, essential for conveying intricate ideas and generating vivid mental picture. The study reveals that, in early Arabic rhetoric, allegorical simile has a wide-ranging significance and was frequently utilized in diverse figurative expressions, encompassing allegorical metaphor, similarity metonymy, compound simile, and proverbial simile. Qudama ibn Ja‘far was the first figure to delineate allegorical simile, perceiving allegory as separate from simile. Ibn Rashiq al-Qayrawani categorized allegory as a subtype of metaphor, integrating it with simile and metaphor. Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani asserted that in allegorical simile, the basis of comparison is implicit, interpretative, and intellectually abstract rather than instinctual. In contrast, Al-Sakkaki underscored the composite and non-literal characteristics of the ground of comparison rather than its interpretative aspects. A significant distinction arises between Al-Jurjani and Al-Sakkaki: whereas Jurjani and the majority of classical academics saw it as an allegorical simile, Sakkaki did not. A general-to-specific relationship exists between Sakkaki’s standpoint and the traditional viewpoint.