In the series titled “The Literary Elegance of the Noble Qur’an,” we are looking onto the 12th part.
One category in literary style is this: when something happens because of a certain cause, instead of mentioning the person who performs the act, the cause itself is described as performing the action.
For example, a person is wealthy. Because of his wealth, he speaks arrogantly. People then say, “Money is speaking.” Actually, it is the man who is speaking. What is the reason he speaks arrogantly? Money. Because he has money, he speaks with pride. So they say, “It’s the money talking.” Does money speak? If you take it literally, money does not speak. Because he has money, he speaks. The person performs the action, but the cause behind it is described as if it performed the action. They say the money spoke.
Similarly, we say, “Money can do ten things.” Money does nothing. The one who possesses the money does things. Money by itself does nothing. If we say money does something, what it means is the person who has money, because of it, acts arrogantly and does things.
This kind of expression exists in all languages. I am giving examples in Tamil, but it exists in Arabic and English as well. People say, “Time will answer.” How does time answer? It is the person who answers in that time. Or they say, “The law will fulfill its duty.” How does the law fulfill duty? It is the judge who implements the law.
Such expressions belong to a type of figurative usage. In the Qur’an too, Allahﷻ uses this style. People understand it.
Prayer command you
For example, Allahﷻ sent the Prophet Shu‘ayb (peace be upon him). He went to his people and called them to Tawheed (monotheism). In addition, those people used to cheat in measurements and weights. He condemned that too. Like all Prophets, he preached Tawheed, and also addressed the specific evil prevalent in his community. Just as Prophet Lut (peace be upon him) addressed homosexuality in his time along with Tawheed, Shu‘ayb (peace be upon him) addressed cheating in trade and commanded them to worship Allahﷻ alone.
What did his people say? They said, “It is not you who are saying this. It is your prayer that is saying this.” Shu‘ayb worshipped Allahﷻ in a way different from them. So they said, “It is not you speaking. Your prayer is commanding you to tell us not to worship what our forefathers worshipped and not to cheat in business. Is your prayer ordering you to say this?”
Because he prays, because he is devoted to his religion, he criticizes their wrongdoing. They say, “It is your prayer that speaks. It is your belief that speaks. It is your ideology that speaks.” Does ideology speak? Does belief speak? Does prayer speak? No.
But in Surah 11, verse 87, Allahﷻ says:
They said, “O Shu‘ayb, does your prayer command you that we should leave what our forefathers worshipped, or that we should not do what we wish with our wealth?”
They know prayer is not a living being. Prayer has no mouth, no brain. Prayer is not a rational entity. It is simply an act performed by a human. So when they say, “Your prayer commands you,” it is like saying “money speaks.” It is a literary expression.
Trade did not profit them
Similarly, a person does business. He gains profit or loss. It is the person who gains profit or loss. But Allahﷻ says in the Qur’an, “Their تجارت (trade) did not profit them.” How does trade profit? Trade is an action, not a living being. The meaning is they did not gain profit through their trade. The profit belongs to humans, not to trade itself. Yet the Qur’an says their trade did not profit.
Likewise, in Surah 29:45, Allahﷻ says:
“Indeed, prayer restrains from immorality and wrongdoing.”
Does prayer physically grab your hand and stop you? Is prayer a living being with power? Only a rational being can command good and forbid evil. Prayer is not such a being. But Allahﷻ says prayer prevents immorality.
How? If you pray sincerely, you yourself will refrain from wrongdoing. Because of prayer, God-consciousness develops. When you worship Allahﷻ , you think, “How can I lie? How can I cheat?” So you refrain. It is the person who refrains. Prayer does not literally restrain.
If someone says prayer prevents wrongdoing, ask them: has prayer ever grabbed your hand and stopped you from sin? No. The meaning is you refrain because of prayer.
Pride drives him into sin
Similarly, in Surah 2:206, Allahﷻ describes a person who speaks eloquently but spreads corruption. When he is told, “Fear Allahﷻ ,” his pride drives him into sin. How does pride commit sin? It is the man who commits sin because of pride. Pride itself does not act. Yet Allahﷻ says pride leads him to sin. This is figurative language.
Such expressions are common in the Qur’an.
Now, an important matter: sometimes a person performs an action, yet it is said he did not perform it — though he did. This needs explanation.
You did not throw when you threw
In the Battle of Hunayn, the Muslims initially retreated. The enemy tribe of Hawazin were strong archers. The Muslims began to flee. The Prophetﷺ took a handful of dust and threw it toward the enemy. When he threw it, the dust miraculously entered their eyes and caused severe impact. Normally, a handful of dust would not have such an effect. But this was a miracle.
Allahﷻ says: “You did not throw when you threw, but Allahﷻ threw.”
Who threw? The Prophetﷺ threw. Everyone saw it. But Allahﷻ says, “You did not throw when you threw.” What does this mean?
You threw, but the extraordinary effect did not come from you. I (Allahﷻ ) gave it the power. You performed the physical act, but I created the impact. So in reality, Allahﷻ threw — meaning He caused the effect.
Some people with misguided ideology misuse this verse to claim unity between Allahﷻ and the Messengerﷺ (like Wahdat al-Wujud). They say, “When the Prophetﷺ threw, Allahﷻ says I threw — so Allahﷻ and the Messengerﷺ are one.” This is wrong.
The correct meaning is: the Prophetﷺ performed the act; Allahﷻ created the result.
Similarly, there is a hadith: whoever draws near to Allahﷻ through voluntary worship, Allahﷻ says, “I become his hearing with which he hears, his sight with which he sees, his hand with which he grasps, his foot with which he walks.”
Some misuse this hadith to claim the human becomes divine. But the meaning is: Allahﷻ guides and supports him in those actions. It does not mean he becomes Allahﷻ .
Because they do not understand literary expression, they misunderstand such verses and hadiths and elevate humans to divine status.
That is why understanding literary style is essential.
I will become his hand
This matter of saying “I will become his hand” or “I will become his foot” is something we express in a literary way, isn’t it? For example, we say about someone, “He is my right hand.” If we say that about a person, how can he literally be my right hand? My right hand is attached to me. If I have someone who strongly supports me, we say, “He is my right hand.” Does anyone understand that he has literally become my hand? Will anyone say that this man has physically become his hand? No.
Just as my right hand stands as support for me in everything, just as my right hand assists me, in the same way this person supports and helps me — that is why we say in Tamil, “He is my right hand.” In all languages such expressions exist. In such a place, when we say “right hand,” do we give it the literal meaning of a physical hand? If someone says, “He is my right hand,” will anyone say that he has literally become his right hand? No.
If someone steals and the punishment is cutting the hand, can we cut that supporting friend instead? If this man steals, we cut his own hand. Will anyone agree to cut the “right hand” (meaning his supporter) instead? No.
So the word “hand” has a literal meaning in some places. In some contexts we must give it the literal meaning. But we understand clearly that one human cannot literally become another human’s hand. If that is clear, then can a human become the hand of Allahﷻ ? You already understand that one human cannot become the literal hand of another human. You understand they are two separate beings. Then when it comes to the “hand of Allahﷻ ,” how can you take it literally?
Allahﷻ is All-Powerful. How can a human become His hand? If one person becomes the hand of Allahﷻ , and if there are one lakh (100,000) such people, then there would be one lakh hands — one lakh gods! You also would become Allahﷻ ; he would become Allahﷻ ; another would become Allahﷻ . But Allahﷻ is One. That foundation collapses.
Even if only one person in the world became Allahﷻ ’s hand, you could say Allahﷻ descended into him. But there are millions and billions of people. If even a thousand people were like that, then there would be a thousand gods. The principle of monotheism would be destroyed. If they reflected like this, they would not misuse such texts.
To clarify this further, let us take another hadith as an example.
Allahﷻ will question a person on the Day of Judgment. Allahﷻ will say, “I was shivering in the cold and came to you, but you did not give Me clothing.” The man will respond, “My Lord, how could You feel cold? When did You come to me? When did I refuse You?”
Then Allahﷻ will say, “I came to you hungry. Did you feed Me?” The man will say, “When did You come? You are Rabbul-‘Alameen (Lord of the worlds). You have no need. How could You come to me?”
Allahﷻ will explain: “A poor man came to you. If you had given to him, it would have been as though you gave to Me. If you had refused him, it is as though you refused Me.”
Now, if we misunderstand this like the earlier misunderstanding about “hand” and “foot,” then would we say that poor people are Allahﷻ ? If someone shivering in the cold comes asking, is he Allahﷻ ? Would we build shrines for beggars? Would we say that whoever asks for charity is Allahﷻ Himself?
Because the hadith says, “I came to you.” The beggar came — Allahﷻ says, “I came.” But we know Allahﷻ does not beg. He is Self-Sufficient. He does not need anything from anyone. So what does it mean? It means: if you obey My command and give to him, I will reward you as if you gave to Me.
Understand this properly. If you misunderstand it literally, then every beggar would be Allahﷻ . Then if someone comes asking, we should build a shrine for him and ask him for children and blessings! Is that logical? Of course not.
Why does confusion arise? Because, we do not understand the subject properly. In the Qur’an, not everything should be taken literally. We must see whether the literal meaning fits. Where it fits, we take it literally. Where it does not fit, an alternative meaning is intended.
If Allahﷻ says someone becomes His “hand,” it means closeness — that he is very near to Allahﷻ compared to others. This expression of closeness is used in all languages. Those who understand literature grasp it correctly. Those who do not understand literature say, “His hand is Allahﷻ ’s hand.”
That is why some show Surah 8:17 — “You did not throw when you threw, but Allahﷻ threw” — and claim Allahﷻ and the Messengerﷺ are one.
The meaning is this: when the Prophetﷺ threw, he physically threw. But the extraordinary power and result did not come from him. Allahﷻ gave that power. So the act of throwing belongs to the Prophetﷺ; the effect belongs to Allahﷻ . Both have their respective roles.
Likewise, in the same verse, Allahﷻ says regarding killing in battle: “You did not kill them, but Allahﷻ killed them.” Who fought? The Companions fought. They used swords and spears. Yet Allahﷻ says, “You did not kill them.” Why? Because the Muslims were few and weak. The enemy was strong and many. Victory came because Allahﷻ provided extra power — through angels, through fear in the enemy’s hearts, through divine assistance. So the physical act was theirs, but the ultimate granting of victory was from Allahﷻ .
If you say literally that Allahﷻ and the Messengerﷺ are one because of this, then by the same logic, the Companions would also be Allahﷻ — because Allahﷻ says He killed them. But no one says that.
To further reflect: if someone killed a Muslim in battle, would you say he killed Allahﷻ ? No. You understand it cannot be literal.
Similarly, in another verse, Allahﷻ says about farming: “Do you farm, or do We farm?” Who farms? Humans farm. Allahﷻ Himself says you farm — yet also says We farm. Does that mean farmers are Allahﷻ ? No.
You plant the seeds and water them. But who causes them to sprout and grow? That is Allahﷻ ’s work. If the seed does not sprout, your effort is useless. Your work ends at planting and watering. The hidden processes of growth belong to Allahﷻ .
So the same word “farm” is used, but with different meanings. One refers to visible effort; the other to unseen divine action. If you insist on one literal meaning, contradiction arises.
Similarly, when husband and wife say, “We are one,” does that mean two bodies have become one body? No. It is a formal expression of unity in thought and purpose. When we say, “the two have become one,” it is not literal. Likewise, when we say “they have merged into one,” they are still two separate bodies. It is a figurative expression.
These matters must be understood carefully. Whether about the awliya being alive or such verses — if you insist on literal meanings where they do not fit, you go astray. We must consider whether a literal meaning suits Allahﷻ ’s majesty. If it contradicts core beliefs, we cannot take it literally. Language allows figurative usage in all languages. We see and use such expressions ourselves.
Similarly, another literary style is this: a certain quality or intention does not actually exist in an object, but the poet or speaker attributes that quality to it and speaks as though it possesses it.
We already gave an example like this. In the Tamil epic Silappathikaram, when Kovalan enters Madurai, it is said that the flag waved. Of course, a flag waves in the wind. But the poet imagines that the flag was signaling to him, “Don’t come! They will kill you!” Kovalan comes to Madurai and is killed. He does not know this beforehand; he simply arrives. As he enters, the flag is waving in the wind. The poet imagines that the flag was saying, “Don’t come, turn back!” But Kovalan does not understand and ends up being killed.
This is poetic imagination. The idea is not actually in the flag; the poet inserts that meaning into it. The flag merely waves in the wind. It does not literally say “come” or “don’t come.” Yet the poet attributes meaning to its movement.
If such imagination leads to superstition — like believing in omens — Islam does not accept that. But as a literary style, where a speaker expresses his own thought by attributing it to something that does not actually possess that quality, it is acceptable as rhetoric. The object itself does not contain that meaning, but the speaker assigns it for effect.
For example, the flag only waves. It does not speak. But the poet thinks, “It is signalling him to go back.” Since in the story Kovalan is killed, the poet, for dramatic effect, says that even at the beginning the flag was warning him. We immediately understand that the flag did not literally speak. It was just moving in the wind. The meaning is imposed for poetic beauty.
Such usage becomes wrong if it promotes superstition, but as literary expression it adds flavor and emotional appeal.
A similar style appears in the Qur’an.
wall “intended” to collapse
For example, the story of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) and Al-Khidr. Musa (peace be upon him) was once giving a sermon. People asked him, “Who is the most knowledgeable person on earth?” Musa thought, “I am a Prophet; who could have more knowledge than me?” So he replied, “I am.” This displeased Allahﷻ , because he should have said, “Allahﷻ knows best.” Allahﷻ revealed to him that there was someone more knowledgeable in certain matters and instructed him to go and meet that person. Signs were given — a fish in a basket, and when it disappears at a certain place, there he would find the man.
Musa(Alahis Salam) met Al-Khidr(Alahis Salam), and they travelled together. Among the events that occurred, they came to a town and asked the people for food. At that time, hospitality to travellers was an unwritten but binding custom, because there were no hotels. Travellers could die without food. So communities would collectively ensure that guests were fed.
They asked for food, but the people refused. This was not begging in the modern sense; it was part of the social system of that time. Then they saw a wall in that town that was leaning and about to collapse. Al-Khidr repaired it without asking for payment. Musa objected: “These people refused us food. You could have asked for wages for repairing this wall.” Now, here is the literary point. The Qur’an says about the wall that it “wanted to fall” (in Surah Al-Kahf). The wall “intended” to collapse.
Does a wall have intention? Does it have a mind to decide, “I want to fall”? Of course not. It was simply in a state of leaning due to structural weakness or environmental conditions. It had no desire.
But Allahﷻ describes it as though it “wanted” to fall. This is literary personification — attributing intention to something that does not possess it. We do not take it literally. We understand it means the wall was on the verge of collapse.
Termite informed them
Similarly, in the story of Prophet Sulaiman (peace be upon him). Allahﷻ had subjected the jinn to him, and they were working under his supervision. Sulaiman(Alahis Salam) would stand and watch them so they would not slack off.
He died while standing, leaning on his staff. The jinn thought he was still alive and continued working. Eventually, a termite began eating his staff. When enough of it was eaten, the staff broke, and Sulaiman (Alahis Salam) fell. Only then did the jinn realize he had died.
Allahﷻ says that the termite informed them of his death.
Did the termite literally inform them? Did it speak? No. It was simply eating the wood for food — its natural behavior. But because its action led to the staff breaking and Sulaiman falling, which revealed his death, Allahﷻ says the termite “made it known” to them.
This is similar to the wall “wanting” to fall. We understand that the termite did not intentionally announce anything. It was just the cause. If we took it literally, we would say the termite spoke and delivered a message. But the Qur’an clarifies that it was by eating the staff that the truth became apparent.
These kinds of expressions exist in all languages. Therefore, we should not interpret everything in a strictly literal sense. We must reflect: does this literal meaning contradict Islamic fundamentals or observable reality?
For example, if we say the wall “desired” to fall — walls do not desire. If we say the termite “announced” — termites do not deliver messages. They perform their natural functions.
Swallow (restrain) their anger
Likewise, when a person gets angry, anger is a human trait. We say, “Control your anger.” Anger is not a physical object to be held and suppressed. Yet we speak as if it is something that can be restrained. We say, “Reduce your anger,” “Don’t let anger rise,” “Control your anger.” These are expressions. We understand the meaning without taking it literally.
In the same way, certain Qur’anic expressions must be understood with awareness of literary style, not forced into rigid literal interpretation.
Allahﷻ , when speaking about anger, uses a very unique expression.
In Arabic, the word used is “kazm”, which literally means to bite, chew, or swallow something by holding it inside the mouth. In the Qur’an (3:134), Allahﷻ describes the righteous as: “Those who spend in ease and hardship, and those who swallow (restrain) their anger…”
The phrase used is “wal-kāẓimīna al-ghayẓ” — meaning those who swallow their anger.
Now think about this.
Can anger be chewed?
Is anger food?
Is it even a physical object?
Anger is not something edible. It is not even a material thing like paper or wood. Anger is a state of the mind — a surge of emotion, a boiling of the blood, something that happens internally. It has no connection to the mouth.
Yet Allahﷻ says: They swallow their anger. Why use such an unusual expression?
If Allahﷻ had simply said, “Do not get angry,” it would carry a plain meaning. But saying “swallow your anger” gives a much stronger, vivid image. It paints a picture. When anger rises and pushes you to react wrongly, you bite it, crush it, and swallow it before it comes out.
It creates a sense of forceful self-control. “Don’t be angry” — that is simple instruction.
“Swallow your anger” — that carries flavor, imagery, intensity.
It gives sweetness and depth to the message. It attracts attention. It creates emotional impact.
This is literary style.
No one understands it literally. No one says, “Bring me your anger, I will chew it.” Because anger is not a chewable object. The meaning is clear: restrain it, suppress it, overcome it.
So here again, the literal meaning is not intended. The literary meaning is intended.
Strengthen your arm through your brother
Another example: When Allahﷻ sent Prophet Musa (peace be upon him) to Pharaoh, Musa(Alahis Salam) felt fear. He had previously struck a man unintentionally, and the man died. Musa feared Pharaoh might punish him for that past incident.
So Allahﷻ reassured him. Allahﷻ said that He would strengthen him through his brother Harun (Aaron).
The Qur’an uses the expression: “We will strengthen your arm through your brother.”
Does that mean Musa’s physical arm muscles were weak and needed exercise? No.
In every language — including Tamil — we say things like:
- “Strengthen our hand.”
- “Support our hand.”
- During elections: “Strengthen our hand” means “Support us with your vote.”
It does not mean literally strengthening someone’s palm or arm.
Similarly, Allahﷻ says He will strengthen Musa’s “hand” through Harun. It means: “We will strengthen you. We will support you. Your brother will assist you.” In fact, Musa had difficulty speaking fluently, while Harun was eloquent. Through Harun’s speech, Musa’s mission was strengthened. Yet the Qur’an says, “strengthen your arm.”
Again, this is literary usage.
All languages use such expressions:
- “He was my right hand.”
- “I lost a hand” (when someone supportive dies).
- “Strengthen my hand.”
None of these are literal. They refer to support, strength, or closeness. The Qur’an also uses such elevated literary expressions.
The Qur’an uses powerful literary devices — personification, metaphor, vivid imagery — to deepen meaning. If we insist on literalism in every place, we will misunderstand both theology and reality.
In shā’ Allāh, we can explore further examples step by step in the coming discussions.