in senses other than these, without evidence, and say: “This is figurative.” Such a claim is unacceptable. Those who divide speech into literal and figurative usage agree that the presumption in speech is literal usage. This has two meanings. First, when an expression’s meaning is known and someone says, “This usage is figurative,” the reply is: “Rather, the presumption is literal usage.” Second, when an expression is known to have two senses, one literal and the other figurative, the presumption is that it bears its literal meaning. Thus, sometimes the known meaning is used to establish that the expression denotes it, and sometimes an expression whose signification is known is used to establish the meaning it denotes.

If someone says, concerning the words of the Most High,

“So Allah made it taste the garment of hunger and fear,”

that tasting is originally done with the mouth, the reply is: that is tasting food. Tasting may apply to food, but it may also apply to punishment generally, as He says:

“And We will surely make them taste the lesser punishment before the greater punishment, so that they may return.”

And His words:

“Taste! Indeed, you are the mighty, the noble!”

And His words:

“Taste the touch of Hell!”

His words, “Taste the touch of Hell!” explicitly refer to tasting the touch of punishment and cannot mean tasting food. Moreover, when hunger and fear clothe the body, the pain is greater, unlike a slight degree of either. Thus, when He said:

“So Allah made it taste the garment of hunger and fear,”

it did not indicate that it clothed and encompassed the sufferer. These meanings are conveyed by these expressions, unlike saying, “It became hungry and afraid,” which indicates the general experience, but not its severity or extent. This is an instance of perfect clarity of expression. In all these instances, each expression is used only in its familiar linguistic meaning. For His expression, “tasting the garment of hunger and fear,” is not