For the more general a thing is, the more familiar it is to the mind, because its individual instances pass through the mind more frequently. The best speech conveys much in few words. This is why the evident proposition is omitted from the likenesses presented in the Quran: stating it would introduce needless length and clumsy expression. Likewise, stating the intended conclusion after mentioning both premises is considered unnecessarily lengthy.

Consider His words:

“Had there been in them gods other than Allah, both would have fallen into ruin.”

How excellent this demonstration is! Had it been followed by, “But neither has fallen into ruin; therefore, there are no gods in them besides Allah,” this would have been insipid speech, unsuited to the eloquence of revelation. Such explicit formulation merely assembles meanings in the mind, just as words are assembled from letters when spelling and writing. When teaching a child to write, we say, “bā,” “sīn,” “mīm”; together they form (bismi, “in the name of”). Once he understands this, it is no longer appropriate for him to read it by spelling out its letters, thereby stripping the speech of its beauty. Rather, the combination has become firmly established in his mind.

Similarly, once a grammarian knows that “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” consists of a subject and predicate, he does not keep saying, “Because it is a subject and predicate,” whenever he gives a similar construction the nominative case. Thus, combining letters into words, in sound and meaning, combining words into statements, and combining statements into likenesses are all processes of the same kind.

This is why those who construct syllogisms first discuss individual expressions and meanings, which constitute terms. They then discuss combining terms into statements, which constitute assertions, accounts, and judgments. They then discuss constructing illustrative likenesses, which constitute “syllogism,” “demonstration,” “evidence,” and “sign”