Why did he have to describe Jesus, son of Mary, in so many words, and to introduce him in a manner that it would be difficult later on for people to treat that as a metaphor? The way he describes, it’s too literal. That’s what you mean? Okay. But it is a figure of speech still, and a more powerful figure of speech for that matter. The fact is that the same figure, the manner of describing a person who’s not literally the same person is being employed by people in every language.
In Urdu, as well as in Arabic, in English, and so on. It’s one figure of speech which is common to every language of the world. If, for instance, somebody becomes a good dramatist, writer of dramas, I should say, he can be called a Shakespeare. For instance, our Harsha Kashmiri is described as Shakespeare of India. Why to change his name? Why not call him like Shakespeare?
If somebody is generous, he’s not called, he’s not given the compliment in the manner that he’s like Hatham Tai. He’s told, I mean, he’s called a Hatham Tai itself. Somebody is called a Rustam for being a great pehlwan and a wrestler. Why not say he’s like a Hatham Tai and he’s like a Rustam? Because that is a lower step in the usage of such metaphors. It is not the highest possible compliment. When you want to draw the attention of the people to the maximum simile, beyond which cannot be conceived, then you omit always the words like like and other words of similarity and just give the full name of that person. So when you say Hatham, why do you add Tai? Tai is the tribe of Hatham. And if you do it, nobody objects, because in that case, when you want to give a compliment to somebody, it is necessary that the person described should be fixed in personality, so that no confusion can follow about who is being talked about.
His full identity is described in such terms that no room for doubt is left. This is why you say, Ghalib hai go. Bhu Ali Sina, now the whole word Bhu Ali Sina, is that similar to Ibn-e-Maryam? Bhu Ali Sina, he is the father of Ali Sina. These three words are indicative of one single person known in history, one definite person. Yet when somebody is a good tabi, you say he is Bhu Ali Sina. So if Ahadu sallallahu alaihi wa sallam wanted to draw our attention to a very strong similarity, this was the best way for him to adopt. And as I have told you, this is common in every language, and it still remains a figure of speech despite the fact that the name is described in detail.
