DISJUN: Disjunction

الفصل

DISJUN: Disjunction
Category	Sentence Construction & Syntactical Stylistics (‘ilm al-ma‘ānī)
Balagha-Corpus.com
Corpus data	See examples
Balaghascore.com
Code	DISJUN
BalaghaBase.org
Code	Q269
OpenAlex
ID	W4415329624
Cite this page
🔗 DOI	10.64393/balagha.Q269
	Download PDF
Taxonomy
ARDT	v0.1.0, v0.1.1

Definition

Disjunction (al-faṣl) is an Arabic rhetorical device where the communicator leaves one clause without the coordinating particle wa joining it to another clause, where this choice is made for rhetorical reasons.

Encyclopedia Interpretation

In this encyclopedia, the rhetorical mechanism of Conjunction is understood as the communicator's deliberate choice to present two clauses as a single connected unit of meaning through wa, rather than as independent utterances. The sources treat this decision as one of rhetorical judgement (balāgha) rather than grammatical correctness (naḥw), since both conjunction and separation may be grammatically possible while conveying different rhetorical meanings.

Hashimi (n.d.) defines Disjunction as the withholding of this connective link between two clauses, either because the two clauses are (or function as though) identical in form and meaning, or because there is no relation between them at all in form or meaning. Atiq (n.d.) and Akkawi (n.d.) similarly describe Disjunction as the omission of this same connective wa.

As on the Conjunction page, this discipline is confined specifically to the presence or absence of wa; the other coordinating particles (such as fa and thumma) fall outside its scope, since their own inherent meanings (e.g. immediate or delayed sequence) make their correct use self-evident, unlike wa, which signifies mere association and nothing further.

Mechanism

From the sources

• Disjunction is the withholding of wa between two clauses, as against Conjunction, which joins them.
• Disjunction is required where the two clauses are united in meaning to the point that joining them by wa would amount to joining a thing to itself (kamāl al-ittiṣāl, complete connectedness).
• Disjunction is likewise required where the two clauses are totally unrelated, either differing in mode of discourse (one khabar, one inshāʾ) or sharing no relation in meaning at all (kamāl al-inqiṭāʿ, complete disconnection) — since joining requires both difference and a shared link, and here there is no shared link to justify the joining.
• Disjunction is also required where the second clause functions as the answer to a question implied by the first, since an answer is naturally separated from its question rather than joined to it (shibh kamāl al-ittiṣāl, near-complete connectedness).
• Hashimi (n.d.) and Funun (n.d.) further describe two additional required positions not found in the other reviewed sources: disjunction where a third, intervening clause would make a grammatically valid conjunction to the first clause ambiguous with a wrongly-implied conjunction to the intervening clause instead (shibh kamāl al-inqiṭāʿ); and disjunction where the two clauses are related by a common signification (jāmiʿ) but sharing the grammatical ruling between them is not intended (al-tawassuṭ bayn al-kamālayn).
• Competent execution of Disjunction (as of Conjunction) rests on the same two governing prerequisites (ḍābiṭān) described by Akkawi (n.d.): the communicator's clear grasp of intended meaning and register suited to the addressee, and grounding in grammar (naḥw) before rhetoric (balāgha), including the distinct meaning of wa among the coordinating particles.

Recognition

Disjunction may be present when:

• Two clauses that are left without wa between them in one of the recognised positions of Disjunction.
• The second clause confirms (tawkīd), explains (bayān), or substitutes for (badal) the first, such that the two are effectively one in meaning.
• The two clauses differ in mode of discourse, or share no relation in meaning at all.
• The second clause answers a question implied, but not stated, by the first.
• A third, intervening clause would make a valid conjunction ambiguous with an unintended one.
• A common signification links the two clauses, but sharing the grammatical ruling between them is not intended.

Diagnostic Rhetorical Effects

• Treats the second clause as a confirmation, explanation, or substitution for the first rather than as an additional coordinated statement, since joining the two would amount to joining a thing to itself.
• Mirrors the natural pattern of ordinary discourse, in which an answer is not conjoined to its question, by separating a clause that functions as an implied answer from the clause that implies the question.
• Prevents ambiguity that would arise if an intervening clause caused a valid conjunction to be misread as an unintended one.
• Withholds an implied sharing of grammatical ruling between two related clauses where such sharing is not intended, even though a connection between them exists.

Types of Disjunction

Complete Connectedness

This subtype of Disjunction occurs where the two clauses are united in meaning to the point that the second is effectively a confirmation (tawkīd), explanation (bayān), or substitution (badal) for the first, such that conjoining them would amount to joining a thing to itself.

Source Example

مَا هَذَا بَشَرًا إِنْ هَذَا إِلَّا مَلَكٌ كَرِيمٌ (يوسف: ٣١)

"This is no human! This is none but a noble angel." (Qur'an, Yūsuf 12:31)

Explanation

The second clause confirms the meaning of the first (that the person is not human) rather than adding new information, so the two are treated as one in meaning and left unconnected by wa.

Source Example

وَاتَّقُوا الَّذِي أَمَدَّكُمْ بِمَا تَعْلَمُونَ * أَمَدَّكُمْ بِأَنْعَامٍ وَبَنِينَ (الشعراء: ١٣٢-١٣٣)

"And fear the One who provided you with what you know. He provided you with cattle and children." (Qur'an, al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:132–133)

Explanation

The second clause substitutes for (badal) the ambiguous "what you know" in the first, specifying it; being a substitution rather than an additional statement, it is left unconnected.

Constructed Example

زارني صديقٌ قديمٌ. صديقُ الدراسةِ.

"An old friend visited me. My school friend."

Explanation

The second clause explains and specifies the first by identifying which "old friend" is meant. It therefore functions as an explanatory clarification (bayān) rather than as an additional coordinated statement, so wa is omitted in accordance with the source-attested mechanism.

Complete Disconnection

This subtype of Disjunction occurs where the two clauses are totally unrelated — either differing in mode of discourse, or sharing no relation in meaning at all.

Source Example

لا تحسب المجد تمرًا أنت آكله لن تبلغ المجد حتى تلعق الصبرا

"Do not think glory is a date for you to eat; you will not attain glory until you taste bitterness."

Explanation

The first clause is informing (inshāʾ, a prohibition), the second reporting (khabar); this difference in mode of discourse gives complete disconnection, so the two are left unjoined.

Source Example

وإنما المرء بأصغريه كل امرئ رهن بما لديه

"A man is [known] by his two smaller [organs, i.e. heart and tongue]; every man is bound by what he possesses."

Explanation

The two clauses share no relation in meaning, so no jāmiʿ is available to justify conjunction and they are left disconnected.

Constructed Example

القمرُ بدرٌ الليلة. اشتريتُ الخبزَ هذا الصباح.

"The moon is full tonight. I bought bread this morning."

Explanation

The two reporting clauses share no relation in meaning; with no jāmiʿ available, they are left disconnected, following the source-attested mechanism.

Near-Complete Connectedness

This subtype of Disjunction occurs where the second clause functions as the answer to a question implied, but not stated, by the first.

Source Example

يقولون إني أحمل الضيم عندهم أعوذ بربي أن يضام نظيري

"They say I bear injustice among them — I seek refuge in my Lord that my equal should be wronged."

Explanation

The second clause answers an implicit question raised by the first ("is that true?"/"how do you respond?"); as an answer functioning like a reply to a question, it is separated from it rather than joined.

Constructed Example

يقولون إن الامتحان صعب. لم أجده كذلك.

"They say the exam is difficult. I did not find it so."

Explanation

The second clause functions as the answer to an implied question ("do you agree?") arising from the first; being an implied answer rather than an additional coordinate statement, it is left unconnected.

Near-Complete Disconnection

Encyclopedia Interpretation

This subtype label follows Hashimi's, Funun's, and Hatim's own designation (shibh kamāl al-inqiṭāʿ) for a required position of Disjunction. It is attested in three of the six reviewed sources, against three sources attesting only the first three positions.

This subtype occurs where a first clause is followed by two further clauses, the second of which could grammatically be joined to the first clause (a jāmiʿ being available), but doing so would risk being misread as joined instead to the immediately preceding, intervening clause — so the conjunction is withheld entirely to avoid this misreading.

Source Example

وتظن سلمى أنني أبغي بها بدلًا أراها في الضلال تهيم

"Salmā thinks that I seek a substitute for her — I see her wandering lost in delusion."

Explanation

The final clause ("I see her...") could validly be joined to the first ("Salmā thinks..."), but joining it risks being misread as joined instead to the intervening clause ("I seek a substitute for her"), which would wrongly attribute the final clause to Salmā's own supposition; conjunction is therefore withheld entirely.

Constructed Example

يظن خالدٌ أنني أهملتُ عملي أراه مخطئًا في ظنه.

"Khālid thinks that I neglected my work — I see him mistaken in his assumption."

Explanation

The final clause could be joined to the first, but doing so risks being misread as joined to the intervening clause instead, wrongly folding the final judgement into Khālid's own supposition; conjunction is therefore withheld, mirroring the source mechanism.

Intermediate Between the Two Complete States

Encyclopedia Interpretation

: this subtype label follows Hashimi's, Funun's, and Hatim's own designation (al-tawassuṭ bayn al-kamālayn) for a required position of Disjunction. It is attested in three of the six reviewed sources, against three sources attesting only the first three positions.

This subtype occurs where the two clauses are related by a common signification (jāmiʿ), but an impediment (māniʿ) — namely, that sharing the grammatical ruling between them is not intended — prevents conjunction.

Source Example

وَإِذَا خَلَوْا إِلَى شَيَاطِينِهِمْ قَالُوا إِنَّا مَعَكُمْ إِنَّمَا نَحْنُ مُسْتَهْزِئُونَ * اللَّهُ يَسْتَهْزِئُ بِهِمْ (البقرة: ١٤-١٥)

"And when they are alone with their devils, they say, 'We are with you; we were only mocking.' God mocks them [in return]." (Qur'an, al-Baqara 2:14–15)

Explanation

"God mocks them" is related to what precedes it, but is not intended to share the grammatical ruling of being part of what the hypocrites said (it is God's own statement, not theirs); the impediment to shared ruling requires the two clauses to be left disconnected.

Constructed Example

قالوا إننا صادقون في وعدهم أخلفوا كل ما وعدوا به.

"They said, 'We are truthful' — in their promise, they broke everything they had promised."

Explanation

The second clause is related to the first in subject matter, but is not intended to share the grammatical ruling of being part of what "they" said (it is the narrator's own judgement); the impediment to shared ruling requires disjunction, mirroring the source mechanism.

Different From

• CONJUN: Conjunction - Disjunction and Conjunction are treated throughout the sources as direct counterparts: Disjunction is the withholding of wa between two clauses, while Conjunction is joining them by it; both are governed by their own respective sets of required positions.

Notes

Historical

• Several sources report that some classical rhetoricians regarded mastery of Fasl and Wasl as tantamount to a definition of eloquence (balāgha) itself, citing the saying "البلاغة معرفة الفصل من الوصل" ("eloquence is the knowledge of disjunction from conjunction").
• Akkawi records that Aktham ibn Ṣayfī, scribe to the pre-Islamic (jāhilī) kings, is reported to have said: "افصلوا بين كل معنى منقض، وصلوا إذا كان الكلام معجوناً بعضه ببعض" ("separate wherever the sense breaks off, and join where the discourse is intertwined") — a maxim addressing Disjunction directly in its first clause — and notes that Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī records the same point in al-Ṣināʿatayn.

Technical

• As on the Conjunction page, "Disjunction" here refers specifically to the withholding of wa; the absence of other coordinating particles, or the presence of a different particle such as thumma in place of wa, is not treated in the sources as an instance of this device and is outside its scope.
• Encyclopedia Interpretation
  Atiq1v2 and Akkawi each enumerate three required positions of Disjunction (Complete Connectedness, Complete Disconnection, Near-Complete Connectedness), while Hashimi, Funun, and Hatim each independently enumerate five, adding Near-Complete Disconnection and the Intermediate state — with Hatim additionally sharing the specific illustrative examples used for Complete Connectedness, Complete Disconnection, and the Intermediate state. The additional two positions are treated here as a further refinement attested across three independent sources, not as a contradiction of the three-position sources; per editorial policy, they are retained as separate, clearly labelled subtypes rather than merged into the core three.
• The stub previously supplied for this page cited a source as ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ʿAtīq, ʿIlm al-Maʿānī (Beirut: Dār al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabīyah li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa-al-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 2009), 160–172. (ref name "atiq"). This is a different citation from Atiq1v2 (pp. 124–132) used throughout this article, and was not itself uploaded as a document in this review. No claim in this article is drawn from it; it should be verified directly before any claim is attributed to it.

Page history

• 2026-02-05 - Page created by splitting A-11: Conjunction and Disjunction into CONJUN: Conjunction and DISJUN: Disjunction due to their distinct rhetorical mechanisms, to improve analytical granularity.
• 2025-11-20 - Page incorporated into the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy (v0.1.1).

You are viewing the live version of this page. Would you like to view the version included in the Arabic Rhetorical Device Taxonomy (v0.1.1)?