Here also it can be said that a promise is compositive...

Here also it can be said that a promise is compositive, not predicative, so as to speak of something, though it may imply some sort of narration. The one who promises that he will do something, means to say that in a given time an act will be done. Though the style is compositive, not predicative, yet it includes a hint to a predication, i.e. he means to say something will happen at that time.

Now as it complies with reality according to its own condition, we say that this promise is haq or true, as is used in the Qur'an: "...that the promise of Allah is true"[^153] That is what Allah promises will undoubtedly come true. So, here, too, there is a kind of conformity between the speech and what is hinted at to happen. The state of conformity is obvious in this instance. Why do we say that this promise is haq?

Because it is in conformity with the reality, and it will be fulfilled under its conditions. So far we have been using the term haq in real and genetic matters. Sometimes haq has juristic and legal applications, and sometimes acquires ethical concepts. Here the subject takes a different trend.

It refers to values when the subject is ethical, and it .acquires conventional and nominal concepts when the subject is legal and juristic, in which case haq means "right, the right to possess, the marriage rights, etc. This does not mean that something has, in itself and in actuality, the right to take place, as this right is nominal and based on mutual agreement.

Likewise are the parental rights filial rights, the commander's right to be obeyed by his subordinates (the ruler's right upon his subjects) and vice versa. These are juristic concepts. The confirmation of real right is not intended here. Actually the confirmation of a convertional right is intended.

The same is true when it is used in ethical concepts, and even some scholars do not differentiate them, using the fallacy of literal similarity and the like, i.e., by way of argumentation, they use a syllogism in which the word "haq" is repeated and is placed, as it were, in a "middle' position, while in a premise a different meaning is meant than in another one. Or they take the word haq.

to have a certain meaning in the premises of the syllogism, and to have another meaning in the conclusion of the syllogism.