If they say, “Because it is accompanied by a contextual indication showing that it may properly be shifted from its literal to its figurative meaning,” this is untenable for several reasons.

First: We have already explained that attributing an act to the hand without qualification necessarily means that the hand is intended as an attribute. This reinforces the affirmation of the actual attribute, and an expression reinforcing the literal meaning cannot coexist with a contextual indication that diverts it from that meaning.

Second: We have already mentioned the contextual indications. When “hand” means a favor, one says, “So-and-so has a hand with me.” The expression “with me” [ي] is an indication that a favor is meant. When it means power, one says, “So-and-so has a hand over me.” The expression “over me” is the indication that power is meant. Neither indication is present here.

Third: The opponent claims that what necessitates this interpretation is what the observable realm entails: the affirmation of an organ, a limb, corporeality, composition of parts, and the quantity and modality associated with all these, thereby implying a counterpart and a likeness.

We have already explained that this is impossible with respect to Him, because ascribing a hand to Him, Most High, is like ascribing an essence to Him, as has been established. Once this objection is removed, the grounds for opposing the literal meaning, denying its affirmation, and requiring its replacement with a figurative meaning are invalidated.

If they say, “The subject to which the hand is ascribed—namely, the essence of the Creator—cannot accommodate the affirmation of a real hand,” this is untenable, because we have agreed that essential attributes may be ascribed to the essence of the Creator in