the governing expression restricted by an exception, a condition, a qualifying description, or an appositive is accompanied only by verbal contextual indicators; yet you have classified it as figurative. Likewise, consider the Prophet’s statement, peace and blessings be upon him:

“Indeed, Khālid is a sword Allah has drawn against the polytheists.”

And Abū Bakr’s statement, may Allah be pleased with him:

“He would not move against one of Allah’s lions who fights for Allah and His Messenger.”

These and similar examples, including those you cited—“the back of the road” and “its spine”—contain verbal contextual indicators through which the meaning is understood; yet you regard this as figurative.

Third, we may say: Give us a criterion distinguishing the contextual indicators that make an expression literal from those that make it figurative. This is impossible: you have no way of doing so, because the distinction has no basis in reality.

Fourth, it may be said: Granted that it requires a contextual indicator relating to meaning. Suppose you were told that “literal” designates the expression itself, with the requirement that it be accompanied by something clarifying its meaning, whether the contextual indicator is verbal or relates to meaning, and that in both cases the term “literal” designates the expression in relation to what accompanies it: you would have nothing with which to refute this.

Fifth, if someone said to you, “I shall use the term ‘literal’ to designate the expression and whatever accompanies it, without qualification,” your only answer would be to say, “I use it to designate the expression together with its verbal contextual indicator, but not a contextual indicator relating to meaning.” Even if this conception were sound, you would have done no more than counter one arbitrary stipulation with another, and your arbitrary stipulation has no greater claim to acceptance