The divine attributes are to be affirmed in a literal sense, not metaphorical

Correct belief should be based on what is proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah,
as understood by the early generations (salaf) of this ummah, namely the
Sahaabah, Taabi‘een and leading scholars. They were unanimously agreed that
the divine attributes mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed
without discussing how or likening Him to His creation, and without denying
any of His attributes or interpreting them in a way different from the
apparent meaning. We do not differentiate between any of the divine
attributes, no matter what category they come under. Every divine attribute
that is mentioned in a saheeh text must be affirmed. 

The
Qur’an and Sunnah came to teach people about the attributes of their God,
and this can only be done by understanding the words in a real sense; this
is the basic principle with regard to statements. The Prophet (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed the Holy Qur’an in both wording and
meaning; not a single letter was narrated from him to suggest that any of
the divine attributes should be interpreted in a way different from its
apparent meaning, or that its apparent meaning is not intended, or that it
means likening Him to His creation, or other phrases used by those who deny
the divine attributes or interpret them in a way other than their apparent
meaning. This is casting aspersions upon the Qur’an or upon the Messenger
who was enjoined to convey and explain it. If anything of what they had
mentioned was essential, then the Qur’an and the Prophet would have
explained it and not concealed it. How could it be otherwise when it is
proven in a number of saheeh hadeeths, the authenticity of which is agreed
upon, that these attributes are to be affirmed, and there are other
attributes mentioned in other hadeeths, such as His descending, His foot,
His smiling, and His rejoicing, without any word to suggest that they should
be understood in a way different from the apparent meaning, and without any
Sahaabi having found it problematic to take them as they appear to be and
according to what may be understood from them. If there was anything in the
apparent meaning that could be regarded as not befitting to the divine or as
likening the divine to any created being – and it is not possible for there
to be any such thing in the Qur’an or Sunnah – then the infallible Prophet
would have pointed it out and highlighted it to people, and the people of
reason at that time would have questioned it, for they were more eager to
attain good and adhere to it. 

When
innovations appeared, and people emerged who said that these attributes were
to be understood in a metaphorical, rather than a real, sense – as was the
view of the Jahamis and Mu‘tazilah and those who agreed with them – the
early generations and leading scholars responded by stating that these
attributes are to be understood in a real sense, not in a metaphorical
sense. Their comments on this matter are abundant and well-known. We will
quote some of their comments here: 

-1-

‘Uthmaan ibn Sa‘eed ad-Daarimi (d. 280 – may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Praise
be to Allah, may He be exalted, we know about the concept of metaphors from
the language of the Arabs, which you have taken and used to confuse and
mislead the ignorant. By means of this concept you denied the reality of the
divine attributes, on the basis of the metaphor argument. But we say: It is
wrong to judge the most common style in the Arabic language on the basis of
its rarest style; rather we should understand the statements of the Arabs on
the basis of the most common style, unless you can produce proof that what
is meant here is the rarer style (namely metaphor). This is the approach
that is most fair, and it is not right to approach the divine attributes
that are well known and understood as they appear to be by people of common
sense, and twist the meaning on the grounds that these are metaphors. 

End
quote from Naqd ad-Raadirmi ‘ala Bishr al-Mireesi, 2/755 

-2-

Imam
Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Jareer at-Tabari (d. 310 – may Allah have mercy on
him) said:

If
someone were to say: What is the proper approach with regard to the meaning
of these attributes that you have mentioned, some of which are mentioned in
the Book and revelation of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and some
were mentioned by the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him)? Our response is: The correct approach in our view is to affirm
the meaning in a real sense, without likening Him to His creation, as Allah
said of Himself in the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning): “There
is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer”
[ash-Shoora 42:11].
… So we affirm all of the meanings that we said are mentioned in the reports
and the Qur’an and the revelation according to their apparent meaning, and
we reject any likening of Him to His creation. Hence we say: He, may He be
glorified and exalted, hears all sounds, but not through a hole in an ear or
through any physical faculty like those of the sons of Adam. Similarly, He
sees all people with vision that is not like the vision of the sons of Adam,
which is a physical faculty of theirs. He has two hands, a right hand, and
fingers, but not in a physical sense; rather His two hands are outstretched,
bestowing blessings upon creation, not withholding good. And He has a
countenance or face, but it is not like the physical faces of the sons of
Adam that are made of flesh and blood. We say that He smiles upon whomever
He will of His creation, but we do not say that this is showing teeth (like
a human smile); and He descends every night to the lowest heaven.

End
quote from Tabseer fi Ma‘aalim ad-Deen, p. 141-145 

-3-

Imam
Abu Ahmad Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-Karji who is known as al-Qassaab
(d. 360 AH) said concerning the Qaadari belief in a letter that he wrote for
the caliph al-Qaadir bi Amr-Allah in 433 AH, which was signed by the
scholars of that time to confirm its content, which was sent to the various
regions: 

Allah
is not to be described except as He has described Himself or as His Prophet
has described Him. Any attribute that He has ascribed to Himself or that His
Prophet has ascribed to Him, is an attribute in a real sense, and is not
metaphorical. If it was metaphorical, then it would have been necessary to
explain it in a manner different from the apparent meaning, so it would have
been said: What is meant by vision is such and such, what is meant by
hearing is such and such, and so on; it would have been explained in a way
different from what one would understand from the apparent meaning. As the
approach of the salaf is to affirm the attributes without interpreting them
in a way different from the apparent meaning, this proves that they are not
to be understood in a metaphorical sense; rather they are plain facts. 

End
quote from al-Muntazam by Ibn al-Jawzi, speaking of the events of 433
AH; Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 16/213 

-4-

Imam
al-Haafiz Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ishaaq ibn Mandah (d. 395) said,
affirming the divine attribute of the two hands: 

Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning): “(Allah)
said: ‘O Iblees (Satan)! What prevents you from prostrating yourself to one
whom I have created with Both My Hands’”
[Saad 38:75].
And he quoted words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) that could prove that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, created
Adam (peace be upon him) with His two hands in a real sense. 

And he
said, affirming the divine attribute of the countenance or face: 

Chapter on the verse in which Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says
(interpretation of the meaning): “Everything
will perish save His Face” [al-Qasas 28:88].
And Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the
meaning): “And
the Face of your Lord full of Majesty and Honour will abide forever”
[ar-Rahmaan 55:27].
And he quoted proven reports from the Prophet which indicate that this is to
be understood in a real sense. 

End
quote from ar-Radd ‘ala al-Jahamiyyah, p. 68, 94 

-5-

Imam
Haafiz al-Maghrib Abu ‘Umar Yoosuf ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Barr
al-Andalusi al-Qurtubi al-Maaliki (d. 463) said: 

In
principle, words are to be understood in a real sense, unless the ummah is
unanimously agreed that something is not to be understood in a real sense,
and is rather a metaphor, because there is no way to follow what has been
revealed to us from our Lord except on that basis. Rather we should
understand the words of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, on the basis
of the most apparent and clearest meaning, unless there is a strong reason
to do otherwise. If it were justifiable for anyone to claim that something
is a metaphor, then no statement would mean anything. Allah, may He be
glorified and exalted, is far above saying anything in the Qur’an except
that which is said in a manner that may be understood by the Arabs on the
basis of their style of speech. Istiwa’ (rising above (the Throne))
is well known and understood in Arabic; it means rising above something and
becoming settled and established. 

He
said, narrating that there was consensus among Ahl as-Sunnah concerning this
matter: Ahl as-Sunnah are unanimously agreed that all the divine attributes
mentioned in the Qur’an and Sunnah are to be affirmed, and we are to believe
in them and understand them in a real sense, not as metaphorical. But they
do not discuss the nature of any of them. As for the followers of
innovation, the Jahamis, all the Mu‘tazilah and the Khaarijis, all of them
deny the divine attributes and do not understand them in a true sense; they
claimed that the one who affirms them is likening Him to His creation.
According to those who do affirm the divine attributes, these people are
denying God. The truth is on the side of those who base their understanding
on the wording of the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messengers, and
they are the leaders of al-jamaa‘ah, praise be to Allah.

End
quote from at-Tamheed, 7/131, 145 

-6-

Imam
al-Haafiz adh-Dhahabi said, after quoting the words of al-Qassaab referred
to above: 

As
Allah exists in a real sense, not metaphorically, His attributes cannot be
taken as metaphorical, because in that case they could not be divine
attributes, because the attributes are connected to the one who possesses
those attributes. As He exists in a real sense, not in a metaphorical sense,
His attributes cannot be metaphorical. As there is nothing equal or similar
to Him, there can be nothing like His attributes. 

He
said, commenting on the words of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr mentioned above:

He
spoke the truth, by Allah. Whoever interprets all the divine attributes in a
manner other than their apparent meaning, and regards the words as
metaphorical, that will inevitably lead him to denying the Lord and likening
Him to something non-existent. It was narrated from Hammaad ibn Zayd that he
said: The likeness of the Jahamis is that of people who said: On our land
there is a palm tree. It was said: Does it have leaves? They said: No. It
was said: Does it have branches? They said: No. It was said: Does it have
bunches of dates? They said: No. It was said: Does it have a trunk? They
said: No. It was said: Then you do not have a palm tree on your land!

End
quote from al-‘Uluw, p. 239, 250 

There
are many similar reports. See: al-Ashaa‘irah fi Mizaan Ahl as-Sunnah
by Shaykh Faisal ibn Qazzaaz al-Jaasim, in which there are many more such
quotations from the early generations and the leading scholars. 

This
is the basic principle with regard to the texts that speak of the divine
attributes, including the two verses mentioned (in the question). The
leading imams of the earlier and later generations quoted them to affirm the
divine attributes of the hand and eye, among other evidence, yet they
interpreted the verses in a manner that is appropriate to the context, as we
shall see below. 

Ibn
‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said, explaining this concept: 

The
words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “The
Hand of Allah is over their hands”
[al-Fath 48:10],
are to be understood according to their apparent meaning. The hand of Allah,
may He be exalted, is over the hands of those who are swearing allegiance,
because His hand is one of His attributes, yet He is above them, above His
Throne. So His hand is above their hands. This is the apparent meaning of
the words and is the real meaning, which is to affirm that allegiance to the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is as if it were
allegiance to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. It does not mean that
the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is directly on top of
their hands. Do you not see that we say that the sky is above us, even
though it is distant from us? So the hand of Allah, may He be glorified and
exalted, is above the hands of those who swore allegiance to His Messenger
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), even though He is far above His
creation. 

End
quote from al-Qawaa‘id al-Muthla, in Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh,
3/331 

The
words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning), “for verily, you are
under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48], were interpreted by some of the early
generations as meaning “within Our vision or sight”; this is an explanation
as dictated by the context, hence this verse confirms two things, the vision
and eye of Allah. 

Shaykh
Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) said in Sharh al-Waasitiyyah:
If it is asked: how do you explain the preposition bi in the phrase
bi a‘yunina (translated above as “under Our eyes”, lit. “in
our eyes”)? Our response is: we explain it as meaning that the eye is with
or accompanying them. If you say “you are under my eye” it means my eye is
accompanying you or, in other words, I am watching you and my gaze never
shifts away from you. Hence what is meant is that Allah, may He be glorified
and exalted, is saying to His Prophet: Be patient with the decree of Allah,
for you are surrounded with Our care and We are watching you so that no one
can harm you. 

It
does not refer to location (being “in” or “inside”), because that would
imply that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
was inside the eye of Allah! – which is impossible. 

Moreover, this was addressed to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace
of Allah be upon him) when he was on earth, so if you were to say that he
was in the eye of Allah, this interpretation of this verse of the Qur’an is
not correct. 

Prior
to that he said: If it were to be said that among the salaf there were those
who interpreted the words of Allah “under Our eyes” as meaning in Our
vision; it was interpreted thus by well-known, leading scholars among the
early generations, but you say that interpreting it in a manner other than
the apparent meaning is haraam, so what is the answer? Our response is that
they interpreted it according to the context, whilst still affirming the
basic meaning, which is the attribute of the divine eye. Those who distort
the meanings say that it means “in Our vision” without affirming the divine
eye, whereas Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah say that “under Our eyes”
means in Our vision, whilst affirming the divine eye.

End
quote from Majmoo‘ Fataawa ash-Shaykh, 8/264 

Shaykh
Saalih Aal ash-Shaykh (may Allah preserve him) said: “for verily, you are
under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48] means you are in Our vision and sight,
and under Our care and protection. 

This
interpretation is the interpretation of the salaf for this phrase, because
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was not in the eye of
Allah (in the singular) which is His attribute; rather he (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) was “under the eyes” of Allah (in the plural);
that is because Allah has the attribute of two eyes. Hence Ahl as-Sunnah
wa’l-Jamaa‘ah interpreted this as coming under the heading of what is
implied by the verse, and implication is one of the ways in which the phrase
may be interpreted. A phrase may be interpreted according to its exact
meaning, or according to what it implies, or according to what is indicated
by the context. 

Hence
they said: What it means is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah
be upon him) was in (or under) the vision and sight of Allah, may He be
glorified and exalted, and under His care and protection. This is what is
implied by the words “under Our Eyes” [at-Toor 52:48]. 

Therefore this does not come under the heading of interpretation in a manner
other than the apparent meaning, as was claimed by those who did not
understand. Rather it comes under the heading of what is implied, and
implication – i.e., understanding the implications of a word – is a clear
part of the Arabic language. 

Even
though the early generations affirmed the divine attribute of the two eyes,
they could interpret something- as in the case of this verse – on the basis
of what it implies, or they could interpret it on the basis of what the
context indicates, and some may think that this comes under the heading of
interpretation in a manner other than the apparent meaning, but that is
wrong. 

Implication is one thing and context is something else; these are two ways
of understanding the wording of a phrase. 

As for
interpreting something in a manner other than the apparent meaning, this is
ignoring what the wording indicates. 

End
quote from Sharh al-Waasitiyyah 

From
the above it is clear that these two verses are to be understood in a real
sense, and that in them is an affirmation of the divine attributes of the
hand and eye, and there is nothing wrong with interpreting the verse as
dictated by its context or what it implies, without denying the divine
attributes mentioned in it. Perhaps this is what you sensed by your
linguistic perceptivity, i.e., the general meaning that is implied or
dictated by the context, but it is wrong to think that this comes under the
heading of metaphor, which would lead to denying one of the divine
attributes or to denying the apparent meaning of the text. 

And
Allah knows best.