The saying 'to restrain the hand and to extend it' is a metaphor for stinginess and generosity. [Mahamud said: 'To restrain the hand and to extend it is a metaphor for stinginess and generosity... etc.'] Ahmad said: 'The point in using this metaphor is to depict the moral truth in a sensory image that is often associated with it. There is nothing more firmly established in the mind than sensory images. Since generosity and stinginess have meanings that cannot be perceived through the senses, they are accompanied by two images that can be perceived: the extension of the hand for generosity and its restraint for stinginess. They are expressed by their consequences for the sake of clarification and the transition from the abstract to the tangible. And Allah knows best.' From this is His saying, the Exalted: (And do not make your hand chained to your neck, nor extend it completely.) The speaker does not intend by this to affirm a hand, nor restraint, nor extension. There is no difference to him between this speech and what it is metaphorically about, as they are two statements that follow one true meaning. He even uses it in a context where no gift is given or withheld except by his indication, without the use of a hand and its extension or restraint. If he were to give a generous gift to the one who is missing an arm, they would say: 'How generous is his hand in giving,' because the expressions of extending and restraining the hand are two phrases that have followed one another in reference to stinginess and generosity. They have used them where the hand cannot be correctly applied, as in the saying:

'Generosity is the extension of the hands with abundant rain... Its heights and depths thanked his generosity.'

[Generosity here means that it rained abundantly in the land, and the extension of the hands is the subject, and its origin is a source meant to indicate the one who extends, in contrast to the one who restrains. It is narrated as 'spreading' with the 's' preceding, as a descriptive term like 'large,' meaning one who is generous, as the one who restrains his hands is a metaphor for the stingy. He likens the clouds to a generous person metaphorically, and the affirmation of the hands is imaginative. The heights refer to elevated land, and the depths refer to low land. He likens the high and low of the land to seekers of sustenance, and thanking them is imaginative, and 'generosity' means giving, reinforcing the first meaning. It is possible that it is literal and not in the sense of giving, and it is also possible that thanking is imaginative for the first meaning. He says: 'The clouds rained on the land of the hama in Egypt abundantly, so it grew and blossomed.' This is the meaning of thanking it. It is also possible that the heights and depths are metaphors for their inhabitants who dwell in them.]

Indeed, Labid made the north wind a hand in his saying:

'When the morning came, its reins were in the left hand.'

[And on a morning when the wind had unveiled and revealed... when the morning came, its reins were in the left hand.]

This is Labid, from the Mu'allaqa. He says: 'By the Lord of a morning when the wind unveiled its cover from the people.' It is narrated as 'it distributed,' meaning it restrained and prevented it. 'By the Lord of a cold morning,' with a kasra and a damma, meaning a severe cold that also unveiled its coldness. The unveiling is specific to the tangible, so it is borrowed for the abstract from the covering of hunger and cold in a way of explicitness. It is also possible that the removal of the wind and cold from the people is a metaphor for bringing them into his house to honor them. He likens the morning to a mount with reins. Or he likens the cold to that. He likens the north wind, which is a type of wind, to a leader guiding that mount metaphorically, and the reins are imaginative for the first, and the hand for the second. It is not necessary for the metaphor to have something real that resembles what is being compared to, as chosen here with the hand and the reins. The meaning is that the north wind sometimes makes the morning dusty and cold, and sometimes it does not. Or sometimes it stirs up dust and cold in one direction, and sometimes in another.]

And it is said: 'Despair extended its hands in my chest,' thus making despair, which is an abstract meaning and not a tangible one, have two hands.

And whoever does not reflect on the science of rhetoric is blind to discerning the path of truth in the interpretation of such verses. He will not be free from the hand of the critic if it meddles with him. If you say: It has been established that their saying 'The hand of Allah is chained' is an expression of stinginess. Ahmad said: Indeed, he has diminished the virtue that he presented in this chapter by what he included in this question and answer from the corrupt principle that it is impossible for Allah, the Exalted, to will anything from His servants that He has condemned them for. Based on that, it is impossible for Him to call them to stinginess because He did not will it from them, and it is impossible for Him to will it from them. So, he directed this text with interpretation and clung to falsehoods. The truth is that Allah calls them to stinginess, and His calling is an expression of creating miserliness in their hearts and tightness in their hands. He is the Caller and the Creator; there is no creator except Him. He creates for them stinginess and is glorified above it. (He is not questioned about what He does, but they will be questioned.) If only Al-Zamakhshari had not spoken in the interpretation of the Quran except from the perspective of the science of rhetoric, for therein he is the most skilled of horsemen, unmatched in his field and unchallenged in his expression. So, what do you make of His saying 'Their hands are chained'? It is right for it to correspond with what has preceded; otherwise, the speech would be discordant and deviate from its norms. I say: It may mean calling them to stinginess and misery, and thus they are the stingiest of Allah's creation and the most miserable. An example of this is the verse of Al-Ashtar: 'I remained with my wealth and turned away from the high status... and I met my guests with a frowning face.' The first verse is in the form of a statement, and its intended meaning is to invoke a curse upon himself for being stingy. It may be that it is from the category of conditional statements with an impossible condition. Wealth refers to abundant money, and it is narrated as 'I remained alone,' meaning my tribe perished or distanced itself from me. Turning away means distancing from the tangible thing, just as high status is specific to tangible matters. It may be that he borrowed 'turning away' for the purpose of avoidance and deviation in a declarative manner, and high status is a recommendation. His saying 'with a frowning face' means a frowning man, and it implies a sense of stripping away. If I do not raid Ibn Harb, it would not be free from plunderers of souls. It is narrated as 'against Ibn Hind.' The description of the raid is not absent, and plunderers of souls refers to taking lives by killing or capturing beings. It is narrated as 'the departure of souls,' meaning their extinction. In the speech, there is an embedding, where he included a threat to Muawiya with praise of himself for generosity, to the extent that stinginess for him is one of the greatest calamities and the most severe disgrace, to the point that he linked it with the impossible, thus indicating its impossibility.

It is permissible that the supplication against them, 'the hands are bound', is literal. They are bound in this world as captives, and in the Hereafter, they are punished with the chains of Hell. The contrast is from the perspective of wording and considering the essence of metaphor, as you say: 'He insulted me, may Allah cut off his end', meaning cut him off, for the essence of insult is cutting off. If you say: How is it permissible for Allah to call upon them with something that is ugly, which is miserliness and misery? I say: What is meant is the supplication for their abandonment, which hardens their hearts. They increase their miserliness to their miserliness and their misery to their misery, or with what results from miserliness and misery, such as the shame that clings to them and the bad reputation that humiliates them and tears apart their honor. If you say: Why is 'hand' mentioned in dual form in His saying: 'Rather, both His hands are outspread', while it is singular in: 'The hand of Allah is bound'? [His speech continued. He said: If you say: Why is 'hand' mentioned in dual form in: 'Both His hands are outspread', while it is singular in their saying 'The hand of Allah'... etc.] Ahmad said: Since it is customary in giving to be with one of the hands, which is the right, and since the Jews—may they be cursed—predominantly believed in corporeality, their expression came from the one hand which is familiar in giving. Allah, the Exalted, clarified their lies in both matters: in attributing miserliness and in attributing it to the singular, reducing them to their belief in corporeality, by attributing to Himself the quality of generosity expressed by outspreading, and by attributing it to both hands because both His hands are right, as it has been reported in the hadith, indicating the negation of corporeality. If it were established, Allah is far above that, one of the hands would be right and the other left, necessarily. So when He affirmed that both of them are right, He negated corporeality and attributed generosity to them, not as it is attributed in the worldly sense to the right hand specifically, for the other is left and not a place of honor. And Allah knows best.