As-salaamu `alaykum
It's a metaphor, a figure of speech. The Arabs use metaphors all the time. You probably noticed that after reading their poetry. Exegesis books have pointed that out too about the Quran in abundance.
Just like the Mu`tazilah and Jahmiyyah said about Allaah's laughter? "It is like the Arabs say, 'the Earth laughed with plants' ... [meaning] 'to bring out'" In response Ibn Qutaybah Ad-Deenawaree noticed and commented, "If the laughter which they fled from is tashbeeh, then within these meanings is also tashbeeh!"
Why? Because when you attach these metaphors, that which you flee from (tashbeeh, tamtheel) you fall into regardless, since you make similitude between the attributes (or metaphors) with the creation!?
And Ad-Daarimee said: "Then you (O Jahmi) did not suffice with this false interpretation until you claimed that a people from Ahl us-Sunnah interpreted Allaah's laughter according to what their minds from their own selves thought. This is a lie against them, for we have not heard of any of them comparing the Actions of Allaah with the actions of the creation. However, we say that He laughs as He wills in accordance to what befits Him, while your tafseer is to be discarded."
He also said: "It is not permissible to make ijtihaad with opinions in regards to many of the obligatory actions and rulings that we see with our eyes and hear with our ears, then how can it be allowed in regards to th Attributes of Allaah which eyes neither see nor can be compreheneded by thoughts."
I highlighted in red why what Maalik said shows it's a figure of speech. Attributes in any language are either actual or figurative. If they are not actual then they are figurative. I'm sure you agree that God does not sit on something, because that would mean He ends where the seat begins, God forbid! Therefore, the only option left available is that it's a figure of speech.
Akhi Al-Kareem, the same goes here, do you realise what you've stated? You have concluded that "...Istawaa `alaa Al-`Arsh..." entails sitting, and sitting entails He ends where the seat begins, so you've already likened Allaah to the creation in your head. The matter is clear. You try to flee from tashbeeh and the filth of the mujassimah, but in the process, you first make ta`teel in removing the actual attributes from their places, make ta'weel, interpreting the meanings as being metaphorical, but in the process, draw a similitude with your metaphors and the creation, so you're back at tashbeeh? So putting it straight, to avoid tashbeeh, you go from ta'teel to ta'weel and end up with tashbeeh.
How easy would've it been to take the middle path as you suggested. To simply agree with the Sahabah and Salaf, and say, "We believe in the attributes, in a manner befitting His majesty." and leave it at that. And not try to explain everything as if you or any one of us at that, would ever have such a capability.
Moreover, with the specific issue at hand, At-Talamankee said: "Allaah's establishment over His Throne is real (`alaa al-haqeeqah) and not metaphorical/allegorical (laa `alaa al-majaaz)."
God says in the famous Qudsi hadeeth, "My worshiper keeps coming close to Me until I love him. When I love him, I become his eyes with which he sees, his ears with which he hears, his hand with which he reaches and his legs with which he ventures."
Are those actual transformations or figures of speech?
There is a major difference that you seem to have overlooked with respect to this narration. This is with regards to the humans eyes, ears, hands and legs. So how can there be qiyaas with this narration and those specifically about Allaah's names and attributes. We are talking about Allaah's attributes, not our own which are apart of us.
Deny? How did you get deny? How can one deny what God said about himself? The Jahmiyya denied the attributes of God. I hope you're not accusing me of doing the same.
`Abdullaah Ibn Imaam Ahmad mentioned in As-Sunnah: "... I heard Yazeed bin Haaroon and it was said to him: "Who are the Jahmiyyah?" He replied, "Whover claims that Allaah is Established over the Throne in a manner that opposes what has been affirmed by the hearts of the generality is a Jahmi""
None of these are accusations, but I'm simply trying to present the correct `aqeedah with regards to Allaahs' names and attributes. This is no attack, just something I sincerely hope you'll benefit from.
When God says that He scuttles toward the believer, do you take that literally or figuratively? When He says that He descends to the first heaven, is that actual or is it a figure of speech?
Literal. But literal doesn't entail likeness to the creation (and as stated, thinking that it would imply likeness, is such obvious tashbeeh). As Ad-Daarimee himself said regarding those who labeled the body of Muslims for taking the attributes literally, as mujassimah, he said, "...then in your claim Allaah Himself would be the first of those who are Mushabbihah."
Ibn Battah, the noted Hanbali jurist said: "The Mu'attil says "If we say He descends then we are saying that He comes down, and Allaah does not come down, and if He was to descened then He would go down because everything that descends is that which goes down."
We say: Are you not those who claim you negate tashbeeh from the Lord of the Worlds? Yet here, with this speech, you have made the vilest form of tashbeeh. The much worse difference is that you have rejected the narrations and denied the ahaadeeth of the Messenger of Allaah (sall Allaahu `alayhi wasallam) and what he said. If you say that He does not descend except by "coming down" then you have compared Allaah to His creation And you have claimed that He is unable to descend without coming down in the description of the creation, which if in a place is in need of that place. Rather, we believe our Prophet (sall Allaahu `alayhi wasallam) when he said: "Our Lord descends" and we don not say: "He goes down" rather He descends how He wills and we do not describe this as His coming down (as creation does) and we do not ascribe a limit to Him and we do not say "His descent is His going down.""
God knows that we cannot comprehend Him, so out of His grace, He used figures of speech familiar to us in our language to tell us about Himself. That does not mean they are actual descriptions, which the Mumaththila and the Mujassima believed, nor that they are void like the Jahmiyya believed. Both are extremes. The right course is always the middle between extremes.
Wrong, the Mumaththila believed them to be like the creation, they didn't simply believe they were "actual descriptions". The jamhoor of ahl us-Sunnah believed them to be actual descriptions, without such tajseem, tamtheel and tashbeeh.
If our minds are so incapable, then why does God ask us hundreds of times in the Quran the rhetorical questions, "Have you not been using your mind?" (36:62), "Could you not reason?" (21:10)
This appears to be in contradiction to when you said, "God knows that we cannot comprehend Him..." Moreover Al-Haafidh Al-Asbahaanee mentioned: "It is only necessary for the servants to submit because neither an Angel nor a Prophet knows the attributes except by the names that the Lord taught them. Neither the intellects nor analogies can comprehend Allaah's attributes, so the path is to affirm the understanding of His attributes by following and submitting."