On God’s Hand

Ever since it has come to my knowledge, the Musolmanic polemics on God’s Hand, my mind kept thinking about it in rounds. The most basic usual meaning of it being metaphorical how simple and beautiful it was! But the literal insistence came up for a dwell with its idiotic stubbornness. For ignorance and idiocy has got its own pair of horns that it needs to ram on something. Anything. So it was said that God’s Hand is not metaphorical but rather literal. It happens to be the case that they do not resemble any hand of the creation! Now that is very typical nonsensical talk expected of deadheads. For if hand does not mean what we know of hand than its not a hand. But the mind cannot be easily satisfied with blunt logic. So it asks itself what do we know of hand? If we say that a four legged animal hugged with its hands why do we assume that its the frontal legs? What makes us think that the hands in our clocks and the hands in our doors have something in common and what is that? Is that something the same thing when we say that someone must have had their hands in doing something? Could it be a worldly representation of an ideal Platonic form? Is it that the hand we see is the hand of Kantian Phenomenon. And God’s Hand is the hand of Kantian Noumenon? All these thoughts are resurfacing on my recent discoveries of Heideggerian Dasein i.e., Being. So perhaps when we talk about hand its an ontic phenomenon. But when God speaks of hand its an ontological phenomenon. But that would bring a troublesome question for Muslims. Because it is on the brink of Pantheism. To wit: in the perfect realm what is the difference between God’s Hand and that of man’s?