akhi tawheed, you say I and I say I.. lets play the game and see who gets fed up first..
Your claim : haqiqi meaning is literal meaning. My response : Even this requires further clarity. We are not tackling something from nursery rhymes rather advance aqeedah. To take it as it is shows that one has not read the complete risalah. For example, if Maulana Thanvi r.a affirms taking the mutashabihaat on their literal meaning how you are stressing, and how the salafis normally do, then it would be very unacademic of Allama Thanvi r.a to say on Pg 604 (i.e one page later) that the the Method of Salaf is "Not to discuss in the matter and say that Allah alone knows the knowledge of it. And this should be believed. [he continues] Kalbi says that this is from the hidden secrets which cannot be explained. Makhul, Zuhri, Auza'ee, Malik, Sufiyan, Laith, Ishaq rahimahumullah say about such Ayaat that, leave them as they are revealed" How more sareeh would you want him to be? While explaining the khalaf and their way to make approriate ta'weel he quotes Hashiya Jamal to establish the salaf's way again (Pg 605). "Istiwaa according to his majesty. This is the way of the salaf that they make tafweed of the knowledge of mutashabihaat to Allahafter turning them away from their dhahir..." He further explains this aspect of dhahir on the next page, Pg 606 saying that "Conclusively we take these matters on their Haqaiq and not of their Dhahir. And differenciating between the haqaiq and dhawahir is the work of a muhaqqiq. and then he quotes the above statement of jamal again and says that the statement explicitly shows abandoning the dhahir. But the main issue of differentiating is establishing a meaning for these mutashabihaat "jazman" and not "muhtamilan". That is what Allama Thanvi r.a describes a couple of times. In the mutashabihaat which have multiple ways of translations, the salaf and Ash'ariyeen kept ihtimaal for any of them while affirming their reality. Whereas the salafis affirmed one of those ta'weels and negated the others. etc etc.. The risalah tackles these issues.. These are just little bits to show that There is further explanation to the "haqiqi ma'na" Vs Kunh Vs Kayf. And not being able to even identify these issues shows that the risalah was not read in the way it ought to have been tackled. I have already expressed my inability to translate most of what is in the risalah simply because i understand the concept but cannot express it. so rather than expressing it defficiently, i chose not to tackle translating it. Moreover, the discussion does not benefit since its intent is only to argue and not to understand as can be seen here.