(Ibn Sina claimed that the words of Allah's speech are literal in reality, but the true meaning is other than that, and they were only brought to approximate the minds) He said the intended meaning is the realities

The Shaykh :"He said the intended meaning is that the realities of the words are imaginative and approximate to the minds"
He says: The intended meaning of the words is their reality, but in the sense of imagination and approximation to the minds; otherwise, the matter is something beyond that. For example, the prayer is intended in its reality, and so are zakah and fasting, as well as the hadiths of the attributes, the verses of the attributes, and their hadiths, but it is only in the way of approximation to the minds, so that the minds understand that Allah has hearing, sight, and power, and that they pray, fast, give zakah, and perform Hajj, but this is only an approximation to the minds; otherwise, the matter is something beyond that.
"I am unable to grasp the intelligible except *** in the example of the sensible, like children"
This means that the souls or the minds are unable to grasp the intelligible unless it is depicted in the form of the sensible. Do you understand this? For example, Allah is All-Hearing, but there is no hearing [in Him]; however, this is mentioned in the way of approximation. There is nothing written called fasting, but in the way of approximation, Allah obligated fasting upon people; otherwise, the realities are something beyond that. This is the meaning of Ibn Sina's statement.
"So that the intelligible may appear in forms of the *** sensible, acceptable to those with minds"
It is possible [to have] two copies with "and" and "those with"
"So the dominance of ta'wil (figurative interpretation) in negating this *** intent is a crime by the one who commits it"
This means that the one who says that these texts are not intended in their literal reality, but rather the intended meaning is contrary to the apparent, and therefore they must be subjected to ta'wil (figurative interpretation), is saying: This is the dominance of the one who interprets figuratively and a crime against the texts. Rather, the intended meaning is their reality, but they are symbols for things.
That are not grasped, except for the purpose of approximating matters to the minds only. And in that case, the acts of worship remain without any benefit, except like what you draw for a child and say, "This is, for example, a car," and it is not a car. You say, "This is a person," and it is not a person. But of course, drawing a person is not permissible unless it is in a way that does not retain life.
"So the dominance of ta'wil (figurative interpretation) in negating this *** intent is a crime by the one who commits it
This is what he has said, along with his denial *** of the realities of the words in the minds "
Well, if he said this statement and denied that the words have a reality that the mind can conceive, then this is in reality a complete negation of the texts, because the texts remain without any benefit as long as you say they are reality and then say: The matter is something beyond that. So there is no benefit from the texts, whether we say they are reality or that they are interpreted figuratively and metaphorically.
This is what he said, along with his denial *** of the realities of the words in the minds
And the method of ta'wil (figurative interpretation) has also become *** derived from these deviations "
The method of ta'wil (figurative interpretation), the aforementioned ta'wil (figurative interpretation).