Some critics object that al-Sakkaki’s interpretation requires a lengthy mental construction: invent a hypothetical claw-like form for death and then transfer the word for real claws to that form. This may appear too elaborate for an immediately grasped expression.
The objection does not deny the rhetorical force of the language. It questions how many speculative steps must be postulated in explaining the listener’s understanding.
Describing an interpretation as “remote” or “strained” is a specific theoretical criticism, not an automatic rejection of its author’s entire system.