A famous hadith we are all aware of is the hadith of Abu Hurayrah which is reported in Saheeh Muslim, Abu Hurayrah said: The Prophet said: “When any one of you fights his brother, let him avoid the face, for Allah created Adam in his image.”
Another hadith in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim says: “Allaah created Adam in his image, and he was sixty cubits tall….”
These ahadeeth are authentic and sound. They affirmed that Allah created Adam in his own image.
Where lies the problem is in the meaning of the pronoun “his” ه. Is it referring to Allah or the closest subject which is Adam? (على صورته).
The Hanbalist and Ibn Taemiyah, Ibn bazz etc said the pronoun in على صورته is referring to Allah, i.e Allah created Adam in Allah’s shape.
But many great scholars of sunnah rejected their ascription of the pronoun to Allah.
Many scholars like Imam Nawawi, Ibn Hajar and in fact Al-Albani did not subscribe to the ascription of the pronoun to Allah. Unfortunately, those who referred the pronoun to Allah committed the very error that was rejected in their theological foundation which is to jettison Ta’weel (interpretation, instead of immediate comprehension) in Sifaat of Allah. It is inconsistency. And they accuse whosoever disagree with them of being Jahamiyyah.
Sheikh Ibn Taemiyah in his attempt to be literal in interpretation of Ayat and Hadith of Sifaat tend to confine Allah to a specific place. This is much documented in his “aqeedah wasatiyyah.”
Another hadith which is an issue on this subject matter is the hadith that Allah comes to the first heaven in the third part of the night; majority of the scholars interpret it to exclude confining Allah into the created world, but a typical Ibn Taemiyah adherent will interprete it literally that Allah Himself comes to the first heaven; but they only deceive themselves with the phrase “but we do not know the kayfiyah” which is what we have erroneously been taught as the Aqeedah of (all) the Salaf.
So, Allah has shape and Kayfiyah, but you do not know it? Allahu Akbar!!! Almost similar to the Christendom doctrine. How the idea became incorporated by the Hanbalist into the doctrinal foundation as those of the Salaf is surprising!
There is so much complexities in the “Kayfiyah (being)” usage. What was the origin of ascribing “Kayfiyah” for Allah? What is the source? I’ll expect you to bring the statement of Imam Malik; but when bringing it, make sure it is with its full Isnad.
This issue should not have been an issue, but unfortunately it is; and it is the basis of the theological differences of the modern day Salafi and others. It is the same reason the Safwatu Tafaasir of Sheikh Ali Sabooni was banned in Saudi Arabia. Whosoever disagree with the canonised Hanbali creed has deviancy in Aqeedah, they claim.
They claim Ali Sabooni committed theological blunder by violating the view of majority of scholars by interpreting “Yawma Yukshafu an Saaqiin figuratively. But Ali Sabooni was right as they were wrong; because if you check Tafsir Tabari, Ibn Kethir, Al Qasimi, all alluded to Ibn Abass, Mujaahid, Dhahak, Qatada, Ibn Nakhi, to have interpreted it figuratively.
So why the unnecessary bullying of scholars who do not subscribe to their theological persuasion? It is not every scholar that must ascribe to Ibn Taemiyah’s theological persuasions, there are many other great scholars.
Ali Sabooni himself wrote a rejoinder against them in his book
“كشف الافتراءات في رسالة التنبيهات حول صفوة التفاسير”.
The vituperation against Safwah is because he criticized the Da’wah of Sh. Muhammad Abdul Wahab in his Tafseer. It is also possible to accuse Ibn Hajar, Imam Suyuti of being Qubuuri.
Really, nobody is denying mistakes in Safwah just like any other books of Tafseer; There is no book of Tafseer that is free from error. The Tafseer of Ibn Jareer and Ibn Kethir said to be salafic are equally not free from error. But a personal difference with Sh. Ali Sabooni prompted the attack.
The main reason for criticizing his Tafsir is because of Ta’wil of Sifaat which Sabooni himself defended; there is Ta’wil in Ibn kethir, Tabari, books of Tafseer also.
So, the intention is suspicious; that is why Jarhu Aqran is not usually recknon with because of personal envy which is a human trait.
Just like the claim of Zamakhshari being a Mutazilite is just to give a dog a bad name; Zamakhshari is usually a reference point in linguistic and most Salafi scholars explore his linguistic explanation which is what Sabooni has done.
Even if he is a Mutazilite and he exhibited it in his Tafseer book al-Kashaaf, he is an authority in Arabic grammar which is a major reference point.
Most of the criticism of Ibn bazz, Fawzan, Zayno, and others is because Sabooni did Ta’wil just like other scholars of Tafseer before him, so why the crucifixion?!
The problem is that, some people usually feel threatened whenever other scholars outside their school is gaining prominence and his academic efforts is being appreciated by the Ummah; they immediately seek for means to blackmail and sweep the scholars efforts into oblivion.
The only time they support other scholar is when they have differences with their co-salafi, and another from outside refuted him, then they praise him.
If some people wrote a rejoinder to a particular part of a book, that does not indicate that the entire book becomes useless.
For instance, Sh. Ali Shibl wrote Al Mukhalafat al-Aqdiyya fi fath al Bari, to which Ibn bazz, Fawzan, Abdullah bn Aqil, Abdullah al Ghunayman, all wrote a forward to it subscribing to the refutation. Will you then warn people from reading Fath-ul Bari?
It is actually not their fault; it is the consequence of brainwashing.
Now think of it, if there is a government in Nigeria who decides to only support the Idea of Sh. Uthman Dan Fodio, and ban every book written from Saudi from entering Nigeria, then commission the Nigeria Islamic Universities and Research centers to find fault with ideas propagated by Saudi, and the Nigeria government impose this policy on every Ile Kewu, and spend billions of Naira for this purpose, and only accept foreign students on scholarship to be indoctrinated into Sh. Fodio school of thought; What do you think Nigeria will become in 20years? That is exactly what Saudi and her scholars are doing.
To buttress the issue of Allah’s creation of Adam in his image:
For instance (an evidence), the verse 8 of Suratu Naml, Allah says: فَلَمَّا جَاءَهَا نُودِيَ أَن بُورِكَ مَن فِي النَّارِ وَمَنْ حَوْلَهَا…
“So when he came to it a voice was uttered saying: Blessed is Whoever is __ the fire and whatever is about it…”
To translate this verse, it would require Ta’wil so as not to confine Allah into a specific position (i.e Fire in this context).
So to absolutely reject Ta’wil as claimed by Ibn Taemiyah (rahimahu Allahu) results into confinement of Allah. Can we then claim that Allah is in the Fire but the Kayfiyah (being) is unknown? What a blasphemy!!
Whatever interpretation you give Fire, even if it is Nuur (light), would you still conclude and mean that Allah was in the Nuur as apparent in the manifest meaning of this verse of Naml? So you mean Prophet Musa was following a light (Nuur) which Allah was inside?
And if you check the books of Tafseer, you will observe the Ta’wil of the original Salaf as a way to avoid the manifest and apparent meaning of the verse. Then remember that Prophet Musa was on earth which is a creation of Allah.
In fact, the contention is not in the Naar or Nuur, rather in the indispensability of Ta’wil in interpretation of the pronoun في as it applies to either Naar or Nuur. Basically, the verse is not interpreted as it appears apparently.
The Zahir (apparent) message of the verse is: “من في النار بورك”
“The person in the fire is blessed.”
The Zahir of the wordings is Allah and not Musa.
Apparently, the barakah is coming from من في النار; but we can never interprete it apparentently, rather we must do Ta’wil or else we will make error of thinking Allah was inside the Naar.
So all the book of Tafseer did the Ta’wil of the verse so as to avoid confining Allah into a thing or place which is the Nar in this context.
Unfortunately, there are those who interpreted it that Allah was in the fire or light, even from the Salaf. But the correct Ta’wil ought to be referred to Musa even though he is not IN the fire but BY the fire which he initially sighted from a far. So the word “fi في” IN should by interpreted as BY so as to suit the Ta’wil that Musa was the person who was in (i.e BY) the fire and was blessed بورك.
Now, the point I want to drive at is, if you read Tafsir Tabari and others, you will read some Athar where it is said that Ibn Abass, Mujaahid, etc said Man fi Naar is Allah in the fire while you will also read contrary interpretations from the Salaf as well; but the Hanbalist who claim to be Athariyah or Ahl hadith will rely on weak or illogical Athar without applying the indispensable of sanctifying Allah from points or locations, hence they have wrong beliefs based on weak Athar or illogical interpretation and then claim they are the true followers of Athar and accuse other scholars of deviancy.
When you read the books of Aqeedah of the Hanbalist and observed how it is filled with weak Athar, while it is better to be commonsensically in sanctifying Allah from defect or comparism with His creation.
Also for instance, Ibn Taemiyah submitted that the majority of the Salaf said the person inside the Nar (that was seen by Musa) is Allah. So it is issues like that that result in him being accused of confining Allah, but he will claim there are Athar supporting his view. You can easily read Ibn Taemiyah’s interpretation of the verse in his Majmu Fatawa Vol 5.
Scholars who are literalist and absolutely reject Ta’wil in the application of Quranic verses and ahadeeth on Sifaat tend/seem to confine Allah to a point.
Nevertheless, every theological tendencies deny false accusations leveled against it. The practical implication of the understanding on texts of the Qur’an and Hadith gives rise to misconception of opinions of conflicting scholars.
ليس كمثله شيء و هو السميع البصير