Thursday, 16 December 2010

The Pseudo-Salafi says:Allah has a "Sura- Form/Shape"

The Pseudo-Salafi says:

"Allah has a "Sura – Form/Shape"

The “salafi” commentator of Imam Al-Bayhaqi’s

Asmaa’i was-Sifaat writes:

“As for our Lord, we affirm that He possesses a Sura (form).”
In another place:
“As for us, we affirm a sura (form) for Allah unlike other forms.”

Similar was said by the deviant Karramiyya of old
Allah has a body unlike bodies.”1


So what does Ahlus Sunnah say regarding Allah having a form?

The Nobel Qur’an states:

“There is nothing whatsoever like Him,”

(42: 11)

Imam Ibn Al-Jawzi said in his Dafa’ Ash-Shubah,
“You should know that it is compulsory for every Muslim to believe with respect to God, glorified and exalted be he, that it is impossible that the “form” which happens to be a shape and a composition applies to God. 

Abu Sulayman Al-Khattabi said, ‘The meaning of ‘then God ta’alaa will come to them’ is that ‘He will remove the veil for them until they see Him with their eyes, just as they used to identify Him in the world through empirical evidences (kamaa kaanu ‘arafoohu fid-dunya istidlaalan).’ So seeing Him after they have not seen him is analogous with the arrival of the visitor who has not been seen before.” [...]Imam Ibn ‘Aqil said, “The form literally applies to lines and shapes. But those are some of the characteristics of physical entities. And what diverted us from [determining] Him to be a physical entity or body is His saying, : “There is nothing like unto Him.” [...]

Further down interpretation is offered as follows:

“So the evidence compels us to assign a meaning to “form” whose possessive form applying to God would be befitting Him and proper. And that is to demand that it means the “state” upon which [Arabic] linguists used sometimes synonymously with “form”. They say, “What is your form (“state”) like with fulaan?” as well as “fulaan is on a form (“state”) of poverty.” 


“As for His essence it is exonerated from change. We take refuge with God from having the hadith taken according to the understanding of those that ascribe bodily characteristics to God, and [their understanding] that the “Form (sura)” refers to His being. That is to deem it possible for change to befall His attributes. In spite of that, they referred to Him as being a “form.” If that is meant literally, then it is an impossibility, and, if it sosmething [they] will imagine, then it is undoubtedly not as they would believe. He will show them something other than Himself.2

Al Hafith Al-Bayhaqi stated,

“It is impermissible that the Creator be attributed form (sura), nor does He possess form, because form is variegated (mukhtalifa) and appearances are mutually contrasted (al-hay’at mutadaadda). Because of their mutual contrast He cannot be described as having them in general; likewise, he cannot be described as having one of them in particular.
What is obligatory for us and every Muslim to know is that our Lord is not endowed with a form nor a physiognomy (laysa bi dhi sura wa la hay’a). For form requires modality, which is precluded from Allah and from His attributes. About the Prophet’s (‘alayhis salam) hadith: “On the day of ressurection, Allah shall come to the people in the form (sura) that is familiar to them.”3

This can be interpreted to mean that He shall come to them in the attribute (sifa) that is familiar to them…what confirms this interpretation is that Prophet’s (alayhis salaam) saying in the narration of ‘Ataa ibn Yasar from Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri: “Then Allah will come to them in a form lower (adnaa’) than the one wherein they had seen Him.4
whereas they had not seen Him at all prior to this. One understands therefore that the meaning of “form” here is “attribute“.”
The upshot to all of this is that Ahlus Sunnah deny the “literal sura” for Allah ta’alaa. Two interpretations have been offered, that one is the manifestation of attribute, and the other “state” as stated by Ibn Al-Jawzi. Both methods are established in the language. And peace and blessings be upon our beloved Prophet Muhammad , his family, and followers.
1- Quoted by Adh-Dhahabi in his Siyar ‘Alam An Nubalaa’
2- See the “Attributes of God” translated by Sidi Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali I have added some transliteration
3- Bukhari and Muslim
4- Bukhari

Comments for the above
Wahabi says:
“Everytime Allah attributes something to himself or the Prophet Muhammad salalahu alayhi wa salam attributes to Him, you deny and turn the words from their proper place and cry out “tashbeeh!”. Interesting shaykh aboo uthmaan ibn abdur rahman as-saboonee rahimahullah said the people of innovation call the people of hadith ‘mushabiha’

Abul Layth :
Abu Yusuf a person of innovation? Abu Hanifa?
For they called the muqaatiliyya, a group your comrades parrot, mushabbiha.
You have no proof that the intent of the Nabi ‘alayhis salaam’s words were “literal”. 
None at all. 

In fact this has been admitted by Ibn Qudaamah (rahimahullah) himself. He stated that the Nabi ‘alayhis salaam never clarified the meaning of these things, so do not think your argument has a foundation.
The fact is, affirmation is believing in the intended meaning of the Nabi ‘alayhis salaam, or our Lord, a meaning you are not certain of at all. This is why we must consign the meaning to our Lord’s knowledge. As for ta’weel or explaining the above example of sura, then Ahlus Sunnah do so only to remove the doubt of tashbeeh and tamtheel that the deviant Hashawiyya and their cohorts forward.

Wahabi says:
The Nabi salalahu alayhi wa salam did not need to clarify them. It is only you with a problem. That is why you made a new creed by making ‘tafweed’ of Will. You are the one who does this you even do this for as-sami al-basir. So what do we have when we read the Quran about Allaah? We have nothing but words that are not comprehendable. Perhaps you make tafweed of ar rahman ar raheem al ghafoor etc.? Or perhaps even further you make tafweed of living, knowing, etc..The people of tashbih are no where like those who Affirm the sifaat upon the dhaahir while making tanzih. No one will be punished for saying ‘Allah created Adam alayhi salam with his Hand’”

Abul Layth :
He did not need to clarify them because the intent was understood, and if it was not then it falls into the mutashaabihaat – and those who seek the ta’weel thereof are deviants.
You claim that the meaning intended was the literal, and we say that the meaning does not have to be literal, and at times is impossible for it to be literal because of Allah ’s words, “there is nothing like unto Him, he is As-Samee’ Al Baseer.” Because mankind does not know what the meaning of the alfaath are, except by the usage of the language or as explained by the forefathers, we follow the safe path of consigning the real meaning to the intention of the one who spoke it. Pass it along as it came to us, without explanation, delving into the takyeef, and the ma’naa.

It is way the of our forefathers who faced the deviant Muqaatiliyyah and Mu’tazila. If such bothers you, that is your problem, not ours.

“The people of tashbih are no where like those who Affirm the sifaat upon the dhaahir while making tanzih. No one will be punished for saying ‘Allah created Adam alayhi salam with his Hand’”

If by that he means a literal hand, then yes he awaits punishment for believing Allah ta’alaa was a composite, and had limbs.
If he means by that the metaphorical or simply to say such while consigning the meaning to Allah ta’alaa’s infinite knowledge, then all of that is way of Ahlus Sunnah.


Wahabi Devil

Ismail Ibrahim Patel
From UK
(IA and other Wahhabi/Salafi Forum’s)
Real Evil Form/Soorah:
Ugly Molvi


Wahhabi says:

“Soorah is a Sifah of Allah” when translated means “Shape is an attribute of Allah”.
The basic principle when it comes to understanding Allah’s attributes is that they are not like the attributes of humans.
There are verses which talk about “Allaah raising over the throne”, “Allaah’s Hands” etc.
Please see the posts starting with 100. As for this statement “Soorah is a Sifah of Allah”, it is a refutation to those who believe that Allaah can’t have shape because “you & I have a shape.
And, Allah isn’t like us”.
The problem with this argument is they also say Allaah exists, and we say “You & I exist, right”.
So, would they say “Allaah doesn’t exist”, “Allaah doesn’t live”?


Wahhabi Molvi

 Molvi Harris Hammam said:

“Allah has the most perfect image.
Soorah is a Sifah of Allah, which the Ash`aris like you negate.”

[End of quote]


And there is nothing is like Him.”

This is Tawheed’s most important rule, and it is based on the Ayah 11, in Surat Ash-Shura, where Allah said: “Nothing is like Him”.
He is not similar to anything in anyway. Assimilating Allah to His creation in anyway, for instance, by trying to imagine Him, or one of His attributes, is where most people negate Tawheed and depart Islam immediately. The core message of Islam and of all the Prophets of Allah since Adam up until Muhammad, sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa sallam, is based on this rule, i.e., to distinguish The Creator from the creation.

Allah sent Prophet after Prophet to nations and peoples because after prophets passed away, people gradually swerved from the right path of worshipping God, The Creator, who is distinguished from the creation, to worshipping the creation by worshipping things and entities they imagined and deluded to be God. All Prophets delivered the same message and spent their whole lives trying to correct people’s belief and alert them that: there is nothing like The Creator, in any and everyway.

If The Creator was the same as, or even comparable to the creation, then that would negate the entire meaning of God, even if it is with only one attribute.
A creation can only think, imagine and delude about another creation, and as we intellectually grow our intellectual thinking capacities and imaginations grow with us, and we can imagine and think about more things. This very process reflects our imperfection. If one is perfect, then one should be able to know and imagine everything. It is impossible sometimes to imagine another creation such as the extent of space, or the mechanism of some cells in our body, or the laws of physics,….etc.. it is impossible to imagine some of the creation!!, hence, it definitely is impossible to imagine The Creator.

Allah Ta’ala said in Surat Maryam, ayah 65:
“Is there anything similar to Him”?
Allah Ta’ala, also said in Surat Al-Ihklas, ayah 4:
“ nothing is equal or similar to Him”

The above mentioned ayahs, among a lot more in the Qur’an, constitute the basis of Islamic belief in Allah. He is not the creation.

Delusions cannot apply to Him, minds cannot encompass Him, thoughts cannot conceive Him, imaginations cannot grasp Him.

8- No imagination can conceive of Him, and no understanding can comprehend Him. He does not resemble the creation.

Allah Ta’ala, said in Surat Al-Nah’l, ayah 60:
“ Allah Has the Perfect attributes”

Also Allah Ta’ala said in Surat Ashura, ayah 11:
This ayah firmly established that nothing is like Him, therefore everything we imagine or capacitate is something, and Allah is similar to nothing.

Islam stresses and emphasizes on this very important point in Tawheed (monotheism). As breaking this rule, would automatically invalidate the state of Tawheed; simply: The Creator is distinguished from the creation.
Hence, our imaginations and our intellectual capacity are all part of us, a creation. The creation can never encompass The Creator.

In other words, imperfection cannot encompass perfection. One cannot define some creations that are complex and advanced, with no comparison, The Creator cannot be imagined by a created imagination of a created human being.

Al-Imam Than-noon Al-Masri, may Allah have Mercy on his soul, said:

“Whatever you imagine in your mind, Allah is different than that”.
Because no matter what one may imagine, it is still a creation with limited capacity, which can only imagine another creation, if that!.

9- He does not resemble the creation.
Allah Ta’ala, said in Surat Al-Ikhlas, ayah 4:
“ He has no equals or similars)

He does not resemble the creation is very important, and is the core of Islamic monotheism. Simply stated, Allah Ta’ala, does not resemble any creation in any and all ways. Many people depart Islam to blasphemy imagining that God looks like a human being with limbs, organs, lives in a place up in the skies, rests, descends and ascends, comes and goes, sleeps and rests, or that He is a light!!!!!…etc. All these deviations are because they tried to conceive God in their imaginations, that lead them to compare Him with things the mind knows and understands, therefore, they fell into blasphemy.

Wahabi/Salafis Insist:
“Allah has a 'Form'”


Abd Allah al-Hashidi the "Salafi" editor of al-Bayhaqi's al-Asma' wal-Sifat (2:60) openly attributes form and shape to Allah Most High:
"As for our Lord, we affirm that He possesses a form (sura)"
and (2:67) Quote:
"As for us we affirm a form (sura) for Allah unlike forms."
Similarly, the Egyptian 'Salafi' scholar Mohammed Khalil Harras......

هو العلاَّمة، السلفيُّ، المحقِّق، محمد خليل هرَّاس
كان رحمه الله سلفي المعتقد، شديدًا في الحقّ، قويّ الحجّة والبيان، أفنى حياته في التعليم والتأليف ونشر السنة وعقيدة أهل السنة والجماعة
...who salafis describe as:

"He was Salafi in creed, stern in establishing the truth, persuasive in establishing his proof, he spent his life teaching, authoring, and spreading the creed of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'a"
says on p. 39 of his commentary on "At-Tawhid" by Ibn Khuzayma:
فالصورة لا تضاف إلى الله كإضافة خلقه إليه لأنها وصف قائم به
"So 'Image' is not attributed to Allah the way his creation is attributed to Him, because it (His image), is an attribute which subsists in His essence"
on pg. 156: Quote:
ثم تبدى الله لنا بصورة غير صورته التي رأيناه فيها أول مرة ، وقد عاد لنا في صورته التي رأيناه فيها أول مرة فيقول أنا ربكم
"Then he appeared to us with an image which is different then what we have previously seen, and He returned to us in the image we first saw him in and says: 'I am your Lord' "

Meanwhile scholars of Ahl al-Sunna like
Ibn `Abd al-Salam in his Mulha state:

"He is not a body endowed with form."

Similarly Ibn al-Jawzi in Daf` Shubahi al-Tashbih (al-Kawthari ed. 1998 repr. p. 35) states:
"Know that it is obligatory upon every Muslim to firmly hold that it is impermissible to attribute to Allah Most High form (sura), which consists in physiognomy (hay'a) and features (ta'lif)."

Imam al Khattabi said:
What is upon us and all Muslims to believe is that our Lord does not possess a sura (image) or hay'a (form), for an image implies a modality (kayfiya) and that is negated from both Allah and His attributes.
قال الإمام أبو سليمان الخطابي (ت 388 هـ) فيما رواه عنه الحافظ البيهقي في [الأسماء والصفات] ما نصه:

إن الذي يجب علينا وعلى كل مسلم أن يعلمه أن ربنا ليس بذي صورة ولا هيئة، فإن الصورة تقتضي الكيفية وهي عن الله وعن صفاته منفية" اهـ
Imam Al-Subkī said:
Al-Ash'arī and most of the Scholars of kalām have declared as disbelievers any innovator whose innovation constitutes or leads to disbelief. For example, if he claims that the object of his worship possess an image (sūra), or a limit (hadd) and boundary (nihāya), or that it is permissible to attribute to him movement and stillness.
[Cited in al-Kawtharī, Maqālāt (p. 374)]

Wahabi/Salafi said:

“Allah has the most perfect image. 
Soorah is a Sifah of Allah, which the Ash`aris like you negate.”

It is not a sifah, and if suurah was a word referring to an attribute, it would not mean shape or form, for the many reasons we have written much about, such as this one:
When we look around us, we see two things: borders (physical limit/ spacial limit/ shape) and color.
There is nothing else that is seen by our eyes. We do not need to consider color, because color is secondary to borders in that they fall within borders.
What we are left with then, for proving the need of creation for a Creator, is borders.
We must prove that all borders, not matter the shape, must have a Creator, in order to show that the Creator exists [1].

Because border only differ in their size and shape; there is no difference between them based on which one could claim that one of them needs a creator, while another does not. There is no such difference between them.
Accordingly, if someone says that Aļļaah has a border, then he is forced to either say that Aļļaah, like everything else with a border, needs a creator, or that He cannot prove that borders needs a creator.
If he can’t prove that borders need a creator, then he can’t prove that what we see with our eyes around us needs a creator.
All anthropomorphists believe that Aļļaah is something that can be pointed at in a direction.
This means they believe that He has a border in that direction.
They also believe that Aļļaah is not created. Accordingly, they are forced to say that borders do not need a creator. This again means that they cannot prove the createdness of anything that is seen.
They want us to believe that this is the path of truth and reason, and the way of the Qur’aan, the Prophets and the pious Salaf.
This is nothing less than an insult to the religion and the Creator, and a denial of Islam being in agreement with sound reason. It reduces it to the guesswork that all other religions are. It is an endorsement of the idea that science and reason cannot agree with religion.
What an enormous price to pay just to hold onto the idea that Aļļaah’s aboveness is one of relative spacial positioning, instead of just saying that His aboveness is in power and status, not in location.
[1] All borders need a creator, because their shape is intrinsically possible. After all, a physical limit is conceptually just a connection of dots forming a line or surface. Each dot is connected to the next at one of its sides. The choice of placement of a connected dot to another is for any available space at any angle and from any angle. That’s it. The placement of connected dots form limits, and since the way the dots are placed next to each other needs specification in terms of ‘where’, it must be true that all limits need to be specified.
More simply put: anything that has a physical limit (or size), has a shape, because the limit has to have some shape.

Anything that has a certain shape could have had any other shape, because any shape isn’t intrinsically of higher priority than any other shape, so having a certain shape means that there must be someone who specified it and chose it among all other possibilities.
This means that any physical limit needs a creator and cannot be eternal, because its existence depends on prior specification, and all such limits are equal in this dependence.
So if someone claims that one such limit does not require a creator, or to be specified, then He can no longer logically prove that another limit does need a creator. This means that he can no longer logically prove that shapes need someone to give them a form. To be able to do that, rather, he must hold on to the premise that all limits need a creator.
He must hold that since Aļļaah is not specified or created, and is definitely eternal, it must be true that Aļļaah exists without physical limits.

It is the traditional tactic of anthropomorphists.
They make denial of physical characteristics equivalent to denial of Allaah’s attributes.

Sunnis do not deny Allaah’s attributes, they only deny that His attributes can be like those of creation.

Anything that has a shape will also have a border- physical limit (or size), because of its shape.

Aļļah is not specified or created, and is definitely eternal; it must be true that Aļļah exists without shape and physical limits.

Having a certain shape means that there must be someone who specified it.

The Nobel Quran:

[Ta-Ha 20:49] Said Firaun, "So who is the Lord of you both, O Moosa?"
[Ta-Ha 20:50] He said, "Our Lord is One Who gave everything its proper shape, then showed the path."

Allah exists without any need for a shape, place, direction or a limb (hand)
“O People, you are the desolate in absolute need of Aļļaah, and Aļļaah is the One that does not need anything or anyone, and He is the One that deserves all praise.” (Faaţir ,15)


Aļļaah taˆaalaa did not change or experience any substitution (in His attributes), and has not been attributed with any limits before creating the ˆArsħ and not after creating it (Iˆtiqaad Al-Imaam Al-Mubajjal Ibn Ĥanbal, P. 297)

“O Aļļaah, You are the First, so there is nothing before You, and You are the Last so there is nothing after You. You are Al-Ţħaahir so there is nothing above You. And You are Al-Baaţin, so there is nothing below you.”

The Imam and hadith master (hafiz) Ahmad ibn al-Husayn al-Bayhaqi (d. 458/1066) relates in his Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad [The memorable actions of Imam Ahmad], through his chain of narrators that:

Ahmad condemned those who said Allah was a "body," saying, "The names of things are taken from the Shari‘a and the Arabic language. The language’s possessors have used this word [body] for something that has height, breadth, thickness, construction, form, and composition, while Allah Most High is beyond all of that, and may not be termed a "body" because of being beyond any meaning of embodiedness [emphasis mine]. This has not been conveyed by the Shari‘a, and so is refuted"
If there is nothing above Him and nothing below Him, then he is not a body or in a direction, and He does not have phys-ical specification.
وروى البيهقي في مناقب الإمام أحمد بسنده عن أبي الفضل هذا أنه قال :"أنكر أحمد على من قال بالجسم وقال إن الأسماء مأخوذة من الشريعة واللغة، وأهل اللغة وضعوا هذا الإسم على ذي طول وعرض وسمك وتركيب وصورة وتأليف ، والله تعالى خارج عن ذلك كله فلم يجز أن يسمى جسماً لخروجه عن معنى الجسمية ولم يجيء في الشريعة ذلك فبطل ."

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal said:
'The one who says Allah is a body not like other bodies Blasphemes'.
[Narrated by Abu Muhammad al Baghdadi in his book Al Khisal and Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi in his book Tashnif Al Masami']

Similarly, Hafiz al-Bayhaqi quotes Imam Ahmad in Manaqib Ahmad:
"A person commits an act of disbelief (kufr) if he says Allah is a body, even if he says: Allah is a body but not like other bodies."

In I'tiqad Imam Ahmad bi Riwaya Tamimi (page 4) the Imam is quoted as saying
Allah ta'ala has Yadayn. They are attributes of His Essence which are not two limbs, nor two composite parts, nor a body...وكان يقول إن لله تعالى يدين وهما صفة له في ذاته ليستا بجارحتين وليستا بمركبتين و لا جسم ولا من جنس الأجسام ولا من جنس المحدود والتركيب ولا الأبعاض والجوارح


The Holy Prophet (Allah bless him) is narrated to have said,

“Contemplate on the creation of Allah but do not contemplate on Allah.”

[Bayhaqi, Shu`ab al-Iman; Tabarani, al-Awsat; Abu Nu`aym, Hilya; Asbahani, Targhib]

The greatest pleasure in Heaven will be to see Allah without Him being in a place, direction, at a distance or having a shape (this cannot be imagined, because it is not seeing as we know it).



Re: The dangerous implications of ascribing a direction to Allah

Here , Here  & Here

Questions by HS to HH

This is a discussion on Questions by HS to HH within the Beliefs and Fundamentals forums, part of the Main Topics category; Originally Posted by Harris Hammam Focus on humans for now. How on earth is the human eye able to see ...

Questions by HH to HS

This is a discussion on Questions by HH to HS within the Beliefs and Fundamentals forums, part of the Main Topics category

 My first question is this: When the people of Jannah will see their Creator with ...

Ismail Ibrahim
IA, KR; Hanafi Fiqh Mutaqaddimun

This Deviant Wahhabi Molvi  does not like to be called
 "Guard Dog of Imam Abu Hanifa"


"Allāh Most High will be seen in the Hereafter. The believers will see Him, while in Paradise, with their own eyes, without any comparison or modality. There will not be any distance between Him and His creation."
Iamm Abu Haifah also says in Al-Waiyya:
“The meeting of Allāh with the people of Paradise is a reality [and is to occur] without modality, corporealism, or direction.”

(The commentary of Imams 'Ali Al-Qari and Al-Maghnisawi are found in the link above.)

Imam Al-Maturidi in his book "Kitab ut-Tawhid" (page 151), says confirming the view that the believers will see Allah in the Hereafter without modality:
فإن قيل: كيف يرى?  قيل: بلا كيف, إذ الكيفية تكون لدى صورة بل يرى بلا وصف قيام وقعود واتكاء وتعلق واتصال وانفصال ومقابلة ومدابرة, وقصير وطويل, ونور, وظلمة وساكن ومتحرك, ومماس ومباين, وخارج وداخل ولا معنى يأخذه الوهم أو يقدره العقل لتعاليه عن ذلك
Rough translation:
[If someone says, "How will we see [Him]?" It is said: "Without modality / bila kayf" because  modality / kayfiyya applies to beings with a form (surah),  but He will be seen without description by means of a comparison, without being standing, sitting, leaning or suspended, without being in contact or separation, without having a front or back, being long or short, light or dark, motionless or moving, in contact or separated, inside or outside and in no sense that the imagination could perceive or reason could evaluate because He transcends it all.]

Imam al-Bayhaqi said in his book, al-I'tiqad, in which he has a whole section on ru'yah:

قال الشيخ الإمام أحمد رحمه الله: سمعت الشيخ الإمام أبا الطيب سهل بن محمد بن سليمان رحمه الله يقول فيما أملاه علينا في قوله: لا تضامون في رؤيته بضم التاء وتشديد الميم: يريد لا تجتمعون لرؤيته في جهته، ولا يضم بعضكم إلى بعض لذلك، فإنه عز وجل لا يرى في جهة كما يرى المخلوق في جهة، ومعناه بفتح التاء لا تضامون لرؤيته مثل معناه بضمها، ل تتضامون في رؤيته بالإجتماع في جهة وهو دون تشديد الميم من الضيم معناه: لا تظلمون في رؤيته برؤية بعضكم دون بعض، وأنكم ترونه في جهاتكم كلها، وهو يتعالى عن جهة، قال: والتشبيه برؤية القمر ليقين الرؤية دون تشبيه المرئي، تعالى الله عن ذلك علوا كبيرا

“I heard Shaykh Imam Abut Tayyib Sahl ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman [al-Sa'luki] (may Allah have mercy on him) say in that which he dictated to us regarding his saying, “you will not huddle together to see Him”: he means you will not huddle together to see Him in His direction, and one of you will not join to the other for that, as He will not be seen in a direction as creation is seen in a direction…You will see Him in all your directions, and He is beyond direction. He said: The comparison with seeing the moon is for the certainty of seeing not a comparison of that which is seen, exalted is Allah beyond that with great exaltation.”

As for Arabic expression, for example

 'Ala al-Din al-Bukhari said in his Risalah fil I'tiqad:

اعلم أن رؤية الله تعالى بمعنى الانكشاف التام بالأبصار للمؤمنين فى الآخرة بعد دخولهم الجنة جائزة عقلا وواجبة سمعا فيرى لا في مكان ولا في جهة ولا اتصال شعاع ولا ثبوت مسافة بين الرائي وبينه تعالى وغير ذلك من أمارات الحدث
"Know that Ruy'ah in the meaning of a complete opening-up by means of the sights of believers in the afterlife after their entrance into Jannah is possible rationally and necessary textually, so He will be seen, neither in a place, nor in a direction..." (p 139)

The "opening-up" as the editor of the book mentioned in the footnote is a perception that is acquired by the eyes more complete than what we have through knowledge, reason and reports. So the "complete" that al-Bukhari is referring to is in reference to the inkishaf itself, not the reality of Allah.

Shahrastani (d. 548) relates that Imam Ash`ari said:

The vision of Allah does not entail direction, place, or form, or face to face encounter either by impingement of rays or by impression, all of which are impossible
[Shahrastani, al-Milal wa al-nihal as translated by A.K. Kazi and J.G. Flynn, Muslim Sects and Divisions (London: Kegan Paul International, 1984) p. 85.]

Imam al-Ghazali also makes the same point about Ru'yah in a detailed section of his al-Iqtsad fil I'tiqad (his masterpiece on 'Aqidah). Please read his clear discussion (starting from فلنبحث عن الحقيقة ما هي؟) translated below:

"We should therefore discuss the reality (of Ru'yah) what is it? It has no reality but that it is a type of perception, which is a more complete and a greater disclosure in relation to imagination. For example, we see a friend and then shut our eyes, so the image of the friend is present in our brain in the sense of imagination and conceptualisation. But if we opened the eye, we would perceive a difference. That difference is not due to perceiving an image different to what was in the imagination. Rather, the image that was seen is in conformity to the one imagined without difference. So there is no distinction between them, except that this second state is like a completion for the state of imagination and is like an opening-up of it. So when opening the eye, an image of the friend is created in a way that is more clear, complete and perfect...Hence, imagination is a type of perception at a level, and beyond it is another level which is more complete than it in clarity and disclosure, and is like a completion of it. So we call this completion with respect to the imagination: Ru'yah and Ibsar.

"Similarly there are some things which we know but we cannot imagine, which is the essence of Allah and His attributes, and everything that doesn't have a form, meaning no colour and no size, like power, knowledge, love, sight and imagination. These are things we know but do not imagine. Knowledge of them is a kind of perception. So we should contemplate: Does the intellect ('aql) find it impossible that this perception can be more complete - its relation to it (meaning the more complete perception's relation to knowledge) is like the relation of seeing to imagination? If that is possible, we refer to that disclosure and completion in relation to knowledge: Ru'yah, like we referred to it in relation to imagination: Ru'yah. It is known that the possibility of this completion in opening-up and disclosure is not impossible in known things that exist which are not imagined, like knowledge, power etc. and likewise, in the essence and attributes of Allah (Most High)...So we say that is not impossible, as there is nothing making it impossible, but 'aql is proof of its possibility...However, this completion in disclosure is not expended in this world, while the soul is in the occupation of the body and the impurity of its attributes, so because of it, it (complete disclosure) is hidden to him. Just as it is not farfetched that the eyelid or a screen or a stain in the eye is a cause - according to the normal course of nature - of the impossibility of viewing imagined things, so it is not farfetched that the impurity of the self and the overloading of the veils of occupations - according to the normal course of nature - prevents viewing (ibsar) of known things. So when what is in the graves are scattered...and the hearts are purified by pure is not impossible that because of it, it becomes ready for greater completion and perception of the essence of Allah (Most High). Since in all known things, the elevation of its level from the recognised type of knowledge is like the elevation of the level of sight from imagination, this is expressed as meeting Allah (Most High), witnessing Him, seeing Him, and observing Him, or whatever expression you please, as there is no tenacity in that after the meanings are made clear.

"When that is possible, when this reality is created in the eye, the term Ru'yah in terms of the applicability of language to it is even more true. Creating it in the eye is not impossible, just as creating it in the heart is not impossible. Once it is understood what the people of truth intend by Ru'yah, it is known that the intellect does not find it impossible, but necessary as the Shari'ah attests to it, so there is no room for disagreement except by obstinacy or tenacity in using the term Ru'yah or deficiency in understanding these subtle meanings we described. We should limit ourself to this quantity in this summary."


Alhamdulillah, his discussion beautifully explains what I had in my mind and what I tried to convey above. Towards the end of his discussion on Ru'yah,

Imam al-Ghazali says (from: ولينظر المنصف كيف افترقت الفرق)

"Let the fair person consider how the splinter groups divided, and parted into the extremist and the negligent:
As for the Hashawiyyah, they were not able to understand something that exists which is not in a direction, so they affirmed direction, so by necessity, corporealism, measurement, and having the qualities of temporality became necessary for them. As for the Mu'tazilah, they negated direction, and they were not able to affirm Ru'yah without it, and because of it they opposed the absolute decrees of Shari'ah, and they believed that in affirming it (Ru'yah) there is affirmation of direction

"These (Mu'tazilah) became immersed in tanzih trying to avoid tashbih, so they were negligent. And the Hashawiyyah affirmed direction, trying to avoid ta'til so they made (Allah) similar [to creation].

So Allah guided the Ahlus Sunnah to establish the truth. So they acquired the middle path, and they knew that direction is negated, because it is a complement and completion of corporealism, and that Ru'yah is established, because it is a passenger of knowledge and its close relative, and it (Ru'yah) is a completion of it (knowledge). Hence, negation of corporealism necessitated the negation of direction which is from its necessites. And the establishment of knowledge necessitated the establishment of Ru'yah which is from its follow-ups and completors and shares with it in its quality which is that it does not necessitate any change in the essence of the object that is seen, but pertains to it as it is, like knowledge. It is not hidden to the intelligent person that this is moderation in belief [iqtisad fil i'tiqad]."


Imām Rabbānī Shaykh Ahmad al-Farūqī al-Sirhindī writes.

"In Paradise Muslims will see Allâhu ta’âlâ without direction,without being opposite Him, without realizing how He is, without being surrounded, i.e., without being in any shape. We believe in seeing Allâhu ta’âlâ in the Hereafter. We do not think of how He will be seen. 
For, mind cannot understand seeing Him. We have no other choice but to believe. Shame upon philosophers, upon those Muslims called the Mu’tazila, and upon all the groups, except the Ahl as-sunnat, because they were too blind and were deprived of this belief. Attempting to liken something which they did not see or know to those things which they saw, they deprived themselves of the honor of îmân. [Maktubat 2:67]