> Explaning "Allah created Adam in His image" Hadeeth

[Aayah]

This thread is continuing the discussion we had in my Site about the attributes of Allah Azza Wajal in some Ahadeeth.

Brother Sampharo agreed to continue this here which I really appreciate from him to help me clarifying the confusion to understand the attributes of Allah from those following Ahadeeth:

روى البخاري (6227) ومسلم (2841) عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ عَنْ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ : خَلَقَ اللَّهُ آدَمَ عَلَى صُورَتِهِ طُولُهُ سِتُّونَ ذِرَاعًا فَلَمَّا خَلَقَهُ قَالَ اذْهَبْ فَسَلِّمْ عَلَى أُولَئِكَ النَّفَرِ مِنْ الْمَلائِكَةِ جُلُوسٌ فَاسْتَمِعْ مَا يُحَيُّونَكَ فَإِنَّهَا تَحِيَّتُكَ وَتَحِيَّةُ ذُرِّيَّتِكَ فَقَالَ السَّلامُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَقَالُوا السَّلامُ عَلَيْكَ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ فَزَادُوهُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللَّهِ فَكُلُّ مَنْ يَدْخُلُ الْجَنَّةَ عَلَى صُورَةِ آدَمَ فَلَمْ يَزَلْ الْخَلْقُ يَنْقُصُ بَعْدُ حَتَّى الآن".

Al-Bukhaari (6227) and Muslim (2841) narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah created Adam in His image, and he was sixty cubits tall. When he created him he said, ‘Go and greet that group of angels who are sitting and listen to how they greet you, for that will be your greeting and the greeting of your descendents.’ So he said, ‘Al-salaamu ‘alaykum (peace be upon you),’ and they said, ‘Al-salaamu ‘alayka wa rahmat-Allaah (Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allaah.’ So they added (the words) ‘wa rahmat-Allaah.’ Everyone who enters Paradise will be in the form of Adam, but mankind continued to grow shorter until now.”

وروى مسلم (2612) عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ قَالَ : قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : " إِذَا قَاتَلَ أَحَدُكُمْ أَخَاهُ فَلْيَجْتَنِبْ الْوَجْهَ فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ خَلَقَ آدَمَ عَلَى صُورَتِهِ ".

Muslim (2612) narrated that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of fights his brother, let him avoid the face, for Allaah created Adam in His image.”

وروى ابن أبي عاصم في السنة (517) عن ابن عمر قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " لا تقبحوا الوجوه فإن ابن آدم خلق على صورة الرحمن" . قال الشيخ عبد الله الغنيمان حفظه الله : ( هذا حديث صحيح صححه الأئمة ، الإمام أحمد وإسحاق بن راهوية وليس لمن ضعفه دليل إلا قول ابن خزيمة ، وقد خالفه من هو أجل منه ).

Ibn Abi ‘Aasim narrated in al-Sunnah (517) that Ibn ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not say ‘May Allaah deform your face’ [a form of cursing in Arabic], for the son of Adam was created in the image of the Most Merciful.” Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Ghunaymaan (may Allaah preserve him) said: “This hadeeth is saheeh and was classed as such by the imams and by Imam Ahmad and Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh. Those who classed it as da’eef have no evidence, except for the view of Ibn Khuzaymah, but those who classed it as saheeh are more knowledgeable than him.

وروى ابن أبي عاصم (516) أيضا عن أبي هريرة قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : " إذا قاتل أحدكم فليجتب الوجه فإن الله تعالى خلق آدم على صورة وجهه" وقال الشيخ الألباني : إسناده صحيح

وهذان الحديثان يدلان على أن الضمير في قوله " على صورته " راجع إلى الله تعالى .

Ibn Abi ‘Aasim also narrated (516) that Abu Hurayrah said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When any one of you fights let him avoid the face, for Allaah created Adam in the image of His Face.” Shaykh al-Albaani said: its isnaad is saheeh.


To read more about the topic, check this



What I understood so far is "correct me if I am wrong please":
I see there are several views about those Ahadeeth. The first view explains "in his image" in function not in shape, since Allah and Adam are both hearing, seeing but they differ in the ability, as there is nothing like Allah Ta3laa.


The second view says that "in his image" means Adam himself was created in the same image when the soul was blown in his body. Meaning that he was not like the normal human who is created as infant, kid, and then adult.


The third view is in the Hadeeth of "Do not say "May Allaah deform your face", is referring to the person you may say to him "May Allaah deform your face" as the following explains:

وقيل : أن قوله ' خلق آدم على صورته ' كان عقيب قوله : ' لا تقولوا قبح الله وجهك فإن آدم خلق على صورته فإن الله خلق آدم على صورته ' أي على صورة هذا المقبح وجهه ، وقال : - [ ] - : ' إذا ضرب أحدكم خادمه فليتجنب الوجه ' ، ثم قال : ' فإن الله خلق آدم على صورته ' ، أي على صورة هذا المضروب والمقبح وجهه، وهذا كما قال - [ ] - : ' تسمون أولادكم محمدا ثم تلعنونهم ' .

So the same statement "in his image" was interpreted differently in three Ahadeeth, (Allah, Adam, a normal person). Am I right so far?


All Members are welcome to participate if they can provide any good explanation.

[salman]

Bismillah

Allah has a Soorah, which befits Him. The only correct view is the first view which was accepted and upheld by the Salaf. Other than people of bida'a (jahmis, ash'aris etc.), who has uttered 2nd view and accepted it? As far I know, there is no such thing as 3rd view. In fact, the statement of the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa sallam) proves that first view is the only correct view because he clarified why one should not say: "May Allah deform your face".

and Allah knows best

[Sampharo]

Hang on brother Salman.

Please note that we are not looking for a verdict here in a Fiqh matter. We are actually trying to learn this matter in and out since I discussed it on Aayah's blog and were debating with a person there. Even if the view is as you said, what we need would be the details and what are the underlying quotations from the books or reports of the salaf.

As for the second view, it is not purely Jahmee, but what is Jahmee belief is that God DOESN'T have an image, which we can all agree here that no one is suggesting.It was actually adopted by many Sunnah scholars, mentioned in Ibn Hajar's explanation of Sahih Al-Bukhary, and also quoted on Sheikh Al-'AAraj:

قال أبو الزناد : ولا أعلم إلا أن الأعرج حدثني بذلك . قال الشيخ : ومعنى قوله : خلق الله آدم على صورته التي كان عليها يوم قبض ، أي : لم يكن علقة ، ثم مضغة ، ثم عظما ، ثم مكسوا لحما ، ثم طفلا، ثم بالغا أشده ، ثم شيخا ، أي لم يخلق اطوارا ، بل خلق على الصورة التي كان بها ، ويقال : خلق على صورته فكان في الأرض حين اهبط إليها على صورته التي كان في الجنة عليها لم تتغير صورته التي اهبط فيها إلى الارض ، ولم ينتقص طوله ، ولا سلب نوره

I personally was taught both views by very strict Athari scholars. The second view might have been strongly propagated by Jahmee and AshAAaree philosophers later on to support that there is no image to God and no Sifat and all their jazz, and that created a natural rejection of the whole view by Ahlu Sunnah perhaps, but evidence shows that both views were adopted by the salaf before the appearance of Jahmees. (Strangely enough today some Jahmees are sticking to Ibn Taymeyya's view out of all people, only to refer to it as an impossibility and therefore deny the whole hadith, God guard us)

Further Al-Albani disagreed with Saudi sheikhs that stuck to the first view solely and he said that the "in the image of al-rahman" hadith is weak to start with:

قلت: وأما حديث خلق الله آدم على صورة الرحمن فهو منكر كما بينته بتفصيل في الضعيفة برقم 1175 و1176 الألباني

However it appears that the hadith was either revised later to be correct, or other ways of narration proved correct. So it's not as settled as one might think.

And of course the third view exists in the old books, I found the following in Bahr Al-Fawaed:

عن ابن عمر - رضي الله عنه - قال : قال رسول الله [ ] : ' لا تقبحوا الوجوه فإن آدم على صورة الرحمن ' . فإن كان محفوظا فيجوز أن يكون معناه أي خلقه على الصورة التي ارتضاها الرحمن أن تكون صورة لآدم إذ لم يكن في خلق الله خلق على صورته في البنية ، والحال إذ الملائكة على حالة واحدة والله أعلم بصورة بنيتهم غير أن الاخبار وردت بأنه لم يكن قبله شيء من المخلوقين على صورته وخلقته قال الله تعالى : ( لقد خلقنا الإنسان في احسن تقويم ) [ التين : 4 ]

Not only that, but there is also a reference in Ta'weel Al-Ahadeeth that explains the first view is also wrong and explains that the real view of Jahmee Ahl Al-Kalam people was just that Adam was created in the form of a man and that's it, which is useless as Imam Ahmed said. It also adds that the view of Adam was created as a full grown man in paradise and no different than when on Earth is another wrong view:

وقد اضطرب الناس في تأويل قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم إنه خلق آدم عليه السلام على صورته فقال قوم من أصحاب الكلام أراد خلق آدم على صورة آدم لم يزد على ذلك ولو كان المراد هذا ما كان في الكلام فائدة ومن يشك في ان الله تعالى خلق الإنسان على صورته والسباع على صورها والأنعام على صورها وقال قوم إن الله تعالى خلق آدم على صورة عنده وهذا لا يجوز لأن الله عز و جل لا يخلق شيئا من خلقه على مثال وقال قوم في الحديث لا تقبحوا الوجه فإن الله تعالى خلق آدم على صورته يريد أن الله جل وعز خلق آدم على صورة الوجه وهذا أيضا بمنزلة التأويل الأول لا فائدة فيه والناس يعلمون أن الله تبارك وتعالى خلق آدم على خلق ولده ووجهه على وجوههم وزاد قوم في الحديث إنه عليه السلام مر برجل يضرب وجه رجل آخر فقال لا تضربه فإن الله تعالى خلق آدم عليه السلام على صورته أي صورة المضروب وفي هذا القول من الخلل ما في الأول ولما وقعت هذه التأويلات المستكرهة وكثر التنازع فيها حمل قوما اللجاج على أن زادوا في الحديث فقالوا روى بن عمر عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فقالوا إن الله عز و جل خلق آدم على صورة الرحمن يريدون أن تكون الهاء في صورته لله جل وعز وأن ذلك يتبين بأن يجعلوا الرحمن مكان الهاء كما تقول إن الرحمن خلق آدم على صورته فركبوا قبيحا من الخطأ وذلك أنه لا يجوز أن نقول إن الله تعالى خلق السماء بمشيئة الرحمن ولا على إرادة الرحمن وإنما يجوز هذا إذا كان الاسم الثاني غير الاسم الأول أو لو كانت الرواية لا تقبحوا الوجه فإنه خلق على صورة الرحمن فكان الرحمن غير الله أو الله غير الرحمن فإن صحت رواية بن عمر عن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم بذلك فهو كما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فلا تأويل ولا تنازع فيه قال أبو محمد ولم أر في التأويلات شيئا أقرب من الاطراد ولا أبعد من الاستكراه من تأويل بعض أهل النظر فإنه قال فيه أراد أن الله تعالى خلق آدم في الجنة على صورته في الأرض كأن قوما قالوا إن آدم كان من طوله في الجنة كذا ومن حليته كذا ومن نوره كذا ومن طيب رائحته كذا لمخالفة ما يكون في الجنة ما يكون في الدنيا فقال النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم إن الله خلق آدم يريد في الجنة على صورته يعني في الدنيا

The matter is at the least confusing. I did not for example understand this extract from "Al-Daweesh's commentary on FatHH Al-Baree fe sharHH saheeh Al-Bukhari":

أن أحمد قال في رواية أبي طالب من قال أن الله خلق آدم على صورة الرحمن فهو جهمي وأي صورة كانت لآدم قبل أن يخلقه . أ.هـ

That seems to me reversed than what we heard before! Could it be a typo?

I searched through what I have of Ibn Taymeyya's books but I could not find his reported explanations. I only find his passages that are referring to the hadith being confirmed and taught by the likes of Ibn Abbas, Al-Thawry and such, proving that it is a valid authentic hadith, and that it refers to the LIKENESS of God's image, not in that Adam sees and hears the same way as God, but that it is similar to the image.

Five views it appears with some clearly weaker than others in meaning:

1- View of Saudi sheikhs like Ibn Baz and other Sunni scholars that "his" refers to God, and that it is on basis of function, not shape.

2- View of other Sunni sheikhs of old and new (as well as adopted by Jahmee but for different purposes and that is none of our concern), that "his" refers to Adam, as in created in full form without growth or stages.

3- View that "his" refers to Adam as in the face itself is in the form of God's creation of Adam, so should be respected and not beaten.

4- View now seems to be surfacing that "his" refers to God, but actually means the image that God has chosen to create and is satisfied with (As in his "intended design" like when an architect says "that building is my drawing")

5- Original Hanbali view and Ibn Taymeyya that the "his" refers to God, and that it is as the obvious apparent meaning as it stands and we take it as it is without ta'weel, that it is the image of God, period.

Does God have an image? We certainly believe so from all the authentic reports. He also has a face to show the believers in paradise, and one that the prophet -s.a.a.w.- asked to see in Miraaj. We do not know Ghaib, HOWEVER the hadith an authentic hadith that we should study and understand as part of our scholarly activity.

Al-Boriqee you're strong in Seerat and hadith, please add your input. Anyone else also would help shed more original references and sources on the matter will be appreciated.

[Aayah]

JazakAllah khair for answering.

Originally Posted by Sampharo

The second view might have been strongly propagated by Jahmee and AshAAaree philosophers later on to support that there is no image to God and no Sifat and all their jazz

May I ask how they view all the names (Asmaa' Al husna) that explain his sifat in the Quran? like Al-Rahman, Al-Raheem?

What is their interpretation for those names?

Does God have an image? We certainly believe so from all the authentic reports. He also has a face to show the believers in paradise, and one that the prophet -s.a.a.w.- asked to see in Miraaj. We do not know Ghaib, HOWEVER the hadith an authentic hadith that we should study and understand as part of our scholarly activity.

Yes, this is something Ahalu Sunnah had agreed upon and he Azza wa Jal has eyes, hands....etc
But does it fit his majesty to create the human in "his" "refers to Allah" image?
We do not know Ghaib after all.

[salman]

First, I want to remind both of you to choose the word "real" instead of "function". Function caries more meaning than what you are trying to say and people of bida'a can twist your words and label you with tajseem.

To be honest, I haven't done much research on this hadith and differences in opinion because when I was going over it, it was made clear to me by few students of knowledge that this was the only correct view. I never studied different opinions and our counter arguments. So, Akh boriqee will be a better person to argue for the main stream position.

Akh al-kareem Sampharo, you should know that Ibn Hajr Asqalani (rahimahullah) is one of the last persons we want to go to when discussing the issue of sifaat. He has contradictory statements regarding sifaat of Allah and that is because he was influenced by ash'ari thought. Sometime he accepts Allah's Sifaat in one place and then in another place he makes ta'weel of same Sift or a a different one. When discussing this issue, we first always go to the Salaf and after that we go to hanabliah (in aqeedah).

As far shaykh Al-Albani (rahimahullah) is concerned then it seems his argument is purely from hadith stand point of view and not theological. And Allah knows best

As far rest of khalaf scholars are concerned, who took the position of jahmis and were influenced by ash'ari thought, then it is not correct to say that their underlined reasons were any different than jahmis/ash'aris. The people of bida'a denied Allah's Sifaat because to them it is tajseem.

The statement of Shaykh ul-Islam (rahimahullah) sealed the deal when he said that this was the view of the salaf. And I am sure if do more research we can find the statements of the Salaf.

I will have to do more research to get back to you in details, insha'Allah

Originally Posted by Aayah

May I ask how they view all the names (Asmaa' Al husna) that explain his sifat in the Quran? like Al-Rahman, Al-Raheem?

What is their interpretation for those names?

sister, jahmis and mu'tazliah mainly accept knowledge as being the only Sift of Allah and they link rest to knowledge. As far Ash'aris, then they accept 7 Attributes and link rest to these 7. They do accept al-Rahman and al-Raheem literally without making ta'weel of it. But this is hypocrisy on their part because if we use their argument then this also applies tajseem

and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

I was asked by someone to contribute here.

firstly, i think this whole argument and debate is not only of no benefit, but it is of no use. there is nothing to be gained here. This is what I stated to brother optimist on the exact same subject a while back

oh, and uh lastly, as for the mistranslation of these translators, from the arabic perspective the term

صورته

in the construction of the sentence in the textual reports, the grammarians argued that since the prophet (being the master of arabic) organized the construction of the phrase as "Allah created Adam in his own image" with the phrase

خلقللة آدم

the grammarians argued that due to the rules of arabic, whenever there is an object being described (in this case Adam) then the descripter, when it ends with "hu" in this case sooratuHU, it refers back to the last ism (noun) that was referred to and not to any noun (ism) before it.
Since Adam was the final ism (noun, entity) being referred to before the utterance "sooratuhu", then the grammarians argued that the "hu" in soorah refers back GRAMMATICALLY to Adam and it oppose basic jaahili Arabic principles to refer it back to a previous entity, in this case "Allah"

In short speak, the phrase
"khalaqallahu Adam bi sooratuhu"

the objective pronoun "hu" in soorah is referring back to the final chronologically listed ism (noun) which in this case is Adam and does not refer back to a previous ism before the chronological final ism, in this case "Allah"

This is the reasoning of most of the grammarians an it seems that the ummah generally fell into two general ideas about this hadeeth, which is that

1. they followed the grammarians in their argument and thus they never had any qualms with the hadeeth as they grammatically knew what was being referred to by "in his own image"
and
2. those who did opine that he was created to the image of Allah UNDERSTOOD the narration in light of what the orthodox theologians I have listed above have explained, which is perfectly understandable when reviewing the Qur'an between the ayaah that convey no likeness and between other ayaah that Allah uses terminologies that imply likeness and we affirm these names with their basic meaning, but relegate the aspect of its howness to the Lord of the worlds.

Both of these ideas were what the Muslims remained upon till now, and the Muslims never in the history of fourteen centuries

source: Differences in approach to Islam between Optimist and Sunni Muslims

secondly, the above statement in bold along with the two approaches adopted by the ummah on this particular hadeeth is the end result of the matter which is why discussion of the issue is fruitless. It doesnt matter how we look at it, if someone approaches it according to the view of the lughawis, they are looking at it from a pure lughawi aspect and has nothing to do with mutazilism or any of the kalaamis even though the kalaamis concede to the same view. They just merely concede through a whole different system of thought i.e. kalaam thought. Based on this Imaam Ahmad was known to have said

"whoever traversed upon the way of kalaam and came up right (meaning landed on the correct opinion) then he is wrong, and whoever traversed upon the sunnah and came up wrong, then he is on the right"

therefore, with this statement of Imaam Ahmad, he was highlighting these two madhaabs which are extremely worlds apart between ahlul-kalaam and ahlu-sunnah.

likewise, if someone approaches the hadeeth from the aspect of "hu" suffering to Allah (and I consider this approach more valid based on the soundness of its implications and the lack of soundness of the implications of the lughawi standpoint) then BY DEFAULT, the people who adopt this approach ALSO add to it the formula "laysa kamithlihi shay". Hence when both are brought, it creates the harmony of likeness in terms of attribution and not likeness in terms of exactitude.

therefore no one should view that the first approach is kalaami approach and no one should view that the second approach is applying a similitude to Allah

wallahul-alim

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Aayah

May I ask how they view all the names (Asmaa' Al husna) that explain his sifat in the Quran? like Al-Rahman, Al-Raheem?

What is their interpretation for those names?

1. simple

read a book by Aristotle or philosophy and you will understand the WHOLE of the ahlul-kalaam movement.

2. each sect within the ahlul-kalaam vary

the jahmiyyah denied ALL BOTH Names and Attributes
the Mutazilah denieal ALL Attributes but Affirmed the names
Ashaa'ira denied ALL Attributes Except for the seven affirmed attributes called Sifaat al-Ikhtiyariyyah like
Life, Power, Sight, Hearing, Seeing, and I forgot the other two, but they affirmed in a literal fashion the 7 attributes while denying VIA t'awil the sifaatul-khabariyyah.
Maturidis differed with the ash'aris in some aspects

3. some of their interpretations may conclude the following

the Mutazilah interpreted the ayaat istiwaa alal-Arsh by using an old jaahili arabic ode

qad istawa Bishrun `ala al-`Iraq min ghayri sayfin wa damin muhraq

Bishr established mastery over Iraq without sword and without shedding blood.

Ibn Hajar said: The Mu`tazila said its meaning is "establishing dominion through subjugation and overpowering" (al-istila' bi al-qahr wa al-ghalaba), citing as a proof the above statement. Abu Mansoor al-Baghdadee and others exposed that this idea was from the mutazilah. This was how they were able to alter the term "istiwaa" to
"istila".

another example. All of the ahlul-kalaam concede to interpret "Yad" as "Qudra" or Power.

[salman]

^adding to this list; they also interpret Allah's coming as Mercy.

[Sampharo]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

firstly, i think this whole argument and debate is not only of no benefit, but it is of no use. there is nothing to be gained here.

Brother Al-Boriqee there is definitely a benefit here. Like I said before we're not trying to know this so that we solve a fiqhee issue, but we are scholars of Islam and since this matter is presented in multiple authentic hadiths we needed to understand it to its best.

Now I know you may still think it doesn't add to the belief or aqida, but it does add a lot to our ability to REFUTE those of false aqida and beliefs.

As a matter of fact this very issue came up when some modernist was trying to establish that Hadiths need to be denied based on content as well not just bad narrative authenticity, and he brought this as an example. So in short I do believe that there is benefit here and I hope that every participant can bring the most information.

I am certainly not expecting to "resolve" the 1400 year old split of opinions and somehow "arrive" at the correct view, but my problem is that through all my resources (and they are not little!) I am just unable to find the earlier references to the murajjah Ahlu Sunnah belief regarding this hadith and this matter.

Like I mentioned the Ibn Taymeyya reference I found seems to be that he says the likeness is not regarding function, but likeness.

I would like to see and discuss more references if possible. At least exhaust them, so that I do not get caught without available knowledge on the matter being with me.

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

the jahmiyyah denied ALL BOTH Names and Attributes

So what they call all the attributes and the names that mentioned in the Quran? or what is their excuse for denying them? how they look at them?

^"if this is going off topic, we can discuss it later in another thread inshaAllah"



As for the purpose of the thread, I think brother Sampharo said it better. Above all, we are not debating here....we just want to reach a better understanding of the proofs we have in our hands from Quran and Sunnah, that's all.

JazakumAllah khair