Meaning of the hadeeth which says that Allaah created Adam in His Image .

I am asking about the correct understanding ofthe hadeeth, "Adam was
created in the Image of the Most Merciful"?.
Praise be to Allaah.
It was narrated from AbuHurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) said: "Allaah created Adam in His Image…"
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6227; Muslim, 2841.
With regard to the hadeeth, "Do not (insult one another) and say 'May
Allaah make your face ugly', because Adamwas created in the Image of the
Most Merciful," this was classed as da'eef (weak) by al-Albaani in
al-Silsilah al-Da'eefah, no. 1176.
Perhaps the questioner is confused by this hadeeth because of the verse
in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
"There is nothing like Him"
[al-Shoora 42:11]
The scholars answered this problem in two ways: a brief answer anda
detailed answer.
The brief answer is that it is impossible for this hadeeth to contradict
the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
"There is nothing like Him"
[al-Shoora 42:11]
If we find a way to reconcile between them,all well and good, otherwise
we should say,
" 'We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.' And none receive admonition except men of understanding"
[Aal 'Imraan 3:7 – interpretation of the meaning]
We believe that there is nothing like unto Allaah and thus we will be on
the safe side before Allaah. These are the words of Allaah, and these
are the words of His Messenger; both are true and it is impossible for
one of them to belie the other. So we say thatthe verse shows that His
creation cannot resemble Allaah, and the hadeeth affirms that Allaah has
an Image. Both are true and we believe in them; we say that both are
from our Lord, and remain silent thereafter. This is all thatwe can do.
See Sharh al-Waasitiyyahby Ibn 'Uthaymeen.
With regard to the detailed answer:
This hadeeth proves thatAllaah has an Image, andthat Allaah created
Adamin His Image.
But there is nothing in this hadeeth to indicate that the image of Adam
(peace be upon him) resembles the Image of Allaah, rather this meaning
is absolutely false and was not meant by the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him), because Allaah says (interpretation of
the meaning):
"There is nothing like Him"
[al-Shoora 42:11]
The fact that one thing islikened to another does not mean that it is
identical to it in all aspects, rather they are likened to one another
because they share someattributes, but that does not means that every
attribute is identical.
This is indicated by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him): "The first group to be admitted to Paradise willbe
in the image of the moon on the night whenit is full." Narrated by
al-Bukhaari, 3327; Muslim, 2834.
This hadeeth does not mean that they will enter Paradise in a form that
is exactly like the moon in all regards, otherwise that would mean that
they will enter Paradise with no eyes or mouths, or as rocks.
Rather what the hadeethmeans is that they will be like the moon in
beauty and brightness, with shining faces, and so on.
So if you say: what is theImage that belongs to Allaah and in which Adam
was created? We say that Allaah has a Faceand Eyes and Hands and Feet,
but that does not mean that because of these things He resembles man.
There may be some similarity but that does not mean that these things
are identical, just as the first group of the people of Paradise to
enter Paradise are likened to the moon, but that does not mean that they
resemble the moon. This confirms the belief of Ahlal-Sunnah
wa'l-Jamaa'ah, that none of the attributes ofAllaah can be likened to
the attributes of created beings, and they do not misinterpret the
Divine attributes or deny them, and they do not liken them to the
attributes ofhuman beings.
See Sharh al-'Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih
al-'Uthaymeen, part 1, p. 107-110.

Names and Attributes of Allah, - Ruling on using the name ‘Abd al-Ilaah.

What is the ruling on using the name 'Abd al-Ilaah? Is this (al-Ilaah=
the God) one of the names and attributes of Allaah? I hope you will give
a detailed answer.
Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly: One of the things that is liked in giving names is to choose a
name that indicates servitude to Allaah i.e., 'Abd [slave] plus one of
the names of Allaah, whether that is 'Abd-Allaah [slave of Allaah] or
the word 'Abd plus any of the beautiful names of Allaah. The most
beloved of such names to Allaah are the names 'Abd-Allaah and 'Abd
al-Rahmaan (slave of the Most Merciful].
Secondly: It is haraam to give such names that indicate servitude to
anyone or anything other than Allaah, such as 'Abd al-Rasool [slave of
the Messenger] or 'Abd al-Nabi (slave of theProphet] and so on. See also
the answer to question no. 7180 .
Thirdly: al-Ilaah in Arabicmeans "the One Who is worshipped" or "the
OneWho deserves to be adored and worshipped". The idols were called
aalihah (gods) because the mushrikeen worshipped them instead of Allaah,
and claimed that they were deserving of that. See Ishtiqaaq Asma' Allaah
by Abu'l-Qaasim al-Zujaaji, p. 30; Lisaan al-'Arab, entry for aliha.
Some scholars said that the word "Allaah" is derived from the word
"al-Ilaah" (the God). This is the view favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim and
other scholars, and the initial alif of the word ilaah was elided.
Fourthly: is al-Ilaah one of the names of Allaah, and is it permissible
to use it in a name signifying servitude to Him, or not?
The name al-Ilaah is included among the beautiful names of Allaah which
are listed insome versions of the hadeeth, "Allaah has ninety-nine
names…", as we see it narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Asma' wa'l-Sifaat,
and by al-Haakim. But the list of names in this hadeeth is not the words
of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), according to
the scholars who are well-versed in hadeeth, as was mentioned by Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Hajar and other scholars. See
Asma' Allaah al-Husna by 'Abd-Allaah ibn Saalih al-Ghusn, p. 170-173
Because the reports which list the names of Allaah are not reliable,
many scholars have triedto find these names in the Qur'aan and
Sunnah.Among those who included the name al-Ilaah in their lists of the
beautiful names of Allaah are: Ibn Mandah, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Hajar, Ibn
al-Wazeer and Ibn 'Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on them). See op.
cit., 352.
Based on that, it is permissible to use the name 'Abd al-Ilah, and there
is nothing wrong with that, in sha Allah. However, it seems that this
name was not known in the past."
We do not find this name among the Sahaabah, based on what we see in
al-Isaabah by Ibn Hajar. We do not find it among the names mentioned in
biographies by various authors, such as Fahaarisal-Siyar by al-Dhahabi,
Tabaqaat al-Shaafa'iyyah by Ibn al-Subki, Wafiyaat by IbnKhalkaan,
al-Tahdheeb by Ibn Hajar, and others. The first usage of this name that
we have come across is 'Abd al-Ilaah ibn 'Ali ibn al-Husayn al-Haashimi,
who was born in 1331 AH and died in 1377, as mentioned by al-Zarkali in
al-A'laam. This is obviously very recent.

A fishy tale: transition from water to land

Evolutionists assume that the sea invertebrates thatappear in the
Cambrian stratum somehow evolved into fish in tens of million years.
However, just as Cambrian invertebrates have no ancestors, there are no
transitional links indicating that an evolution occurred between these
invertebrates and fish. It should be noted that invertebrates and fish
have enormous structuraldifferences. Invertebrateshave hard tissues
outsidetheir bodies, whereas fish are vertebrates that have hard tissues
inside. Such an enormous "evolution" event ought to have been supported
by billions of transitional forms displaying the intervening changes.
Evolutionists have been digging fossil strata for about 140 years
looking for these hypothetical forms, they have found millions of
invertebrate fossils and millions of fishfossils; yet nobody has ever
found even one thatis midway between them.
An evolutionist paleontologist, Gerald T. Todd admits this fact in an
article titled "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes" :
"All three subdivisions of the bony fishes first appear in the fossil
record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent
morphologically, and they are heavily armored.How did they originate?
What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have
heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"
The evolutionary scenario goes one step further and argues that fish
evolved from invertebrates, then transformed into amphibians. But this
scenario also lacks evidence. There is not even a single fossil
verifying that a half-fish/half-amphibian creature has ever existed.This
fact is confirmed (albeit reluctantly) by a well-known evolutionist
authority, Robert L. Carroll, who is the authorof Vertebrate
Paleontology and Evolution as: "We have no intermediate fossils between
rhipidistian fish(his favourite 'ancestors' of tetrapods) and early
amphibians." Two evolutionist paleontologists, Colbert and Morales,
comment onthe three basic classes of amphibians – frogs, salamanders,
and caecilians:
"There is no evidence of any Paleozoic amphibian combining the
characteristics that would be expected in a single common ancestor. The
oldest known frogs, salamanders and caecilians are very similarto their
living descendants."
Until about fifty years ago, evolutionists thought that such a creature
indeed existed. This fish, called a Coelacanth, which was estimated to
be 410 million years of age, was put forward as a transitional form with
a primitive lung, a developed brain, a digestive and a circulatory
system ready to function on land and even a primitive walking mechanism.
These anatomical interpretations were accepted as undisputed truth among
scientific circles until the end of the 1930s. The Coelacanthwas
presented as a genuine transitional form that proved the evolutionary
transition from water to land.
However, on December 22, 1938, a very interesting discovery wasmade in
the Indian Ocean . A living member of the Coelacanth family, previously
presented as atransitional from that had become extinct 70 million years
ago, was caught! The discovery of a "living" prototype of Coelacanth
undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionist
paleontologist J. L.B. Smith said that he could not have been more
surprised if he had come across a living dinosaur. In the years to come,
200 Coelacanths were caught many times in different parts of the world.
Living Coelacanths revealed how far the evolutionists could go in making
up their imaginary scenarios. Contrary to claims, Coelacanths had
neither a primitive lung nor a large brain. The organ that evolutionist
researchers proposed as a primitive lung turned out to be nothing but a
lipid pouch. Furthermore,the Coelacanth, which was introduced as "a
reptile candidate getting prepared to pass from sea to land," was in
reality a fish that lived in the depths of oceans and never approached a
distance of less than 180 meters from the surface.
Why Transition From Water to Land is Impossible
Evolutionists claim that one day, a species dwelling in water somehow
stepped onto land and was transformed into a land-dwelling species.
There are a number of obvious facts that render such a transition
impossible:
1. Weight-bearing: Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing
their own weight in the sea.
However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy
just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition
from water to land would, at the same time, have had to develop
newmuscular and skeletal systems (!) to meet this energy need, and this
could not have come about by chance mutations.
2. Heat Retention: On land, the temperature can change quickly and
fluctuates over a wide range. Land-dwelling creatures possess a physical
mechanism that can withstand such great temperature changes. However, in
the sea, the temperature changes slowly and within a narrower range. A
living organism with a body system regulated according to the
constantsea temperature, would need to acquire a protective system to
ensure minimum harm from the temperature changes on land. It is
preposterous to claim that fish acquired such a system by random
mutations as soon as theystepped onto land.
3. Water: Since it is essential for metabolism, water needs to be used
economically due to its relative scarcity on land. For instance, the
skin has to be able to permit a certain amount of water loss, while
preventing excessive evaporation simultaneously. That is why
land-dwelling creatures experience thirst, something the sea-dwelling
creatures do not do. For this reason, the skin of sea-dwelling animals
is not suitable for a non-aquatic habitat.
4. Kidneys: Sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially
ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be
used economically. This is why these living beings have a complex
excretory system comprising the kidneys and other organs. Thanks to the
kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum
amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems
are needed to support the kidney's functioning. In short, for the
passage of organismsfrom water to land to have occurred, living things
without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
5. Respiratory system: Fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in
water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live for more
thana few minutes out of water. In order to surviveon land, they would
haveto acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
It is most certainly impossible that all these dramatic physiological
changes could have happened in the same organism at the same time, and
all by chance.

The Concise Presentation of the Fiqh of the Sunnahand the Noble Quran

There is no doubt that there is a considerable shortage in the books of
Fiqh in the English language. The need is so big, almost any time an
additional book found itsway to the market, it became an immediate
success.
This should not, however,be construed to mean that Fiqh is an easy
subject to write about. On the contrary, the books of Fiqh are not all
equal. A few can quickly distinguish themselves especially if they were
to be small and brief in their presentation of the issues discussed in
addition to being based on Daleel (evidence) fromthe Quran and the
Sunnah and not on mere statements of what a specific Math-hab (School of
Jurisprudence) or scholar says about the topics included. And the book
at hand, in this review, is one such book.
This is not a statement against following the well-known four Mathaahib
(plural of Math-hab ) –by necessity; the overwhelming majority of
Muslims must follow one of them. Any Muslim who is not a scholar capable
of making Ijtihad must follow a Math-hab –in fact even when we don't
know it, anytime we consult a book, seeking an answer or a Fatwa, or ask
a scholar for it, our Math-hab becomes that of whoever gives us the
answer or the Fatwa. What is a major shortcoming of most Mathaahib books
–especially the late ones—is that they have eliminated the mention of
the Daleel which made them mere statements of rulings—thus taking
Ittiba' or `following' out of context and making it pure imitation of
others as well as missing the chance of educating theirfollowers.
Throughout this book, the Concise Presentation of the Fiqh of the Sunnah
and the Noble Quran, a Muslim can learn most of the topics of Ibadah
(acts of worship) as well as many of most needed issues of Mu'amalat
(dealings) in our times with great ease and confidence. " ...albeit
small in comparison with the larger works, " this book, as described by
theforwarder, " has combined together two books. " What he meant was
that the extensive use of Hadeeth, by the author, as evidence for the
issues discussed, made the book look like a book of Hadeeth combined
with a book of Fiqh . This is a great display of the statements and
actions of the Prophet Muhammad thus the " ...combination of these two
is a great blessing. "
Since this book was originally written in Arabic, it is important to
mention that its translation is professional and faithful to the subject
which should make it easy to read and facilitate the learning of Fiqh
from it. Also, this edition containshelpful tools that should further
facilitate understanding and learning, and an easy to follow Glossary
with Arabic to English translation, a transliteration chart and a
Symbols directory.
One good advantage of this book is that it draws from Saheeh or
authenticnarrations, which allows the reader to grasp basic aspects of
Fiqh but not get overwhelmed with lengthy details that typically arise
from relying on disputed narrations. Over all, I was very impressed by
the book and I pray that everyone who reads it feels the same and learns
a lot from it. In reading the final words of the author I felt a great
deal of satisfaction because his statement at the last section in the
book dealt with emancipation. He did so hoping to get emancipated from
Hellfire and receive the mercy of the All-Compassionate, Most-Merciful
God, Allah—may He be praisedand glorified.