Pursuant to hadiths and history, during reigns of the Prophet and Abu Bakr, the conception that Allah, the Elevated, is not classified to visible or sensible matters since He is a Being of a degree higher than materialities, was commonly prevalent. Hence, sights cannot fall on Him, and allusions cannot attain Him. He is reachable by intellects and seeable by minds the visions of which are more elevated and deeper than those of eyes.

During and after Omar's reign, conceptions of God's seeableness and corporalism were generally prevalent. The Prophet's household and some companions took the charge of refuting and belying such misallegations.

Like many others, Ummul­Muminin 9, Aisha, was stunned by such odd sayings far away from Islamic beliefs and contrary to the Prophet's conveyance of Allah's mission.

Aisha expounded upon falsity of such narratives. She declared: "Such sayings are impending lies forged against Allah, the Elevated, and His Apostle. Muslims should refute and belie such malicious accusation."

The following is related in Al-Bukhari's As-Sahih (Book of hadith), part 6 page 50:

Masruq: I asked Aisha (God may please her) whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) had seen his Lord. "Your words have made my hair chill!" said Aisha, and added, "You should know three things the talker of which is surely a liar. He is certainly a fabricator that whoever tells of Mohammed's having seen his Lord. (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware. 6:103), (And it is not for any mortal 

____________

7. Shafiism is one of the four major Sunni jurisprudential sects, founded by Mohammed Bin Idris Ashafii. 

8. 'Verses in this regard stands for the Quranic texts, while hadith stands for the Prophetic texts.

9. Ummul-Muminin ( Mother of the believers) is a name exclusively said to the Prophet's wives. 

that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil; 42:51).

He is also lying that whoever tells of realizing the morrow, (And no one knows what he shall earn on the morrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die. 31:34).

He is also lying that whoever tells of the Prophet's having concealed, (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message. 5:67). Yes indeed, the Prophet could see the Angel Gabriel twice in his actual appearance."

In His As-Sahih, part 8, page 166, Al-Bukhari also records:

Ashi'bi: Masruq: Aisha (God may please her) stated:

"He is fabricating that whoever tells of Mohammed's having seen his Lord, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.) He is fabricating that whoever claims of realizing the future, (Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen but Allah. 27:65)."

Similar narratives are written down in Al-Bukhari's As-Sahih, volume 2, part 4 page 83 and Volume 3 part 6, page 50 and volume 4 page 83.

Muslim's As­Sahih (Book of Hadith), part 1 page 110:

Aisha stated: "He is fabricating that whoever tells of Mohammed's having seen his Lord."

The same is recorded in An-Nisa'i's book of Tafseer -exegesis of the Holy Quran-, part 2.

On page 245 of the same previous reference, the following is recorded:

Abu Dherr stated: The Prophet saw his Lord by his heart, not eye."

This narrative is also written down in Irshadus­Sari, part 5, 7 and 10, page 276, 359 and 356. Ar-Razi, in his Al-Mettalibul-Aliya, volume 1, part 1 page 87, records the same.

In At-Tirmithi's As-Sunen, part 4 page 328, the following is recorded:

Masruq: I was before Aisha when she spoke: "O Abu Aisha! He is forging a serious falsification against Allah, that whoever discusses one of three subjects. He whoever claims of Mohammed's having seen his Lord is forging serious falsification against Allah Who says, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware. 6:103), (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil. 42:51)."

I, immediately, sat erect and wondered: "O mother of believers! With relaxation answer me, please. God says, (And certainly he saw him in another descent. 53:13), (And of a truth he saw him on the clear horizon. 81:23)"

She commented, "By God I swear, I was the first who asked the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) about this matter. He answered that it was Gabriel whom he had seen. He also added that saving these two occasions, he had not seen the Angel in his actual appearance. He saw him descend from the heavens, blocking all what is between the heavens and earth due to tremendousness of his creation." She, then, added, "Similarly, he whoever claims of Mohammed's having concealed any of what was revealed to him, is forging serious accusation against Allah Who says, (O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord; and if you do it not, then you have not delivered His message. 5:67). He whoever claims of realizing the morrow is forging serious accusation against Allah Who says, (Say: No one in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen but Allah. 27:65).

At-Tirmithi commentates:

This hadith is authentic and qualified with a rather doubtful narrator. Masruq Bin Al­Ajda is called 'Abu Aisha'.

At-Tabari, in his book of Tafseer, part 27, page 30, relates the same narrative. On page 200 of the same reference, a similar hadith is written down:

Ashi'bi: Aisha stated, "He whoever claims of having seen his Lord is forging a serious falsification against Allah Who says, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions; and He is the Knower of subtleties, the Aware.)"

Adopters of this conception claim that comprehension, in the Verse involved, stands for sight. They deny that Allah can be seen neither in this world nor in the Hereafter. Regarding the Verse, (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking at [waiting for] their Lord. 75:23­4), they allege that 'looking' in the Verse stands for waiting for God's mercy.

Ahmed, in his book of hadith, part 6, page 49, relates a similar narrative with the following addition:

Aisha said: Glorified be Allah! Your words have made my hair chill!

Al-Baghawi relates an alike narrative in part 4 page 30 of Massabihus-Sunneh.

As-Suheili, in Ar-Rawdhil-Enif, part 2, page 156 and An-Nuweiri, in Nihayetul-Ireb, part 8, page 16, hadith 295, relate the previous with the following addition: 

Aisha said: "My hair is chilled."

As he relates a similar narrative in part 3 page 252 of his Al-Jawahirul-Hisan, At-Thalibi comments:

Al-Beihaqi opted for narratives of Aisha, Ibn Mas'ud and Abu Hureira involving that it was Gabriel, the Angel, who had been intended in the visions mentioned in the Verses, (Then he drew near, then he bowed… 53:8). Shureik's narrative, however, is repealed by Abu Dherr's most authentic one: "O Apostle of Allah! Have you seen your Lord?" asked Abu Dherr. "He is brilliance. How can I see brilliance?!" answered the Prophet.

Regarding God's saying, (The heart was not untrue in making him see what he saw. 53:11), Ibn Abbas claims that Mohammed (peace be upon him) has seen his Lord with eyes of his head. Aisha denies so: "I myself asked Allah's Apostle about these Verses. He told that Gabriel, the Angel, was the one seen."

Ibn Jazi, in his At-Tasihil, part 2, page 381, records:

Some claimed that the Prophet had seen Allah, the Elevated. Aisha denied this claim.

The following is recorded in At-Thehbi's Siyeru A'lamin-Nubela, part 2 page 166:

Aisha (God please her): "He whoever claims of Mohammed's having seen his Lord, is forging serious falsification against Allah, the Elevated. The Prophet saw Gabriel twice in his actual appearance which was blocking all what is between horizons."

We had no single evident narrative involving the Prophet's having seen his lord with his eyes. This question, however, is not that important since a Muslim may disregard. Regarding narratives of seeing Allah in dreams, a good number of variant acceptable reports has been related. Texts regarding seeing Allah with eyes in the Hereafter are so uninterrupted that certitude is obtained. Ad­Darqutni, Al­Beihaqi and others compiled reports regarding the topic concerned.

At-Thehbi, in his commentary on Ahmed's book of hadith, part 6 page 2416, records:

Ibn Abi Edi: Dawud Bin Abi Hind: Ashi'bi: Masruq:

Before Aisha, I said, "God says, (And certainly he saw him in another descent. 53:13), (And of a truth he saw him on the clear horizon. 81:23)"

She commented: "I was the first who asked the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) about these Verses. He answered that it was Gabriel whom he had seen. He also added that saving these two occasions, he had not seen 

the Angel in his actual appearance. He saw him descend from the heavens, blocking all what is between the heavens and earth due to tremendousness of his creation."

Muslim relates this report, numbered 177, to Ashi'bi. He records it in Chapter: Faith, Title: 

Significance of God's saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent.) Al­Bukhari, relating it to Ashi'bi and Masruq, records the report in part 8 page 466.

For At­Tirmithi, the report is numbered 3278. In his book of Tafseer, he relates it to Sufian: Mujalid: Ashi'bi. It is, however, of authentic documentation.

Aisha's denial, in fact, included seeing Allah in the Hereafter. At-Tabari supports this meaning; therefore, At-Thehbi and others had to find acceptable construction for Aisha's reports particularly, and Verses and reports respecting denial of seeing Allah generally. Additionally, they forbade from debating reports respecting seeing God and the divine attributes. Besides, they denied and reckoned with deviation and atheism all those debating such subjects. Further discussion to be provided later on.

Forging lies stands for fabricating grave heresies and speaking intentional lies against religion of Allah, the Exalted. Meanings of the Arabic 'firya' are detailedly discussed in Al-Khalil's Al-Ein, part 8 page 280, Al-Jawhari's As-Sihah part 6 page 24 and Ar-Raghib's Al-Mufredat, page 379.

It is not unacceptable to state that the origin of the expression of 'forging lies against Allah' is the Prophet. It is probable that Aisha and the Prophet's household adopted the expression from Allah. 

____________

10. Hashawism is an Islamic theologian subsect. 

Ahmed, in his book of hadith, part 3 page 491, relates:

Wathila Bin Al-Asqa: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "The gravest forging against Allah are three:…"

Similarly, it is impracticable that this expression was used for describing the Jews. 

In Majma'uzzawa'id, part 4 page 122, Al-Heithami records:

As he glanced at the Jews' date­palm trees, Abdullah Bin Rawaha stated, "I, by God, lack knowledge of creatures more functional in forging lies against Allah and more antagonistic to Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) than you."

The next narrative indicates that the Jews were the source of forging lies against Allah, the Elevated.

Al-Majlisi, in Biharul-Anwar, part 36 page 194, records:

Ibn Abbas: Omar Bin Al-Khattab asked Ka'bul-Ahbar whether he had retained the Torah. Ka'b answered affirmatively. A man attending at that session sought Omar's asking Ka'b to mention where God had been before he created the Throne, and from which element He, the Elevated, had created the water on which He located His Throne. "Yes, Amirul-Muminin!" answered Ka'b, "In the Wise Origin, we exposed that Allah, the Blessed and Exalted, had been anterior before creation of the Throne. He was establishing Himself on the rock of Jerusalem in ether. As He willed to create His Throne, He salivated a single spit from which deep oceans and revolved waves were originated. There, He created His Throne from a part of the rock on which He was settling. The rest of that rock was taken as a mosque of His Sacredness."

Ali Bin Abi Talib, who was also attending, stood erect and shaked his dresses uttering expressions of glorifying and exalting the Lord. Omar adjured him to return to his place. Ali responded. "Sink for it, you great diver! What is your commentary, Abul-Hassan! You have been always relieving troubles," Omar addressed at Ali. "Wrong were your acquaintances!" Ali (peace be upon him) turned to Ka'b, "They distorted Book of Allah and inaugurated forging lies against Him. Woe is you, Ka'b! The rock you have intended should never accommodate Allah's exaltation, or comprehend His prominence. The ether you have mentioned should never maintain His sides. Had the rock and the ether been anterior, they would have had His anteriority. Allah, the Elevated, is more excellent than having an indicated place. Unlike sayings of unbelievers and surmise of the ignorant, Allah was existing when there was no place in a form unattainable by mentalities. My saying 'was' is a lack of His being. It is a part of what He had taught from mode of expression. Allah, the Magnified the Exalted, says, (He created man, taught him mode of expression. 55:3­4) Using 'was' for Him is a part of mode of expression He had taught so 

that I would speak out His arguments and excellence. Our Lord was and still potent of doing whatever he desires, aware of everything. He, then, composed what He desires without referring to an occurring idea or an intercepting confusedness. He, the Magnified the Exalted, created a light originated from nothing. Then, darkness was prompted from that light. Like creation of light, He had the capability of creating darkness from nothing. From that darkness, He created a light from which a ruby, as crammed as seven heavens and seven earths. Owing to His chiding, the ruby deliquesced for His consensus. It was transferred into water shaky till Day of Resurrection. He then created His Throne from His own light, and established it on water. The Throne has ten thousand tongues, each is praising Allah in ten thousand totally different languages. Draperies of haze were down the Throne when settled on water. This is the significance of His saying, (And his throne was on water that he might manifest to you. 11:7).

Woe is you, Ka'b! He whose spit was these oceans, as you claim, should be greatly larger than being contained by the rock of Jerusalem or the ether you have indicated to."

Immediately, Omar Bin Al-Khattab laughed and confessed, "This is it, indeed. This is the knowledge, not yours, Ka'b. May God terminate me before being in time Abul-Hassan is absent."

In addition to many others, these persuading texts lead to perceiving that existence of a trace of the Jewish culture in the question had been the motive beyond such an abundant denial and firm situation.

The following is quoted from Al-Albani's Al-Fatawi page 143:

Not only was conception of Allah's seeableness referred to by the Prophet's tradition, but also it was asserted in the Holy Quran that is uninterruptedly related to the Prophet. Regarding the Exalted's saying, (Some faces on that day shall be bright. Looking at [waiting for] their Lord.), the faces intended are surely the believers' who shall be looking at their Lord. Mutazilites and Shias invented a philosophy indicating that meaning of the Verse is looking at the Lord's boons. Such sorts of philosophy is surely an ax destructuring the authentic traditions.

Al-Albani and his likes, as a matter of fact, missed the fact that it is impermissible to rest upon a part of the Holy Quran and neglect others. Thus, it is essential to take in consideration the Verses, (Visions comprehend him not,) and (Nothing like a likeness of Him;), in addition to many others pertaining denying Allah's seeableness. The next step is lining the decisive with the allegorical Verses. In this regard it is so appreciable to cite that the Verse 

involved is revealing a morrow situation before entering to the Paradise. This is evidenced by God's saying, (And other faces on that day shall be gloomy, knowing that they will be made to befall them some great calamity. 75:25­6)

The believers' faces shall be tending to their Lord, waiting for His mercy and bounty. The unbelievers', on the other hand, shall be lassitude, anticipating His penalty. As a result, the Verses are lacking any signal to ocular sight at Allah's Entity whether after or before abiding in the Paradise.

Secondly, they missed that considering disregarding narratives about Allah's seeableness is a sort of destructuring the Prophet's tradition, it is they who did perpetrate such a destruction since they disregarded the authentic narratives of Aisha recorded by Al­Bukhari, Muslim and others.

It is seemly to say that Verses regarding denial of Allah's seeableness are downright and decisive. It is also improper to intersect such Verses by others the surface perspectives of which show Allah's optical seeableness. Allegorical Verses should be measured to the decisive, and their appearances should be passed.

Within the hadiths, there are those denying Allah's seeableness and others admitting. Both are authentic and recorded in dependable references. They are too contrasted to be regarded. Hence, it is necessary to favor some and neglect the others. It is ill­timed to arise the misallegation that Mutazilites and Shias were the originators of such denial and regarding such a denial as destructuring the Prophet's traditions. The entire adopters of Allah's optical seeableness, such as Al­Albani and Bin Baz, hint at narratives of Aisha. Meanwhile, those who ruled of impracticability of Allah's seeableness and corporeality referred to narratives of Allah's seeableness. This matter, then, is not reckoned with destructuring of the Prophet's traditions. In study of principals of jurisprudence, this matter is named 'equality and preponderancy'. One of the conclusive principal of this discipline is favoring the most suitable group to the less in case it is unworkable to combine contrasted hadiths. Preference, here, is the share of hadiths of denying Allah's seeableness. The following are additional points of superiority of hadiths regarding denial of Allah's seeableness:

Hadiths regarding denial of Allah's seeableness are concordant to Quranic decisive Verses, such as, (Visions comprehend him not, and he comprehends all visions), and (Nothing like a likeness of Him;).

Hadiths involved are concordant to origin. The origin, however, is ruling of impracticability of Allah's optical seeableness till a decisive proof is provided.

Hadiths of the Prophet's household and Aisha regarding denial of Allah's seeableness are opposing and nullifying the others. Hadiths of Allah's seeableness, however, are neither opposing nor nullifying the others. 

Unlike those proving Allah's seeableness, hadiths of impracticability of Allah's seeableness are concordant to the decisive ruling of intellect. 

In his Kitabut­Tawhid, page 225, Ibn Khuzeima records:

As much as I conceive, Aisha uttered her words while she was highly enraged. It was more becoming for her to use a better utterance for communicating her idea. It is unacceptable for any to pronounce, "Ibn Abbas, Abu Dherr, Anas Bin Malik or any group of people had forged a grave fabrication against their Lord!" People, however, may use words of less value during rage. The extensiveness of this matter can be summarized by stating that Aisha, Abu Dherr, Ibn Abbas and Anas Bin Malik were engaged in dispute appertained to the subject whether the Prophet (peace be upon him) had seen his Lord or not. Aisha (God please her) answers with negation, while Abu Dherr and Ibn Abbas (God please them) affirm so. Aisha does not relate that the Prophet himself has informed her of not seeing his Lord, the Elevated (!), she only repeats Quranic Verses, (Visions comprehend him not,) and (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;). A scrutinizing glance at the Verses involved, with being guided to the correct, exposes that both have nothing inciting to forging grave lies against Allah! God's saying, (Visions comprehend him not), may refer to two meanings adopted by followers of conception of Allah's seeableness. First, it may be accordant to the saying of 'the Quran's interpreter' addressed at Ikrima, the slave, "That is His brilliance which is his brilliance. Nothing would comprehend Him when He comes into view by His brilliance." The second meaning is that people's eyes cannot comprehend Him. Pursuant to the Arabic tongue, the item 'absar' ­visions­ includes commonly a group's eyes. It is unfeasible to use 'absar' for individuals' eyes. The item 'basar' ­vision­ expresses an individual's eyes. In a like fashion, it is impracticable to use 'basaran' ­two visions­ for expressing an individual's eyes. Hence, it is unacceptable to use 'absar' for expressing a single individual's organs of sight. Falsity and prevarication shall be certainly imputed to us if we claim that visions can see our Lord in this world.

Claiming of the Prophet's having seen his Lord exclusively does not propose that visions have seen the Lord in this world. How is it, ye, possessors of intellects, practical for those who deny the Prophet's having seen his Lord exclusively, to prove that visions have seen the Lord. Perceiving this point leads to understanding that Ibn Abbas, Abu Dherr, Anas Bin Malik and their adherents had neither forged grave lies against Allah nor had they opposed a single letter of Allah's Book regarding this question!!

Aisha uttered the Verse, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), during providing evidences on impracticability of the Prophet's having seen his Lord. Neither Abu Dherr, 

Ibn Abbas, Anas Bin Malik (God please them) nor did any of their followers, in the question involved, allege that Allah communicate the Prophet in these very moments of seeing. Therefore, none could attest any sort of contrast to the Verse concerned. Those claiming the Prophet's having seen his Lord are not opposing God's saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;). Those claiming God's having communicated the Prophet at the same time of their reciprocal optical viewing, are only opposing the Verse.

In spite of his exalted standing, scholarship, god­fearing and position in Islam and knowledge, Ibn Omar seeks the reality of this question from the Quran's interpreter and the Prophet's cousin. "Has the Prophet (peace be upon him) seen his Lord?" Ibn Omar asks Ibn Abbas as he esteems his full acquaintance of this question. It was proved that Ibn Abbas could certify the Prophet's having seen his Lord. This question, in fact, is not attained by intellects, opinions, hearts and conjecture. Such a knowledge is received through prophetic course only. This course, however, is limited to a divine book or a favorable prophet. As much as I am to surmise, no single acquainted individual may doubt that personal inference and conjecture were the authors of Ibn Abbas's claiming of the Prophet's having seen his Lord. The same may be said about Abu Dherr and Anas Bin Malik.

Conclusively, we should repeat the words of Mu'ammar Bin Rashid regarding discrepancy between Aisha (God please her) and Ibn Abbas (God please him) about question of Allah's optical seeableness. "For us, Aisha is not more knowledgeable than Ibn Abbas." We add that Aisha, the veracious and daughter of the veracious and dearest of God's dearest, was educated and jurisprudent. Ibn Abbas, on the other hand, was cousin of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who supplicated God to bestow him with wisdom and knowledgeability. This is the operation of that supplication. He is named the Quran's interpreter. Al­Faruq (God please him), as well, was wont to accept Ibn Abbas's opinions even contrasted to others of older age and superiority in accompanying the Prophet (peace be upon him). It is impossible to say that Ibn Abbas forged a grave lie against Allah, just because he affirmed a matter denied by Aisha (God please her). Even in cases of misrepresentation of a Quranic Verse or a prophetic tradition, scholars should never utter such a statement. How is it then admissible to impute forging grave lies to Allah to individuals proving a matter not explicated in the Quran or through the Prophet's traditions? Understand this question and make not mistakes!!

This was a part of Ibn Khuzeima's words. He was, however, the tutor of compilers of the Sahih books and the grand instructor. He spared no efforts for proving Aisha's flaw in denial of the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. These replicative words were too rude to be stood even by the 

revisor of his book; Sheik Mohammed Khalil Harras, an instructor in College of Religion Principals in Al­Azhar. In his commentary, Harras writes down:

Aisha (God please her) only traverses and denies the matter involved affirmatively. She said to Masruq, "Your words have made my hair chill!" It is unrightful for the author ­Ibn Khuzeima­ to learn his mother civility!! She did realize what to say. Secondly, Aisha (God please her) addresses generally without identifying any addressee. No narration mentioned that Ibn Abbas had claimed the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. He only claimed that it was with heart and mind. Saving Ibn Abbas, the general companions of the Prophet, such as Ibn Mas'ud and others, were agreeing with Aisha in question of denial of Allah's optical seeableness. Regarding the other wives of the Prophet, despite the fact that none of them could occupy any part of scholarship and jurisprudence Aisha enjoyed, no single narrative revealed they had disagreed her in the question concerned. Attesters of a matter should provide evidences. Attesters of Allah's optical seeableness could not provide any. Hence, denial is the origin till an evidence is proved. Aisha (God please her) supported her claim of denial with some Quranic Verses as testifiers. Correctness of a claim is regarded after an evidence is provided. Otherwise, denial is preferred since it does not need an evidence. How should that grand instructor have been disappointed by his knowledgeability when he misthought that the denied matter was visions' comprehending Him in such a way that providing a single vision was involved, comprehension should be realizable!! Considering someone says, "I do not have pomegranate." This claim does not mean that he may have a single grain of pomegranate. God's mercy be upon Ibn Khuzeima. He had erred. None, however, is perfect.

In addition to the previous words of Sheik Mohammed Harras, we may add the following:

Except for Abu Dherr's question and Aisha's asking the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), there was no single narrative recorded in references of hadith relied upon by Sunnis, our brothers, regarding the optical seeableness involved. Denial of Allah's optical seeableness, however, was confirmed in the two narratives previously excluded. Personal inference was the proof of those who claimed the Prophet's having seen his Lord with his own eyes. They, however, rested upon no narrative at all.

Contradiction, in fact, occurs between narratives of Abu Dherr and Aisha regarding the Prophet's denial of his having seen his Lord from a side, and personal inference from the other. Ibn Abbas's narratives are so contrasted and confused that they should be ruled as ineffective. Therefore, the origin, which is denial of the question involved, is supposed except in case that an evidence is provided. 

Before he denounces Aisha, Ibn Khuzeima himself had recorded narratives related by Ibn Abbas concerning denial of Allah's seeableness. On Page 200, he writes down:

With reference to exegesis of the Verse, (And certainly he saw him in another descent.), variant narrations were ascribed to Ibn Abbas. Some related that sight had been with the heart.

Al-Qasim Bin Mohammed Bin Ebbad Al-Muhellebi: Abdullah Bin Dawud Al-Khureibi: Al-Amesh: Ziyad Bin Hussain: Abul-Aliya:

Regarding God's saying, (And certainly he saw him in another descent.), Ibn Abbas stated, "He had seen Him with the heart."

Ismail: Abdurrezaq: Israil: Semmak: Ikrima:

Regarding God's saying, (The heart was not untrue in making him see what he saw.), Ibn Abbas stated, "He had seen Him with the heart."

The strange matter is that in the commencement of his commentary, Ibn Khuzeima overlooked Aisha's manifest narrative concerning the Prophet's denying seeing his Lord. Importunately, he insisted on reckoning that narrative with personal opinion and inference. Finally, he had to declare that Aisha's relation was tradition of the Prophet. Nevertheless, he imposed Ibn Abbas's saying as a hadith standing against Aisha's. He ruled that Ibn Abbas's narrative must have been following Aisha's. How did he realize that Ibn Abbas's saying had been a narrative, and following Aisha's? Even if this is acceptable, Aisha's narrative is such an absolute denial that it opposes and traverses the converse ones. Ibn Abbas's narration is a partial affirmation. How is it, then, acceptable to prefer to the previous? Furthermore, how could Ibn Khuzeima conclude a general ruling of preferring narratives of affirmation to those of denial in case of contradiction, deciding the previous as repealing the latter? Would he, then, apply this ruling on narrations denying the Prophet's having nominated Ali in his will and those proving this question? As for his ruling, narratives affirming the Prophet's having nominated Ali (peace be upon him) for succeeding him in leadership should be preferred to those denying. In addition, would Ibn Khuzeima commit himself to the claim that Ibn Abbas's words are always preferred to Aisha's? In this case, he should regard his testimony that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) had nominated Ali (peace be upon him) as his successor in leadership, and ordered Muslims of declaring their fealty to him in Ghadir Khum just after the Farewell Pilgrimage 11. And, similarly, he should overlook Aisha's testimony that the Prophet was deceased before he had willed of anything to anybody!! 

____________

11. The Farewell Pilgrimage is the final pilgrimage peformed by the Prophet. 

Ibn Khuzeima would never commit himself to anything! Because he was brought up and fed with conception of Allah's optical seeableness, he is ready to engage himself in confiscatory, inferential and seemingly contradictory affairs for proving that conception.

In his Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 148, Mohammed Abduh did say honorably:

Consequently, it is realizable that Ibn Abbas's narrations contrary to Aisha's, was only personal inference without being imputed to the Prophet. Reports of Ibn Abbas's dedicating seeing by heart is acceptable contradiction to the authentic exegesis of Sura of Najm, imputed to the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), that it was Gabriel, the Angel, whom had been seen by the Prophet in his actual appearance. Likewise, Ibn Abbas's saying, related by Ikrima, was probably conceived from Ka'bul­Ahbar about whom Muawiya, the narrator, say: "Lies were largely uttered by Ka'bul­Ahbar." This saying, however, is recorded by Al­Bukhari. Ibn Isaaq, the reporter of the other narrative, is fabricator. He is trusted in reports regarding battles only, not hadiths. Hence, his report involved is valueless. In reports and conceptions, Ibn Abbas's absolute affirmation is preponderant.

From words of Mohammed Abduh, recorded in Tafseerul­Menar, part 9 page 139, we can perceive that Aisha's words are judged as evidential inference if inference is ascribed to her. He says:

Aisha, one of the most eloquent people of Quraish, refers to visions' incomprehensibility as an evidence on denial of Allah's seeableness in regard to the difference between the two. She also provides God's saying, (And it is not for any mortal that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a veil;), as another evidence. Scholars, however, applied these evidences to Allah's seeableness in this world. Like this world, Allah's visual comprehensibility is also impracticable in the Hereafter.