form,” and then reinterpreting it, has no basis.
As for al-Rāzī’s statement:
“If it refers to the One seen, there are several possible explanations. The first is that he may have seen his Lord in a dream in a particular form. This is possible, because dreams are workings of the imagination and thus cannot be without an imagined form.”
Our reply is that we have already shown that the wording of the hadith explicitly states that this vision occurred in a dream. This explanation is therefore certain, and all others are false. However, this is not a matter of reinterpretation. Rather, the hadith is understood according to its apparent meaning, which is that he saw Him in a dream. This is true and requires no reinterpretation.
This is precisely our point, for they claim that these hadiths require an interpretation contrary to their apparent meaning, because, in their view, their apparent meaning is misguidance and disbelief. Their error sometimes lies in what they claim to be the apparent meaning when it is not—as when they claim that the apparent meaning of this hadith is that he saw Him while awake. They likewise err in claiming that the actual apparent meaning requires reinterpretation.
And what al-Rāzī has affirmed here regarding the possibility of seeing Allah in a dream