Dude this is the same thing Hindus teach, that the different deities are representations of the Supreme and are only valid within the empirical context only.
Because the understanding is that even though God is beyond description, it isn't fulfilling for us as humans to picture a "void" when approaching the divine, so we make due with what limited understanding we have. Even if you don't make a "graven image" or an "idol," your mind will seek to picture God when you beseech him. Islam seeks to snuff this inclination out, that's why I consider it a dry and emotionless religion. There's no "flavor" to it, no color, no life, no joy, no nothing...not surprising since it comes from the desert. Everybody has to look the same, act the same, pray the same....there is nothing spiritual about it. Islam tells you to follow orders or suffer the consequences. This may be fulfilling for you, but not for everyone.
As for the hadeeth, you are wrong. Allah has a form, this is clear. I don't know what "type" of Muslim you are but all the authoritative sources in Islam confirm that not only does Allah have a form, but he has a location as well. In Vedanta two paradigms are recognized : Saguna, God with form, and Nirguna, the formless absolute which is the all pervading Self of All that exists. Islam is ultimately unfulfilling because it keeps you handcuffed to a spook in the sky.
This is the same logic Christians use for why God had to assume a human form.
It's flawed because you do not have to see something in order to experience it. You do not have to visualize God in order to have a relationship with Him or to feel close to Him.
I've been studying my religion for decades bro and I'm well versed in Salafi 'Aqeeda. They NEVER say that God has a form. In fact, believing that God has a form is anthropomorphism which is
kufr by CONSENSUS of all schools of thought!
The Ash'aris are even more strict when it comes to this:
Is it permissible for a Muslim to believe that Allah is in the Sky in Literal sense?
You need to understand that these texts are not meant to be understood in a literal sense!
So the Salafis will say about the "Hand" of God that "we affirm what Allah has affirmed for himself without making any interpretation (ta'weel) or anthropomorphising His attributes (Tashbeeh = literally "likening Him to the creation").
Where they differ with the Ash'aris and Maturidis is that the latter go a step further and interpret these words in a way that doesn't even create any association with anthropomorphism in the minds of the reader. So they'll say that the "Hand" of Allah is referring to the "Power" of Allah (which is plausible in a linguistics sense if you know the Arabic language) and that the Throne is referring to the Dominion of God (again, very plausible).
The Salafis reject this approach because they see it is going too far.
This is literally something which has been a contention between these schools of thoughts (if you believe that the Salafis are an extension of the Hanbalis/Atharis in terms of Aqeeda) for close to 1000 years. It's a vast topic and you have a very poor grasp of it breh.
What I find most appealing about Islam is exactly that which you criticized. The fact that my Lord is so Awesome and amazing that the imagination of mere mortals cannot encompass Him is extremely awe inspiring and humbling.
Meditating on His Divine Attributes brings me closer to Him. I might not conceptualize God in His Essence, but I can conceptualize His Mercy, His Divine handiwork in the creation etc..
The creation itself is a form of Quran, it's a manifestation of the word of God. Everything is a signpost to His excellence.
You can worship these images if you want, but I think Islamic spirituality is purer and more wholesome
Anyways, I've spent enough time going back and forth with you. Pm me if you want to discuss these things. I like hearing different perspectives
