Talk:God in Islam

At the beginning you have to mention the personhood of god

In Islam god is surely a person. The first bearer of personhood. Muslims reject: 1. the divine impersonal field as the creator, 2. the impersonal physical and mathematically accessible cosmogony and physics without god and paranormal interactions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4101:7F3F:4852:BA14:18FE:FEB2 (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he was intented to be a person, but philosophy and shamanism invaded Islam already in an early stage, so God in Islam can also take impersonal forms. I am not even sure if we can apply the dichotomy between personal and impersonal in the Islamic worldview as we do in Western thinking.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

surely _not_ a person with personhood, since not bearing personality.

taking personal interest in an individual petitioner is a different aspect - I do not know (historical or current) Islamic consensus.

I do think that reference 7 (a not-even-tangential article in an obscure philosophy magazine) should be removed. -lightgrav- 2601:542:103:A1F0:90B2:8D74:37FB:4D2A (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sura in the lead section

Greetings, As far as I know, lead-section should summarize the article. a four paragraph long Sura is not a summary of the article. It just gives an idea how theology sums up their most important points for the Islamic deity. Not to talk about the lenght.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

the 1st paragraph is thoroughly concise ... I will shorten a wee bit, so the link mouse-over text includes "merciful".

2nd paragraph's first 2 lines are okay, but gets off-track with transcendent;

the Quran verse translated there support creator & sustainer, and unique ... but not transcendent.

either support the transcendental attribute, or excise it from the article.

In any case, this verse fits better where it is used later in the article, so it should be removed from paragraph 2. -lightgrav- 2601:542:103:A1F0:90B2:8D74:37FB:4D2A (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hinduism

Why is this being mentioned as if it is relevant, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted above, but this is my issue as well--unless better contextualized with sources, this feels like a non sequitur. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, @Dumuzid:, So, should we delete this section as it is irrelevant?--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 DoneThank you very much for your valuable time and sorry for any inconvenience! PEACE.--TheEagle107 (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

As it currently stands, I would say so. Ideally, we would want reliable sources that not only talk about Islam and Hinduism in 'silos,' if you will, but directly say "here is what Islam thinks of the Hindu concept of divinity" or the like. A bit niche, but it may well be out there. And thank you for going with consensus here, as I see it has now been deleted. It is sincerely appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

HERE is how the article looks before I edit it. As you can see, I am not the one who added this 'strange' section. I am fully aware that religious and political topics are very sensitive and controversial, and that such issues must be dealt with in a calm atmosphere, away from tension with the assistance of experts, who guides all things with wisdom and serenity. Anyway, I would like to thank you both for your assistance in this matter. You are such a great team!--TheEagle107 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a mistake or not but is god a Him or an it or a they

Near the beginning in the first paragraph it says "According to Islamic theology, God has no body or gender (neither male nor female)," then the next sentence it says "and there is absolutely nothing like Him in any way whatsoever.", not sure if this was on purpose or not, but I find it weird, not to mention the "him" is capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.135.241.95 (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamic theology confirms that Allah (God) has no body, no gender (neither male nor female), and there is absolutely nothing like Him in any way whatsoever. However, due to grammatical limitation in the Arabic language, masculinity is the default grammatical gender if the noun is not specifically feminine. But this does not apply to the word "Allah," because according to Islamic theology Allah has no gender. Allah is also a singular noun and cannot have a plural form. The "We" used in the Qur'an in numerous places in the context of God is used only as the "Royal We" as has been a tradition in most of other languages. It is a feature of literary style in Arabic that a person may refer to himself by the pronoun nahnu (we) for respect or glorification. Allah is a unique name in Arabic that cannot be used for anyone, which mostly is not the case in other languages; for instance, writing "god" with a small "g" is allowed to denote various deities. There is nothing that can be used as a similitude or for the purpose of comparison to Allah even in allegorical terms because nothing can be compared with Him. Thus, the Qur'an says: "Do you know any similar (or anyone else having the same Name or attributes/qualities, which belong) to Him?" [Qur'an 19:65]. According to mainstream Muslims, Allah is the creator of everything that exists and transcends spatial and temporal bounds. He has neither any beginnings nor any end and remains beyond the bounds of human comprehension and perceptions.--TheEagle107 (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

“Him” —> “him”

The only pronoun in English that is capitalized is I. “Him”, “he”, and “his” don’t need a capital, nor does “creator” or “one”.--Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's ok in quotes though. See MOS:GOD. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Theology and Philosophy

Ahendra, greetings. I just saw you disagree with my edit regarding Kalam and if this is better translated as philosophy or theology. Most sources I read, relate philosophy to falsafa and include the works of al-Farabi, ibn Sina and the like (including whose who rely on them or their works. In some cases of Sufism, like Ghazali and ibn Arabi, we see on one hand parts of the former authors adapted, simultanouely they are critizised mostly). Kalam, like Asharites and Maturidites practise philosophy, since theology is basically related to philosophy, but they mostly deal with theological matters (like aqida ("doctrines") or the nature of God). Philosophers like ibn Sina use specifically "Greek" philosophy, for example, with ideas of God as "the first cause" and angels as mere "intellects" (a position for which philosophers are critizised frequently, even by theologicans, who often argue, the fact that angels are supposed to be created from light, proves they must be physical). Therefore, I thought, theology is the scholastic approach on Islamic doctrines as we find it among Asharites and Maturidites, while Philosophy is rooting in Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina (and the like). But I am not sure about it, if I am mistaken (I rather noticed this bypassly while reading and havent done specific research about this matter), it is fine. I am not going to edit-war this, especially since I think, the terms aren't clearly defined. Nevertheless, wanted you to let you know my position in case you were not aware and could benefit from my thoughts regarding this matter. Best regards--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

sure, but if you want to improve the article if you feel it good improvement, you should also include the accessible link with neutral POV in your edit. because in Wikipedia, common readers wants to read nominal and objective writing, which easier to understood as per Wikipedia ruling. we just should adhere the rulings here.Ahendra (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I just wanted to stress that there is a difference between philosophy and kalam (Islamic scholastic theology). It's a big topic and this is not the right place to discuss such things. I also want to stress that there is no disagreement among Sunni Muslims on the issue of God's creation of human acts. For more details see for example: Khalq Af'al Al-'Ibad (Creating the Acts of Allah's slaves) by Al-Bukhari, where he states that "the actions of servants are created".--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Wahddat al Wujud redundant?

There is still a section about Wahddat al Wujjud at the bottom. This was created back, when there was no adequate Sufi-Section. However, in emanwhile, a substantial and much more informative Sufi section has been created. This renders the Wahddat al Wujud section redundant. It isn't even specifically well-written and reads more like the result of an edit-war who "got more sources to defend their own opinion". I would remove it entirely, if there are no objections. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Without prejudice to the need to clean it up a bit, I've nested it under Sufism, which I've in turn plucked out of Sunnism - the previous section structuring was a bit of a mess. I feel a trimmed down section possible could stay there. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey! What's with the fancy scrolling reference section? Is that allowed?! So compact! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, this was also a good option! One paragraph on this buggs me however: "Ibn 'Arabi, however, has always been a highly controversial figure for Muslims, as many have accused him of holding pantheist or monist views incompatible with Islam's pure monotheism. However, according to a number of scholars including al-Sha'rani (d. 573/1565) and 'Abd al-Ra'uf al-Munawi (d. 1031/1621), the books of Ibn 'Arabi have been altered and distorted by some anonymous apostates and heretics, and therefore many sayings and beliefs were attributed to him, which are not true to what he actually wrote." This one could have been eliminated entirely, if we have deleted it. It overemphazises the criticism I think. While it might be true that modern Islamic Orthodoxy is rather skeptical towards panentheistic or neo-platonic ideas, this is 1. not unviersal 2. not so disputed in the past. The text states that ibn Arabi was highly disputed, but so was ibn taimiyya, and ibn taimiyya's influence until the late 18th Century was rather marginal at best. Ibn Arabi also, just finished what has been asserted long before in most other philosophical and theological treatises. Ironically, the referred scholar in this text is a scholar who was even more controversial during his life-time, sentenced to prison for rebellion and (if my memory serves me right) blashphemy. I don't think criticism should be removed entirely, but now it looks like ibn Arabi commited "shirk" or someting. Especially, then the next stences are talking about whether ibn Arabi was misinterpreted or "actually hold such blasphemous views". Such views are largely regarded as blasphemous by those who adhere to ibn Taimiyya and the Salafis, while in turn the anthropomorphization evident in this school of thought is considered blasphemeous by the others. I think this sentences might put undue weight on this matter. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it currently places undue weight on the circumspection regarding Ibn Arabi. Except in fundamentalist crowds, Ibn Arabi is simply a highly regarded and respected figure. Ibn Taymiyya is vastly more controversial. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

How would you handle this paragraph? Cutting it entirely? Rewriting it? Adding more view points? I wouldn't recommend the last suggestion, otherwise, the article itself might become to long. We had a simialr issue on the Islam article, in which disputes led to unnecessarily lenght of the article. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC) edit: I remember to have added some historical and possible Asian influences to it a while ago. I think they are still on the German Wikipedia. Here it is: "At the time of the Ottoman Empire, Islam's conception of God was largely influenced by the idea of wahdat al-wujood. He is mostly attributed to the Andalusian scholar and mystic Muhyī d-Dīn Ibn ʿArabī. However, the idea could also have arisen in Turkestan 200 years earlier, as a result of Turkic Islamic syncretism. It was also in this area that the first Turkic Sufi order, the Yesevi-Tariqa, arose, which had a significant influence on Hajji Bektash. Like Rūmī, he had a lasting influence on the understanding of Islam among the Turks in Anatolia. However, the expression itself was only used by the disciples of Ibn Arabi. The search for Allah in the world was central to Muslim Turks, but Allah can only be found with a “pure heart”. Often this state can only be reached after death." I, however, think this is something more apprpriate for a History article and far too specific.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC) edit edit: Forget about it, I just read in the Sufi Cosmology that the idea is actually much older. The Turkology needs to finally drop the entire "synretism"-theory all together I think.^^

I tried to value some of the sources, and as thought, their usage have been pretty selective. I would like to highlight here some passages of some actualy useful sources but misrepresented: "IBN ‘ARABĪ’S THOUGHT ON WA╩DAH

AL-WUJĬD AND ITS RELEVANCE TO RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY" (used to say, that ibn Arabi was considered a pantheist by scholars) states: "Carefulness and high imaginative ability is needed to understand the doctrine of wa╪dah al-wujūd, especially regarding the ontological relationship between God (al-H{aqq) and nature (al-khalq) that finally is synonymized with pantheism. Many Muslim scholars judge Ibn ʽArabī as a pantheist. A.E. Affifi, for example, considers him a pantheist, and views this type of sufism as perfect pantheism. Fazlur Rahman15 also says that the teachings of Ibn ʽArabī are a system entirely monistic and

14 Muhammad Must}afā Hilmī, al-H{ayāt al-Rūh}iyyah fi al-Islām (Mesir: al�Hay‟at al-Mis}riyyah al-„Ammah al-Kitāb, 1984), 182. 15Fazlur Rahman, Islam (Chicago: The Chicago University Press, 1978). Umi Sumbulah, Ibn „Arabī‟s Thought on Wa╪dah al-Wujūd and its Relevance… 16 Copyright © 2016 by Ulumuna All right reserved. This work is licensed under (CC-BY-NC-ND) pantheistic contrary to the teachings of Islamic orthodoxy. The same view on this matter is given by Hamka 16 and Ahmad Daudy. 17 Proponents of this doctrine such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Mir Valiuddin and Titus Burckhardt disagree that wa╪dah al-wujūd is identified with pantheism. Nasr, for example, considers that the term pantheism and monism cannot be used to equate with wa╪dah al-wujūd. 18 This is because God, according to the doctrine of Ibn ʽArabī, transcends nature, even as the nature and level of its manifestation tajallī cannot be completely other than God. This is in line with Nasr, Mir Valiuddin, 19 who assumes that Sufism retains distinguishes between God and nature, including humans. Sufism still maintains the transcendence of God. Thus, implicitly Valiuddin denies allegations that Ibn ʽArabī adopts pantheism. Titus Burckhardt 20 also does not agree if the term pantheism equated with wa╪dah al-wujūd. Titus‟ reason is that in this doctrine, God is still different and not comparable with nature even though nature is His tajallī media and impossible nature is "out" or by his side. Harun Nasution also seem to mind if wa╪dah al-wujūd is classified as pantheism which is clearly contrary to the teachings of Islam.". To be fair, it is, from an academic point of view, rather panENtheism. Pantheism is still different than the Sufi doctrine. The source "The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology" actually states that ibn Arabi would ahve been "always a highly controversial figure" alledgedly due to his monistic views, but this can hardly be backed up by sources who deal more with the history of Islam than about ecology. One of the following sources also speak about "orthodoxy", without defining what is meant by this term. Until late Ottoman period, Sufism was more or less "Orthodoxy". I get what they mean, but the ambiguity of the term doesnÄ't serve the purpose of neutral research. For the other sources, I am too tired to actually investigate them. Hope this helps to adequatly analize this section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I was now thinking about moving the section simply to Sufi metaphysics, however, some parts seem just odd, including how it is sourced. "Ibn 'Arabi, however, has always been a highly controversial figure for Muslims, as many have accused him of holding pantheist or monist views incompatible with Islam's pure monotheism." the sources arree that "pantheism" is unislamic, but not that ibn Arabi is "highly controversial". "The term wahdat al-wujud which literally means "the unity of being" or "the oneness of existence" is a controversial" also ommits the proponents within the source. I would conclude on that point, it is the best to remove this section entirely. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a problem, since the concept if far more relevant to understanding Sufi metaphysics than it is to understanding "God in Islam" in general, and it is not really contributing to an encyclopedic summary here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Refs

• The Attributes of God in Islamic Thought: Contemplating Allah. Ed.Mansooreh Khalilizand. Routledge (2024)

Bookku (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Bias and comedy in the introduction

This section is completely free from the Quran, hadiths, sociology and sectarian tendencies, and was written in line with the views formulated by later orthodox Islamic theologians. The translation of the words used by theologians into English is also clumsy and a complete farce.NGC 628 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's expand on the subject a little bit;"Therefore, Islam strictly and categorically rejects all forms of anthropomorphism and anthropopathism of the concept of God.[14][15][16][17]" If God is not "anthropopathic" in Islam, who is "Dhat-ı Dhul Jalal" (literally meaning the one who has anger)?

"Neither do substances exist in him; neither is he an accident, nor do accidents exist in him. Neither is he like to anything that exists, nor is anything like to him; nor is he determinate in quantity, nor comprehended by bounds, nor circumscribed by differences of situation, nor contained in the heavens, and transcends spatial and temporal bounds, and remains beyond the bounds of human comprehension and perceptions."[22][23][20]; God is not in heaven; It is the opinion of Islamic theologians that average Muslims open their hands to the sky when praying.

"neither is he an accident, nor do accidents exist in him." This is the comedy I'm talking about: القضاء, a word used in the formulation that theologians use for God, "no action can be performed on him and God cannot be the subject of an action", is translated into English as "accident". NGC 628 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks just fine to me, the lead should be brief. The quote from the Quran already exists. Regarding any sectarian view, majority view is already there, Other views have already been discussed in other section of the article. Also keeping WP:UNDUE in mind.

Don't try to put any Revisionist view in this article, as it needs to be established by researchers first, before a tertiary source, such as Wikipedia, allow it space on a main-article. For now, it's a fringe view (personal view) so don't push this POV, this is also said by R Prazeres. Zsohl^(Talk) 09:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Zsohl revisionists' view is about Islamic history and its parts. It is not about the understanding of God in Islam. Do not lose common sense and discuss the issue. Maybe I'll have to explain the subject a little more to be understood. This is for later. But the only thing I am emphasizing at the moment is the establishment of a group domination over the main Islamic issues contrary to the rules and the use of these rules in a manner that exceeds their purpose in order to cancel contributions that go beyond a certain understanding.NGC 628 (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If revisionists view deal with origin and hadith science, it can affect any understanding of Islam. It's common sense.

Regarding domination on any issue, You need to be more familiar with the rules of Wikipedia especially WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT and respect these rules. Articles already contain many established viewpoints regarding core Islamic issues. But we can't add unestablished view to discuss these issue. Zsohl^(Talk) 10:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

"Modern historians have presented alternative theories of the formation of fiqh. At first Western scholars accepted the general outlines of the traditionalist account. In the late 19th century, an influential revisionist hypothesis was advanced by Ignác Goldziher and elaborated by Joseph Schacht in the mid-20th century. Schacht and other scholars argued that having conquered much more populous agricultural and urban societies with already existing laws and legal needs, the initial Muslim efforts to formulate legal norms regarded the Quran and Muhammad's hadiths as just one source of law, with jurist personal opinions, the legal practice of conquered peoples, and the decrees and decisions of the caliphs also being valid sources.

According to this theory, most canonical hadiths did not originate with Muhammad but were actually created at a later date, despite the efforts of hadith scholars to weed out fabrications. After it became accepted that legal norms must be formally grounded in scriptural sources, proponents of rules of jurisprudence supported by the hadith would extend the chains of transmission of the hadith back to Muhammad's companions. In his view, the real architect of Islamic jurisprudence was al-Shafi'i (died 820 CE/204 AH), who formulated this idea (that legal norms must be formally grounded in scriptural sources) and other elements of classical legal theory in his work al-risala, but who was preceded by a body of Islamic law not based on primacy of Muhammad's hadiths." An extensive and revisionist section on the origins of sharia. I didn't add it, but it must be bothering you.NGC 628 (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Translation of "Shirk"

Shirk and idolatry are precisely speaking two different concepts. Idolatry is a concept influenced by Protestantism in aprticular to refer to "earthly" objects of desire who are of no use for a person (according to this belief), while shirk refers to associating something with God. Although they might be superficially similar, there are different underlying intentions behind these two different concepts. The lead section of the article Shirk (Islam) explains this in greater detail with the sources. I would like to adjust the translation for "shirk" accordingly. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)