Talk:God in Islam

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Not sure if this is a mistake or not but is god a Him or an it or a they 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's ok in quotes though. See MOS:GOD. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Him” —> “him” 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Theology and Philosophy 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wahddat al Wujud redundant? 

message: * The Attributes of God in Islamic Thought: Contemplating Allah. Ed.Mansooreh Khalilizand. Routledge (2024)
 Bookku    (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Translation of "Shirk"