This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
God in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about God in Islam. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about God in Islam at the Reference desk. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
Why is this being mentioned as if it is relevant, is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bookku ( talk) 09:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
God in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not a forum for general discussion about God in Islam. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about God in Islam at the Reference desk. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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)
Why is this being mentioned as if it is relevant, is it? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Bookku ( talk) 09:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)