Talk:God in Islam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Placement of image

• While I know that generally the template is above the image, I feel that in this case, the image would be more valued if it showed at the top. Pepsidrinka 20:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• It now looks much better.Pepsidrinka 22:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

questionable content

There are some weird sentences, like this one, that I think really ought to be removed until they can be rewritten:

"No one is to be worshipped but the LORD GOD. If any one worships any other than Him, he is surely a polytheist. The missions of all the prophets were turning around the center of the unity of worship. This is frequently mentioned in the Holy QURAN and all the scriptures. It's remarkable that Muslims have to repeat in our daily prayers as a slogan that: [1:5]"You alone We worship, and only Your aid We seek." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.53.240 (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I've made an attempt at NPOV'ing this. Probably isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction. -UK-Logician-2006 12:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

More questionable content

Re removal of edit by Sefardicus. One cannot, as part of a wikipedia article, lift an entire article from a website, magazine or book (with some exceptions). The fact that the huge slab is in quotation marks makes no difference. A legitimate quote is only a few lines long, in support of what the editor has written.

The quote was not properly sourced. A quotation from a magazine or newspaper should have a full date and a place of publication. It should also give the name of the author of the article.

--Amandajm 14:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Why do we have one article for this, and one article for tawhid?--Striver 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent question.

Alternately, it might be merged with God - it's brief enough, about the same size as the Biblical definition, while Qur'anic views aren't given enough weight there. All the good data should be retained, it's only a matter of where to best present it. As it is, there are many articles with material that is duplicated from, or is more appropriate to, other articles.

In the meantime. I'm currently moving non-philosophical observations about the word Allah to Allah, as the latter article appears to be properly about the word more than the concept.Timothy Usher 23:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawhid is only one aspect of the islamic view of Allah among ~99 attributes. It could be better justified to move tawhid here. --Ephilei 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've moved several portions of text from Allah (much of which was duplicated to begin with), the article is now too long to be merged. However, a lot of this text is redundant and/or unnecessary - the first order of business is to get this article into reasonable shape, then take it from there.Timothy Usher 00:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is now organized into sections. Much of the text is still a mess. Calling all editors!Timothy Usher 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is now too categorized. It should be changed back to the paragraph style. Perhaps this should be merged back into Allah or God, but I don't like how it looks now. joturner 00:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks joturner. I don't either. This was just an interim solution, to get related points next to one another, and stated in a concise manner. If you'd seen the original article, and the competing section on the same topic on Allah, you'll see what I mean - it wasn't worth keeping.

The bullet points are awful - however these replaced a rambling text which must be seen (check the diffs) to be appreciated. My goal was only to get the information in one place, organize it into related points, and take it from there, and that, at least, has been accomplished.

You've proven yourself a good writer and a hard worker (not that I'm the judge, but this is my opinion). If you take "ownership" of this page, I'm likely to stand back, as I've other things to do. The problem I've having elsewhere is wholesale reverts to previous incoherent versions.

I don't know about the merger either. I think it's impossible to know until a decent version of this article is attained.Timothy Usher 05:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think G-d is a massive enough article as it is, without adding even more information to it...Dev920 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ephilei 04:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be merged. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reads like a Passage of the Qur'an

I have read the Qur'an quite a few times, and I honestly feel as though this article is written in a similar style; concise, poetic sentences, serving to promote the graciousness and mercifulness of Allah to the reader. For example:

"God in Islam is not only majestic and sovereign, but also a personal God: According to the Qur'an, God is nearer to a person than his jugular vein. (Quran 50:16) God responds to those in need or distress whenever they call. Above all, God guides humanity to the right way, "the holy way.""

Would you honestly consider a paragraph written in this style to be encyclopaedic? I ask solely from a quality-of-article perspective, I'm, of course, not here to discuss the rights and wrongs of any religion.

Tredicity (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be entirely accidental, as many of the people editing the article likely read the Quran regularly, and it does have an effect on one's mode of speech, particularly when describing the subject. In one sense it may be appropriate, as it provides the most theologically accurate descriptors for the subject, but if you feel that the language is unencyclopedic go ahead and improve it.

Something I would recommend is that these descriptors either be attributed to a specific source (the Quran would be a Primary Source, so for example you could cite from the second Sura "Allah is Forgiving, Merciful" but any analysis on the matter you'd have to cite from a secondary source, a.e. scholarly commentary) which would allow for the same authentic language in a more encyclopedic format. That's one suggestion, but the Manual of Style is full of other stuff that would undoubtedly help in this regard. Peter Deer (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Monism

In Islam Monism is clearly Rejected and God makes it very clear,so I really dont know why is there philosophies concerning Monism

the Idea of Monism is that god is the unity everywhere true ... but it states God himself and thats where Islam disagrees! Islam states God's Sight is everywhere,His mercy is everywhere and His love is everywhere but his presence is not on planet earth nor is it in us,yes true he blew from himself in us and created us but he is not in us nor do we have a part of him nor is his presence in earth existence but his sight and love are there

Monism's philosophies are considered Pantheism in Islam because god makes it clear that

And there is none like unto Him." (Sura 112:4, Yusuf Ali)

so to state that we have a part or what god has is like stated we are like him which is hersey

God is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward; God is the Knower of everything Sura 57:3

BUT HE ISNT EVERYTHING .. hes only the knower and sight of everything but not EVERYTHING

and the bible verse of Exodus is considered heresy too because god cursed those who say he is poor and god clearly states that he doesn't need anyone's worship or any body's help

The Lord and Cherisher of the Worlds (Rabb al-Alameen) doesnt need anyone's help so he doesn't get Jealous of those who abandon him Highdeeboy (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And if you actually bothered to read the article, it said "Some Muslims have however vigorously criticized interpretations that would lead to a monist view of God for what they see as blurring the distinction between the creator and the creature, and its incompatibility with the radical monotheism of Islam. <ref> Roger S. Gottlie (2006), p.210 </ref>" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Shut upHighdeeboy (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Without sons?

Hi, I believe there is a mistake in the main article. Under attributes it is stated that Muslims believe that God has no sons, this must be a mistake since as the Muslims are aware that if the God has no sons there are no Muslims. Can someone wiser please look into and correct this oversight. Thx Wonderpet 16:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no mistake ~atif ^Talk 16:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I am no expert on Islam but Muslims do believe they are really here don't they? Wonderpet 16:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Eve may be a good place to start looking for the answer to your question. (Quran 112:3). → AA ^(talk) — 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

AA, Nothing in the Adam and Eve article that I can find shows that Muslims believe that God is not powerful enough to make a son for himself. I am looking for proof that Muslims believe that God has no sons, otherwise it is just someones opinion in the article and will be removed. where is that reference? Wonderpet 12:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The first place to start is the Qur'an citation I have given above (Quran 112:3). You can then review commentaries on this verse (and surah/chapter) for further research. Hope that helps. (PS: I guess the Adam and Eve article needs updating). → AA ^(talk) — 14:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

this article should help too. ~atif ^Talk 15:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I see, perhaps my difficulty lies in the fact that the Quran states that "he Begets not"

since beget, create and father are all synonymous, how do you explain a creator who "begets not"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonderpet (talk • contribs) 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Islam sees the relation between God and Humans as Creator->Creation or Master->Slave, and not necessarily as Father->Son. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidt (talk • contribs) 06:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not synoymous- to father or beget refers to human procreation and create refers to a deity (in this context). The idea is that Allah has created the world but has never manifested himself on the earth i.e. muslim's believe it strange that an omnipotent god would ever have need of a human messiah because that would acomplish nothing that allah could not acomplish. It also highlights that unlike Christians who believe in the trinity (father son and holy spirit) they belive in one God who is outside time and beyond the perception of humans who has no children or parents. They do not believe humans are made in God's image but that they are his creations. 81.178.254.46 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Veggieburgerfish 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)-got to sign in am 81.178.254.46

Wrong. Muslims specifically believe God does not have children. Adam and Eve are not children. But Jesus is indeed the Messiah in Islam, he is just not God's son. In Judaism, they expect a Messiah, but not one who is "God's son". Muslims believe Jesus will fight and defeat the anti-Christ, just as Christians, but that he is not God, God's son, or a part of a Trinitarian god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.18.140 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In Islam, Messiah Eesaa son of Mary was a human messenger and servant of Allah. The word Messiah does not imply any other special meaning. Messiah Eessa was not killed nor crucified, but has been in Paradise and will never return except with everyone on Judgement Day. [Quran 3:45, 4:157, 4:171, 4:172, 5:17, 5:72, 5:75, 9:31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.233.134 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that Allah (God in Islam) has no sons nor daughters. Human being is created at first, then they (the humans) breed. Two human beings (in Islam) is exceptional in their creation process a.k.a as "prophet" (nabi) : Adam (created) and Isa/ Jesus (not exactly breed naturally) -- (Unrelatedly to the topic), I think I read somewhere -- can withstand "time" -- one can live for a long time, Adam famous to live beyond the years of normal human lifetime, others destined to return in the end of time to fight the last war. None were breed by God though, created was more likely. Serenity id (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It was always my understanding that sometimes muslims refer to us as 'children of Allah(pbuh)' but that this is to be strictly understood as a metaphorical expression of the mercy of Allah being like the mercy of a father, but not that he physically gave birth or whatever. As Allah is supposed to be a sort of driving essence of reality rather than a physical thing, it doesnt make sense to claim he had actual children per se. But as a metaphor its also useful in explaining the status of jesus that he WAS a sort of son , in the sense that we all are, but its important to remember that its only a metaphor 121.45.247.36 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in this article

Early in this article we read that the "most frequent of these names are "the Compassionate" (al-rahman) and "the Merciful" (al-rahim)". This is objectively true as the number of times the words arise in the Quraan can be counted. Then under the section "God's attributes" there is a list of the most commonly used names, which does not include these two names. Presumably this list of 11 is someone's personal opinion. I suggest it would be better for such a list either to be based on the Quraan, or for someone to justify why a different source of frequency should be used. It should begin ar-rahmaan, ar-rahiim and go on from there. Presumably somewhere the information is available for each name and how often it is used? Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Deny

In the second paragraph of Oneness section it says:

"Muslims deny the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and divinity of Jesus ..."

Muslims do not deny (!) the trinity but reject and refuse it.

The expression should be corrected.--98.196.232.128 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pronouns

Collected these related threads. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

He

Euh, I'm not sure how to address this. The beginning of the problem of the early sentence: "He is unique (wahid) and inherently one". God (Allah) in Islam is not a He - Allah is gender free. I think the closest one on English language to gender free will be "it", yet ethically - calling just the name (either God or Allah) will do. Serenity id (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Muslim theologians hold that God is beyond things such as gender and that it is from God that both the male and the female elements of the universe come, yet the Qur'an calls him "Hu" (=He), so it's perfectly ok to use He in English to describe God in Islam, as the Islamic scripture themselves do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We

Just a note to myself: perhaps a line or two is needed to describe "We" as if God talk in organization format. Serenity id (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Him"

Is it just implicit by the use of this translated pronoun here that it is a person? Obviously the Abrahamic centrally cast character is, but this is a whole major brand and could have it's variant. Plenty of smaller, especially more recent, tendencies retract this and have an impersonal force, which could have been the basis of the various roles (i.e. creator, sustainer, etc.) so should be clearer. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Also this can be considered a continuation of the pronoun threads above. Performed some maintenance on incorrect indent level, etc. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahbash influence

Once religious sect/cult known as Ahbash have probably influenced the "God has no place" thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9501:B600:5C3D:882E:1B3B:39FD (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits by User:YHWH's Right Hand

Changes such as this violate WP:V, WP:FRINGE, and WP:ADVOCACY. It is patently absurd to insist a word historically applied to Odin must be Christian while the Arabic cognate for El somehow can only be pagan despite God, El, and a variety of other words.

As for replacing "God" with "Allah," that's rooted in the same anti-Arabic/Anglo-supremacist bigotry, and so is not needed either. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"God and Satan"

The usage and primary topic of God and Satan is under discussion, see talk:God and Satan (song) -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake in the attributes Hi i removed this part 'Some Muslims have however vigorously criticized interpretations that would lead to a monist view of God for what they see as blurring the distinction between the creator and the creature, and its incompatibility with the monotheism of Islam. '

because it doesn't describe the view of 99% of muslims. in every religions there are extremists who have odd ideas. Those ideas can't be presented to people as if they represent a large group of muslims. more than 99% of muslims agree that Monothesim is the core of islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.165.155.198 (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Allah

"Non-Arab Muslims may or may not use different names as much as Allah, for instance "God" in English, "Tanrı" in Turkish"...

The opposite is also true: Non-Muslim Arabs use the name "Allah". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2193:33A3:E31B:D73C (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"According to Christians"

It states in the article:

"Islam teaches that Allah is the same god worshiped by the members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism. According to Christians, this is false."

The first sentence is sourced, the second sentence is not. It was a replacement recently added because the source for the original sentence was considered unreliable by the editor. This particular sentence appears to, first and foremost, completely contradict the beliefs of Arabic-speaking Christians that would say "Allah" as God, and also of many others such as the Reverend William Montgomery Watt, quite famous for his belief that Islam and Christianity come from the same God. Does anyone have any suggestions for altering this? Otherwise I am all for removing it altogether. Peter Deer (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is true that Arab Christians and converts from Islam frequently refer to God as Allah, but this is more because the Arabic word for God -is- Allah, and old habits die hard for the rest who have been using it most of their lives. Allah is a contraction of Al (the) and Ilah (God). Although I'm a Muslim, I came from a Christian background, and I can say from experience (for I have traveled this country very much, and usually make it a point to question others on their religious beliefs), at least in the US, and most commonly in the southern and Midwest parts, as well as Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, in particular, that due to the jaded American media perspective after September 11, 2001, as well as improper education on the subject, the number of Christians that consider Allah to be the same god as the god of Abraham, is a definite minority. I'm unsure as to the global perspective, but if we could find a good source for the current demographics (we have good sources for the historical), it could clear this issue, considerably, and discourage others from altering the page to put their perspective in it. Otherwise, with the rate of vandalism, I would recommend that the entire series on Islam be locked to editing by those who have not registered. 96.240.167.180 (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a distinct difference in the Christians that will continue using Allah to refer to God, and those that begin to use the names Yahweh or Jehova, as the Hebrew name appears to be more common in the rest of the world. This, too, sets American Christians apart from Arab Christians and other converts from Islam. 96.240.167.180 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymologically I think it's already made clear in the Allah article that the linguistic roots come from Hebrew and Aramaic words for God, but I don't think that's the issue. It seems to be a dubious blanket statement. If it were "some christians" that would be a weasel term. "Christian opponents of Islam, such as ______" is almost right, but even writing it it sounds too POV for me. This is the reason why I brought this to talk in the first place, I'm not sure how I should deal with this to make it more correct without introducing POV. Peter Deer (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page edit was unauthorized IP address usage, reverted to reflect dubious claim, again. See talk page for this IP address for details.96.240.167.180 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

""Islam teaches that Allah is the same god worshiped by the members of other Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Judaism. According to Christians, this is false." = So, muslims recognize they have a trinitary God. Christians will be very happy to hear that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:2193:33A3:E31B:D73C (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

S.w.t. or Subhanahu wa ta'ala

The page "Subhanahu wa ta'ala" redirects to this page. And if you look for it, you won't find it via Find because it's spelled here "Subḥānahu wa-taʿālā" (with a dash and macrons). Is there a way to make this easier? I found it by only searching for "swt" (without periods). 24.57.220.238 (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on God in Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131014174102/http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm to http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-426-3787.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

imminent and transcedent

@Batreeq: ok I see now, I might be mistaken. This will propably getting more complicated than I thought first. I moved to the talk-page because I have not enough space to write my concerns and explainations.

First, I think we should explain the imminence and transcednce under one section, but much more detailed. I checked the given source again and searched for others. The Quran itself gives both immenent and transcedent aspects, therefore I would sum it up in one section but explain, how this aspecsts are interpretated. The "immenence" in Islamic view on God is not the same as the Western usage of imminence. There was one statement within the source you provided (a source I appreciaate by the way) about the usage of "traditional" Sunnism. It seems it used it simultenous with "traditionalistic Sunnism" (that is actually something else), evidently for me by the claim "It also extends to the law, where the portrayal of Allah, the angels, the prophets, and the companions of Muhammad is strictly prohibited". Actually Sunnis also drew pictures of angels and prophets during the classical era and before (for example see the Annals of tabari, we even have some pictures here) but in the traditionalistic schools of thought (those who belief that Sunnism was altered and must be restored, therefore the term "traditionalist") prohibited such depictions (However a picture of God in Islam was really never found but by non of the Islamic branches). Therefore, I would be careful by the division into "Sunnism" and "mytsics" here. Actually the source itself didn't seperate the mystics and traditional Sunnism (just seems to imply it indirectly in some instances), but the former text (I edited now) tries to include the mytsics in the Major-perspective, since during the middle ages, these mystics played an important role both in politics as well as in theology and not just nil-roles. ("Some of the more mystical trends in Islam") Therefore, I rewrote this passage.

Further I tried to make the points clearer by emphasazing the importance of uniqueness (since it is indeed the base for any branch of Islam, even for the mystics) who were accused of pantheism). Another source I found explained the immenence aspect (and doesn't conflict the other sources). the new sourec given by you only says "Omnipresence is not stressed to avoid confusing Allah with His creation.", that is true. The other source says "God is omnipresent" that is also true, the meaning is behind the words: Omni-presence only means "all-knowing" not merging with the creation. Both state this. I also re-read the other sources to make sure, it is still accurate here.

I removed one Quran-reference because they would be too many for one claim, the otehrs two make the point clear I guess. I hope you are fine with the further edits. --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I appreciate your input. From what I understand, you are attempting to explain that God is all-knowing and has knowledge of everywhere from every possible perspective, not himself (essence) everywhere, right? If so, I believe we need to clarify this, because it would be strange for this to be criticized by some as reported in the article. Or perhaps do you mean that mentioning omnipresence/immanence was criticized because of possibly confusing the meaning of the terms?

Also, can you double-check the citation placement. #44 and #48 are duplicated and #47 should also be at the end.

Finally, regarding a depiction of God in Islam, this is impossible. As the article explains, he is transcendent (and therefore, incomprehensible). – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: now removed the section entirely. I thought prior, the Islamic understanding of immenence and transcedence could be too vargue for an encyclopedic entry (after the last edits made by @Batreeq:). I would like to find a consens: Remove this section entirely or try to work on a better formulated section here? --VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Twelver Shia point of view

My Edit was fully valid, so why was it removed? WikiShia represents the Twelver Shia point of view with scientific texts. My Edit was concerning that branch of Islam. Removing my Edit with the reason 'weak source' is invalid. Weak source according to whom? It is a source on Shia Islam by WikiShia.net. What is so weak about it? My Edit:

Twelver Shia Islam

− One of the viewpoints of Twelver Shia Muslims is the existence of the concept of Wilaya Takwini, which means that with God's permission the Fourteen Infallibles have the ability to control some affairs in the universe.

Wikishia is a wiki, and thus not a WP:Reliable Source. It is also off topic for God in Islam. Editor2020 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Editor2020: that depends on whether it works like we do or has an editorial board, as Wiki is just the software. But whether or not it's an RS, I agree it is off-topic in this article. Doug Weller talk 21:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The meaning as "Rabbi Alamini"

Greetings once again After reading through the article, I see there is much improvment, but one thing strikes me. "thus, the Qur'anic expression Rabb al-'Alamin really means the "Creator of the Worlds",[51] the "Ruler of the Universes",[52] the "Creator and Sustainer of all the peoples and Universes",[53] or the "Nourisher to perfection of multiple Universes"". Since the term Universe is usually referring to the sum of space/time and everything included, this is not that the Quranic terminology reflects. Rather an "Alam" derives their content from the sum of their inhabitants. It might refer to a physical universe, but also to a "spiritual universe". It can refers to societies or natures. (for a list of possible meanings: A Cognitive Semantics Analysis of Alam (Nature) in Malay by Imran Ho-Abdullah and Ruzy Suliza Hashim) One of the oldest impressions of the meaning of the term can be found in Tafsir Tabari: "Alamiin is the plural of 'alam (= cosmos, world), which is itself a collective noun like ‘mankind’, ‘group’, or ‘army’. . . . * Alam is the noun r which stands'* for the r differenf* kinds of communities — each kind is an alam. The members of eachgeneration of each kind are the 'alam of that generation and that time. Mankind is an 'alam, and all the people of a period of time are th $Jalam of that time. The jinn are an 'alam, and so on with the other species of creation; each species is the 'alam of its time. (...) Rabb al-'alamm: the jinn and mankind" (translted by J. Cooper). Interpreting the term as a reference to a multiverse is a legitimate interpretation ( and probably covers many contemporary understandings, however, the text should not give the impression, this is the way how Muslims understood the term over the entire time, but also show examples of earlier interpretations.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to moved section

A few weeks ago the section 'Phrases and expressions' was moved from this article to Dhikr, but this left a number of Redirects to that section (or to the Honorifics anchor within it) still uselessly pointing here. I stumbled across the problem by accident while trying to find a useful Wikilink for SWT, and it has taken me over 2 hours to find where the new list location was and fix the Redirect,plus some more time fixing two more Redirects. Perhaps somebody who is more competent than me might care to check whether there are other Redirects or Wikilinks that still need fixing as a result of that move.And perhaps somebody who knows how to contact those who write the relevant bots might let them know that there were links killed here for weeks (and possibly longer if I had not accidentally found the problem and then persisted in trying to fix it) which might perhaps have been avoided with something like the right fix to the relevant bots. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Satan subordinative or just inferior?

Greetings, I found this verse "Satan is not an independent power, but subordinated to God (Q7:11–18; 38:78–83)" kinda disputable. Doesn't "subordinative" imply they are in the same "order", like Satan in Judaism? In Judaism, Satan is an angel, not very much different from Michael or Gabriel, who "perform God's will", while this can be disputed in Islam. Sufism, tending to a monistic view, would imply that Satan is indeed subordinative and pretty much "an aspect/attribute of God", but there are views strongly disagreeing, like Mutazilites or many contemporary views. Especially, when Iblis is considered a jinni, he has free will. Although inferior, he is not a "slave" of God (despite doing that God desires in the end, but unintentionally). And this also makes Satan very much an "independent power", although he has no strong impact.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for mention this! This paragraph is unnecessary and not directly related to the content of the article, which is about God in Islam, not about Iblis (Satan) and his nature.--TheEagle107 (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Please be careful with sources

@TheEagle107: hello, I really appreciate some of your recent edits. But I think some of these contain mistakes. To me it seems, much is done wrong due to relying too much on Salafi-Sources (you also often consulted) here. First noticeable edit was regarding Wahdat Al Wujud. I am glad, someone else participates and balances the text, since it probably gave too much weight to the Turkic/Mongolian/Anatolian interpretation of Islam. I think the longer explanation for this doctrine should be moved to the corresponding main articles. Nevertheless, it seems to me, you in turn udnerestimated in turn the significance of Turkic/Mongolian impact on Islam and Islamic history. Sufism especially Wahdat Al Wujud, basically became the "Orthodoxy" of Sunni-Islam during this era. This leads to another issue: Ibn Arabi was less controversial among "Orthodoxy", since such Orthodoxy did not exited back than. Ibn Taimiyya and his disciples opposed Ibn Arabi strongly and probably at least Damascene Ulama, but they had not enough political power to be considered an orthodoy back when. Further, they have been (especially Ibn Taimiyya) controversial too. This is when I encountered some Salafism-based biases the first time. The (in)famous webpage IslamQA, especially popular among English speaking Muslim editors, have strong disregards for Ibn Arabi and his teachings. (here: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/7691/who-was-ibn-arabi). This does neither reflect the historical majority of Muslim thought, nor does it even necessarily reflect the Muslim point of view today. Please be carefull before taking such strong positions for or against, during the Mongol times in particular, as there was much of theoligcal and political dynamics going on. Still, I am glad for your contriutions especially about how Ibn Arabi is perceived by some of the scholars today, like his defences.

Next, be careful with translations and terms. "Pantheism" often used as a degarory terms among Muslim apologetics, does not equal the technical term Pantheism in English language or Western philosophy. Apologetics often do not pay much attention to detail and most of the audience does not care. But it is important we do not mess up here on Wikipedia, especially since many articles stand in a relation to each other (Ibn Arabi's Wahdat Al Wujud is not equal to "Pantheism", rather it would be "Panentheism" or even merely "Platonism" and no Pantheism at all). Related to this, I found another issue, both related to sources and Pantheism. Tauhid could also be understood in the Sufism fashion of "Pantheism" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/tawhid). We can not say "hey this is against Tauhid" when for many Sufis and Muslims who accepted the Sufi interpretaion of Sunni Islam This is the actual definition of Tauhid. The Tauhid as "one thing which exists and this must be worshiped" instead of, for example, perceiving God as a unified power, is the narrow definition of Wahhab. We should not take Wahhab's teachings and doctrines for granted and describe them here as universalities. Please be carefull with that.

This sentence I think, was the most problematic "Although most Hindus believe in multiple deities, only some learned Hindus, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God. The major difference between the Hindus and the Muslims is that many Hindus believe in the philosophy of pantheism, which means "everything is God". On the contrary, Muslims believe that everything belongs to God,", sine it is not only factual wrong, but also contains some polemics. It is not improved when it was Zakir Naik making this claim. Why you should refrain from Zakir Naik, I want to explain later. "only some learned Hindus", why is the adjective "learned" important? Aren't there any learned Hindus who believe in multiple gods? Why emphazising that whose who believe in one god are "learned"? This is clearly in favor for Monotheism. And why "only", as if it is something bad. Further, who actually says that they should worship only one god? Since deities are nothing immortal or eternal, an issue with venerating multiple gods seems to be everything but probable. I could only think about referring to the Brahmans, for something comparable to Monotheism. Interestingly, some Sufis (although adherence to Wahdat Al Wujud) understood Brahman as equal to Allah (I guess it was Al-Jilli, if you wish I look it up). This could also be something for "comparative theology". Probably most content we would find, during the Mongol time, when exchange between east and middle Asia was the strongest (in history). I hope you see now, why this statement is quite problematic.

Next, Zakir Naik. Apart from his polemics and often dubious claims, at least after he claimed that a "theory" is related to veryfication, he is not creditable anymore. Either he is incompetent (alledgedly he got a doctor in medicine, therefore unlikly) or a bolt liar. It both cases, he rendered himself uncreditable. Since many Muslims still watch and follow him, we can insert some of his points directly, for example insisting that Jesus never claimed to be God, but not take his statments as face value.

Somewhere you also used some dubious sources like "International Institute of Islamic Thought" (non profite organization, could they gain money for propagating a specific agenda?). According to the German Wiki they are also related to the Salafist group Muslim Brothers, you already caused enough confusion with Sulaiman Ashqar's "Islamic Creed" series. It seems in this case, their claim was at least true, therefore I would not object this. But as a rule, we can not allow such sources.

Thanks and have a good day, I do not know when I am online again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: Thanks for discussing your recent edits here on the talk page. I'm glad an editor is devoting some attention to this article. I value and respect your feedback and guidance, even though I respectfully disagree with you, but I thank you for appreciating my humble efforts.

Now, let me quote some of your statements and my responses to them:

“ To me it seems, much is done wrong due to relying too much on Salafi-Sources (you also often consulted) here. ”

Excuse me, but this claim is clearly baseless and untrue at all! According to Wikipedia's guidelines, it does not matter from what background the sources come from, as long as they are reliable, and reflect academic consensus, and are used to represent the neutrality. If the content is supported by citations then it should stay. Any content which is against the references may go, but removing sourced content from Wikipedia is against its rules (see WP:NPOVHOW). Moreover, the controversial statements should be attributed to whoever made them, rather than being uncritically accepted as fact (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV).

In that respect, I would like to mention that I asked the editor @ParthikS8: on his talk page here about his opinion before doing anything, because I am fully aware that the content of these two sections is controversial.

“ The (in)famous webpage IslamQA, especially popular among English speaking Muslim editors, have strong disregards for Ibn Arabi and his teachings. (here: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/7691/who-was-ibn-arabi). ”

This website is unreliable and biased and only reflects the opinions of Salafis and I have not used it as a source.

“ Somewhere you also used some dubious sources like "International Institute of Islamic Thought" (non profite organization, could they gain money for propagating a specific agenda?). According to the German Wiki they are also related to the Salafist group Muslim Brothers, you already caused enough confusion with Sulaiman Ashqar's "Islamic Creed" series. It seems in this case, their claim was at least true, therefore I would not object this. But as a rule, we can not allow such sources. ”

Well, this is the source I used:

• JSTOR (Organization); Islamic Research Institute (Pakistan); Central Institute of Islamic Research (Pakistan) (1998). Islamic Studies. Vol. 37. Islamic Research Institute. p. 153.

I can add several other sources, but personally, I think the article would benefit from an expansion on something other than controversial related topics, so I suggest deleting these sections. Regarding your citation of the German Wikipedia, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Thanks anyway. Regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@TheEagle107 and VenusFeuerFalle: I will just add my own two cents.

I am a little confused over exactly what is being disputed between you two here - if I am correct its that Wahdat al-Wujud was critised by orthodoxy and that Muslim scholars such as Al-Ghazali defended incorporeality (known as Tanzih in Islam) and then that the Islamic concept of God is similar to the Arya Samaj or what al-Biruni would classify as the learned Hindu's approach to his religion.

To start with, yes according to Sunni, Shi'i and Ibadi scholars, Muslims must believe in the incorporeality of God. Most of Muslim scholarship therefore has quite serious problems with claims of Monism or oneness with God, and they would go as far as anathematising those who do not agree with them (not considering them Muslims).

Where does Ibn Arabi fit into this equation? The concept of Wahdat al-Wujud is not actually mentioned in his works by that name, but derived by students and later commentators. Some interpretations of this doctrine and the related doctrine of Fana' would be considered heretical by orthodox scholarship as stated in some research papers. However this does not mean Wahdat al-Wujud as a term is considered heretical, merely the interpretation of it one takes - those who take a Monist interpretation are severely criticised by Twelver Usuli Shi'i thought, the Zaidis, the Ibadis and all Sunni schools (Hanafi, Ash'ari and Hanbali). But those who do not take such an interpretation are not condemned as heretics.

Sufi scholars have reconciled Wahdat al-Wujuh such that a Monist understanding is not taken (refer to some papers explain Shah Waliullah Dehlawis a Sunni-Sufi's understanding of Wahdat al-Wujuh.) This would be indicative of those who take an interpretation of it within the bounds of Sunni/Shi'i/Ibadi scholarship. Others however merely repudiated it and its explainer as heretics, not wishing to construct an orthodox interpretation. From the Sunnis the likes of the Hanafi 'Ala' al-Din al-Bukhari anathematised Ibn Arabi, a verdict many other Sunnis disagree with despite condemning belief in Monism. From the Shi'a we had many like al-Majlesi. In Qom, it is noted that when this doctrine is taught, the students must have performed very well in doctrine and philosophy classes aforehand to prevent misunderstandings of the doctrine as Monism/Pantheism (which mainstream Shi'i scholarship views as Shirk).

Others like Ahmad Sirhindi, a Sunni-Sufi, spoke on a more spiritual level when they pointed out that due to the divine nature, one in a state of or near Fana may feel as if Wahdat al-Wujud in the most literal sense is correct, whereas in reality this is something merely witnessed and not in actuality a reality - and that is realised at a higher spiritual station (Wahdat ash-Shuhud).

That is not to say that those who take a more pronounced Monist/Pantheistic/Panenthestic view don't exist, of course they do, they are severely criticised by Orthodoxy (of any denomination) however, the Sufis and spiritualists of whom revise Wahdat al-Wujud to be inline with the general Islamic doctrine of Divine Transcendence (Tanzih).

In as far as you are trying to suppress this VenusFeuerFalle and paint some kind of fantasical picture of orthodox acceptance of a Monistic interpretation of Wahdat al-Wujud, I would strongly oppose you as that goes against what the reliable sources on this subject says. However I agree that Wikipedia describes disputes and does not enter into them - we should mention that there are those Mystics who held the pronounced views but be very clear that they are condemned by orthodoxy. Sources can easily be provided for that (and I have provided some above already).

TheEagle107As far as comparing Islamic views of God to Hindu Monotheistic Dvaita theology or the Modern Hindu revivalist Arya Samaj movement or simply what some like al-Biruni say are what the 'educated Hindu' believes, I think we need to be careful here to not state a Muslim's opinion as fact - extending the same courtesy we show when disputing that a non-Muslim's opinion should not be taken as fact. So we should clearly attribute those views and ensure they come from reliable sources. There are many Advaita Hindus who would view themselves as 'educated' and dispute such readings of their ancient scriptures, regardless of the fact that Muslims of course will give their view that this is a result of corruption of religion and that the Monotheistic/Dvaita Hindus are. These are just views and opinions, both of which should be respected on Wikipedia regardless of our beliefs off Wiki.

Quoting a polemicist like Zakir Naik will be acceptable only if reliable sources state his views, and this is only where his views are attributed to him. Indeed quoting any such figures is acceptable.

Inasmuch as TheEagle107 is using unreliable material to source such statements I of course strongly disagree with him. (I actually haven't checked all the sources he's quoted so can't say for sure, but an online website IslamicAwakening was quoted and I am not so sure that is a reliable source.)

VenusFeuerFalle the issue with this section is that it gave undue weight to an Islamically questionable doctrine and made it seem as if mainstream Muslim scholarship is completely happy with that, with only "some" desisting. Well no that is not true and ignoring the widespread vast majority of sources which clearly ellucidate a rejection by Shi'i/Sunni scholarship of that understanding of Wahdat al-Wujud and trying to almost 'mainstream' such an interpretation, is not only unrepresentative of academic views on this, but is quite frankly an attempt to introduce non-neutrality on an article about religion. This is completely anathema to Wikipedia's values of neutrally explaining but not entering into disputes.

I am not accusing you of this, I am merely stating that whoever originally wrote this section should have followed NPOV guidelines and given due weight to the mainstream Muslim view (that Monism/Pantheism is unaccepable), whilst yes, also providing the alternate view of some mystics in due proportion.

VenusFeuerFalle when I refer to Orthodoxy I don't necessitate Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in that. That you conflate mainstream Islam or even mainstream Sunnism (that strongly rejects such understanding as being contrary to Tawhid) with Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Wahhabism speaks to an inherant lack of knowledge on your part on what most of the classical theological schools of Islam, who despise Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab as a heretic by the way, state. Yes there are those Mystics who disagree with the Twelver Shi'a, the Zaidis, the Ibadis, the Ash'ari, the Hanafi, the Hanbali and even the Mu'tazilah on this - but they are not all Sufis even, with many if not most Sufis adopting a moderate approach strongly opposed to Panenthism. Please educate yourself on what most non-Wahhabi Muslims (i.e. historically most Muslims) believe. It seems as if you have a strange concept in your mind that those who aren't followers of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab are Sufis who are somehow all/mostly panentheists... This cannot be further from the truth and what is stated in reliable sources.

By the way, the Ottoman-Turkish conception of 'Orthodoxy' that you attempt to refer to as seen as the mainstream Sunni Islam by late Sunnis, was generally Sunni-Hanafi-Maturidi and tolerant of moderate Sufism. As theological Hanafis they were strongly opposed to such Panentheistic conceptions, being heavily influenced by Indian Hanafis like Ahmad Sirhindi who they referred to as 'Imam Rabbani' and their religion was not based off of Tengriism but an older Samarqandi and Kufic interpretation of Sunni Islam (the school of Abu Hanifah). Sufis who fell foul of orthodox doctrine were even punished at times. The Qadizedelis movement in particular is an interesting but not exclusive manifestation of this, and it enjoyed state support too.

That is all I have to say, I will leave it to you two to come to a suitable resolution on this, rewriting that section so that it represents all views whilst giving appropriate weight to mainstream Muslim views that have so far been unduely shunned. I trust that reliable and preferably secondary sources are used to do that and that academic sources should of course be preferred. ParthikS8 (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@ParthikS8: Thank you for your valuable time and effort in trying to resolve this dispute.

I have just some quick points that will help you understand my concern:

1. The content in general should reflect the consensus of the vast majority of Muslims, and any controversial opinions should be attributed to the authors exclusively.
2. I have no issues with adding more other sources to support the added content. My main objection is about the interpretation of Wahdat al-Wujud as pantheism. This interpretation is rejected by the majority of Muslims, as you have mentioned above.
3. I also object the deletion of sourced content, and replacing it with a paragraph without any sources at all! Is this how Wikipedia works?!.--TheEagle107 (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @ParthikS8:, and sorry for the delay. As stated on my personal page, I am quiete busy currently. Sometimes I feel like contemporary orthodoxy is too much emphazised. The years at the end of the Abbaside Chalifate, was pretty much followed by increasing influence of Sufism and heterodoxy. Both Shia and Sunni beliefs mixed. Many beliefs have further been merged with other Asian/North African beliefs and shaped the belief in God. No matter how much they contradict Orthodoxy (if we can even speak about Orthodoxy in this period of time) it is hold by many Muslims in this era. This is why I once added this section in the first place. It was not to contribute Ibn Arabi more than he deserves, but to give an overall impression how diverse Islamic conceptions of God can exist, especially in rural areas. The sources I got this from are mainly "Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia" by A.C.S. Peacock and articles like Shahab Ahmad's "What is Islam?". These show the diversity of Islamic concepts of the Divine. But I total agree, that explaining all this stuff about angels and devils and incarnation is too much. And I am glad someone pointed that out. Usually I do not talk much about my personal life, but I think it might be useful to note that I am from Middle Eastern Studies with a focus on Turkology, therefore my focus is more on 1200 onwards and I might focus too much on this period, giving unbalanced weight. Simultaneously, many contemporary scholars, especially in the missionary branch, simplify Islamic history on the other end. Maybe we should create a section seperatly for the heterodox concepts of God within Islam, and elaborate it more extensivly. Since this section now had a pretty bad start, I would even agree with deleting it for the start and try to find more sources about this subject and put them into a proper context. For a GA article, it is necessary that such "rural" and "heterodox" beliefs are metioned. But the way they are now, is rather ugly and hard to read for people, especially whose who did not dedicated their life and research on such topics. I will copy the text to my Sandbox. So far, I agree with @TheEagle107: and the edits about the contemporary theology-section.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle:, @ParthikS8:, Hello again! I have rewritten the content again and added more sources. I have put all of my effort to present all the different points of view impartially. Any feedback or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Please feel free to add other opinions and thoughts in a constructive manner. Best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection with neutrality after the rewrite. It might still benefit from explaining influence on the Muslim perception on God, especially since Sufism was central over many Centuries (Mongol Invasion until collapse of Ottoman Empire basically). Maybe it is suffice to mention some authors or organization in the Ottoman Court or about the generel effects on Islam by the teachings of Ibn Arabi. But this is not urgent I guess. Just something we might elaborate in the future. It seems acceptable as it is now.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: There is also something about contemporary theology and an Islamic view on Brahman in particular: "Studies in Islamic Mysticism Von Reynold Alleyne Nicholson" However, this is only the view of Abu-Karim al Jili, who is even more clearly panentheistic than Ibn Arabi. I would not add this as a general view point, but if other editors find more material, maybe there could be a "Sufi"-section for comparative theology. (This would also fits more with comparing God in Islam with the Turkic religion). This should be only done, if we really find enough material, otherwise, a short reference to Turkic and Hindu beliefs suffices.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheEagle107: I made a cahnge about the recent edit, as (and yes it is hard to hold them apart) the terms panentheism and pantheism seem to be confused. I know the author uses the term pantheism. The common Asian philosophies with a supreme deity, who takes many manifestations is usually termed "panentheism" (note the additional "en"). Apart from that, I am concerned about this content. The author makes assumptions, partly questionable, and when goes into a conclusion, which just does not follow from his premisses. His conclusion is in line with rejecting Hinduism as opposing Tauhid. And this seems to be his major concern, as he neither uses the terminology correctly, does not represent Hindu beliefs correctly, nor deducts correctly, what follows from pantheism. I will make a quote and mark possible mistakes: "this is because of the common Hindu belief in the philosophy of Pantheism.(Panentheism)(Is it common? Hinduism is used to refer to a wide range of different Hindu-beliefs, not all worship more than one god) Pantheism considers everything, living and nonliving, to be divine and sacred.(no, but panentheism does usually and this even to a varying degree. There are also demons in many panentheistic philosophies, and therefore a sort of "unholiness"). The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as a deity.(No, neither panentheism nor pantheism considers everything a deity. This is the common objection to Ibn Arabi, whenever he is critizied for "pantheistic beliefs", but neither Ibn Arabi nor pantheists, nor panentheists, nor Hindu state, that everything is a deitiy.) He considers the trees, the sun, the moon, the monkey, the cow, the snake and even human beings as separate deities.(no, they don't. They just don't. Different things might be considered a deity, but not everything is a deity necessarily. And this is probably rather rooting in Animism). The author Ali Ünal seems to be related to the Gülen Movement and might have missionary intentions not much differing from Zakir Naik (however, hopefully he is more trustworthy than Naik). The issue here seems to be the same. He provides his opinnion and does not conclude from unbiased research on this topic, but it seems he provides his conclusion first and adjusts the premises. The publisher is "Tughra Books" which seems to be "Islam Book"-pusblisher, specifically publishing books for interreligios dialogue (which I personally think is great), but seems to lack a scholary education or understanding of this matters. Or they simply do not revise their books properly. Neither Pantheism, nor Panentheism, nor Hinduism, nor Animism has been depicted adequatly by the author. My question now is, should we really use this author (but when write the name of the author who makes this claim, do not make it a general sentence as if it covers the general beliefs, it doesn't, the author is mistaken) or remove it again? I do not want to unappreciative towards your efforts, but I think this author might cause confusion among people not knowledgable in the field of religion and embarassing to whose who know about this subject. I would recommand to remove this author entirely. Maybe there is not even a adequate rejections of Hindu-beliefs, since panentheism is rather a new chalange for Muslim apologetics. In the past, Muslims usually challanged dualism from the Persians or monotheism from Jews and Chritians. In Asian regions, Islam was often assimilated to panentheistic beliefs via Sufis. So most arguements might be newly developed by the authors. In this case, we should merely quote the authors by their statements, but I would recommand to use some, who understand the topic and write their objection correctly.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: I understand that there is a difference between pantheism and panentheism. There are monist pantheists and panentheists in Hinduism (particularly in Advaita and Vishistadvaita respectively), and in Islam (among the Sufis, especially the Bektashi). The Muslim mainstream believes, first, in the absolute transcendence and moderate immanence of God but, second, strongly rejects incarnation in human or any other form, and, third, rejects pantheism or panentheism as well. Overall, we should follow what the sources say, whether we agree with them, or not. In this case, we should attribute the statement to the source (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). But if you still disagree, we can seek a third opinion.--TheEagle107 (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yong Choon Kim (1981). Oriental Thought: An Introduction to the Philosophical and Religious Thought of Asia. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 7. ISBN 9780822603658.

• Hans Köchler (1982). The Concept of Monotheism in Islam and Christianity. International Progress Organization. p. 32. ISBN 9783700303398.

Pantheism is particularly associated with Hinduism (also found in Taoism, and Sikhism). Although the Sikhs profess to believe in one God, that God can take on so many manifestations that their nominal monotheism quickly takes on all the character of pantheism, just as in many other forms of Hinduism. I think there is no disagreement on this point, but anyway, I hope these two sources are adequate enough.--TheEagle107 (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree we should go with the sources, as long as they are reliable. The ones you give out here seem to be appropriately published. I am checking the relevant pages and will quote the pssage I am referring to. I am not sure if I get the same you were thinking about, if not, please quote the passage you are reffering to:

• "It (pantheism) is particulary associated with early Hinduism."
• "Some have considered pantheism an emanation of polytheism, marked by speculative thought. By contrast, polytheism, in its original appearance, was the religion of primitive peoples. (...) Those who subscribe to this distinction between pantheism and polytheism, with the latter preceding the former in time, have seen the ermegence of pantheism as the endeavour of man, having reaching a certain stage of intellectual refinement, to discard and conceal the crudity of some forms of polytheism under the decent coverage of speculation.
• Polytheism in powerfuil forms exists in India today. It is a central part of the beliefs and daily worship of millions if human beings.
• "It can range from a profound mystical expression and experience to a form of atheism."

This is what Hans Köchler writes. People who equate pantheism with polytheism seem to be a minority and because pantheism can also take on atheistic forms, it is unreasonable to equate them.

Now regarding the work of Yong Choon Kim: I couldn't find much about pantheism, only pantheistic on page 7-8. Page 7 speaks about Polytheism. The pantheistic concepts found in the Upanishads mentioned in the source, is about the philosophical concept of Brahman, not about any deity or gods. The sources in question however, speak about deities and deified objects in relation to pantheism, which is inaccurate. Choon Kim doesn't speak about a relationship between pantheism and Islam, nor that Polytheism and Pantheism are the seem. The sources in question once again seem to confuse the terminology.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the sources about relationship between Hinduism and Islam are either self-published or published by missionary-media, an objection is justified WP:USESPS WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSSELF. The better sources you offered here, do not agree with what the authors used in the text state.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Forgive my interloping, and if I am missing any subtleties of the debate here, but just as an outsider opinion, I really do not care for the final paragraph regarding Hinduism--even before sourcing is considered, it just seems not contextualized and sort of unmoored from the rest of the piece. I would favor removal or a serious rewrite, ideally with more sources which are directly on point. Then again, I am often wrong, and as I say, an interloper. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing the relevance of this either, what does this tell us about Islam?Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

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)