Talk:Tawhid

Archives

/Archive 1

Sufism, hadithism, atheism, 19

Sufism is association, and no authority on monotheism. The only monotheism is dualism. "Only one unique God over all worlds". Hadithism is also false. The only word of God, is The Quran. And atheistic statements such as random origins, evolution, abiogenesis, infinite universe, are false. And the statement 19 angels over hell should be accepted, and not associated with any numerology. And any similar things. Infact the "faith confession" should be changed to, "There is no god, but God over all worlds, and The Quran is His Word." To get the right idea, of what attitude to Islam, one should have.

Peace Be With You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.32.31 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review:Failed

This article is not complete. From the technical viewpoint it should be rearranged and expanded. I spoke with Aminz and he accepted to withdraw the article at this point.[1]--Seyyed(t-c) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In Sha Allah, I'll write my review in detail as soon as possible.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated. Jazak Allah.Bless sins (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an unusual case and I can't write a review for it. I want to add a section about Muslim's interpretation.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

Concerning the improvements on Tawhid: I think there could be a little more explanation of the textualist stance, because the current section all too easily equates it mostly with tashbih - which is only one perspective. I do believe that bi-la kayf was a significant part of the textualist stance. There is much more coverage given to the other two camps, namely the Ash'arites and Mu'tazilites. The textualist stance was codified primarily by al-Shafi'i and Ahmad b. Hanbal, which is why almost all early Shafi'ites and Hanbalites were traditionalist in their stance (the Hanafite school, in contrast, was much more accommodating to Mu'tazilism). The article doesn't really mention that al-Ash'ari himself changed over the years and eventually sought the approval of the textualist Hanbalites of his time with his book al-Ibana. The early Asharites too were substantially different in what they accepted (i.e. much closer to the textualists) as compared to later Asharites, which may be due to the increased influence of Kullabism. While there were indeed some who went to excesses in affirmation of attributes in the textualist school, it was pretty much a minority. So it might be a nice idea to draw upon a larger pool of reliable sources to get a more complete perspective. ITAQALLAH 12:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good source for textualist stance. Please help us with it. Corbin says it implicitly but the al-Ash'ari's position is not the issue of the article. The article discuss about Ash'ari school. Howevere I try to add something about the different interpretations among each school. I don't know what does Kullabism mean?--Seyyed(t-c) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there might be a few articles by G. Makdisi and others about this... but I'll have a look around. Re: Kullabism, see: Ibn Kullab. ITAQALLAH 12:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Itaqallah does make a good point; the way I had learned it, textualists/Atharis were distinct from the mushabbihah/anthropomorphists. As for 'Abdullah ibn Said ibn Kullab, i'm not sure where we could find stuff on him but his early influence was strong. Also, I noticed that there isn't a section for the Maturidis either. I initially thought they were like the Ash'aris with a different founder, but I believe they have some points of differing. We could possibly have a subsection for them too, don't they compose a sizeable portion of the Muslims in India/Pakistan? MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that each of the theological schools has changed during history. We can write a historical description.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could write like, brief historical summaries followed by the main article Wiki links to the individual articles. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding tanzih, while the basic principle of trancendence is an accepted one, the connotation of tanzih in kalami debate itself is something much more complicated and specific, and it wouldn't be fair to say that all schools agree on the same interpretation here. ITAQALLAH 12:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone put any more thought into this? It seems rather biased to just declare that tashbih is Athari extremism rather than a separate school entirely. It's certainly a comparison the Atharis would reject. By that reasoning, you could also say that Ash'ari extremism is equivalent to the beliefs of Jahm bin Safwan. Which would also be a biased claim and one the Ash'aris would reject. I hope the analogy makes sense. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Atheism

This part doesn't sound good in the article. I think it's irrelevant or it should be rewritten. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. It seems someone went through the article under the impression that "Tawhid" meant "belief in God", rather than "belief in the oneness of God", as can be seen in the "Theological Arguments" section. Babloyi (talk) 05:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Article title

If you feel this article should be at a different title, do a proper {{move}} request, seeking consensus first, don't just move it about as AAA765 (talk · contribs) did. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Strange, unecessary language

In this it says that "Islam has an uncompromising monotheism that makes it disctinct from other religions". There are other religions that are uncompromisingly monotheistic. This is unecessary and controversy-provoking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.110.61 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Islam has an uncompromising monotheism. Monotheism is a character shared by other major religions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WashPark (talk • contribs) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The reference to Turner (2006) after the controversial statement "Islam has an uncompromising monotheism [that makes it distinct from other religions -- old language, changed 7/22/11 to -> SOME other major religions -- thank you for that change]: The reference to Turner(2006) is now in question. First the reference is not complete. Who is Turner and what did s/he write? Second if Turner did not say that Islam shares the character of uncompromising monotheism with other major religions, the reference would be in error as it does not back the statement. Since the reader cannot check Turner's writing at this point, I ask that the reference to Turner be removed or completed. WashPark (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect view attributed to Ash'ari school

This article states that the Ash'aris believe "the Muslim must believe that God really does possess hands, face and so on, but without 'asking how'." This is not correct. The correct Ash'ari opinion is that the God possess a "wajh" but we do not know how (and so on for all terms that have anthropomorphic meanings when taken literally). The Ash'ari opinion considers the verses these terms are in to be among the Mutashabia verses of the Quran (verses meant to be taken figuratively) and so a person has two options. Option 1 is to leave the word as it it in Arabic and say "it has a meaning that we don't know but its meaning befits Allah." Option 2 is to ascribe a meaning that is figurative but falls within the clear verses of the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.154 (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)