Talk:God in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Reads like a Passage of the Qur'an[edit]

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)

Placement of image[edit]

  • 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 18:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

questionable content[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)

Without sons?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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. 19:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Veggieburgerfish 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)-got to sign in am

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 (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 (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 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"According to Christians"[edit]

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. (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. (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. (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


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)

Contradiction in this article[edit]

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)


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.-- (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


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


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 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


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)


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. (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. (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahbash influence[edit]

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)