Talk:Tawhid/Archive 1

Tawheed, regardless of the way you spell it, is the concept of monotheism within Islam regardless of Islamic madhab. Having two articles about the concept of Islamic monotheism is as strange as having an article on Allah and another on Allaah. --JuanMuslim 00:03, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the user's comment above. Merge them. Adamcaliph 15:28, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles. See Tawhīd Adamcaliph 19:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Lastest merger discussion is below. Please do not contribute here. --- ALM 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawhid Defined

Whereas the fundamental concept of God in Christianity is the Trinity, the fundamental concept of God in Islam is Tawhid. Therefore, quotes from the Quran and Haddith that refer to the concept of God must be used throughout this article similar to Bible references in the Wikipedia article about Trinity. This is the most important aspect of Islam, and therefore, this article needs as much as detail as the article on the Trinity.--JuanMuslim 03:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to expand on this point as I've done in the para about the Trinity, and originally did so in the Article about Jesus. Someone rightly pointed out it wasn't the appropriate place and I've put it here instead. --Alibi 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Tawhid - three aspects

The three aspects were formulated by Islamic scholars as a result of shirk that was creeping upon the Ummah. This occured way before the term "Wahabbi" was ever thought of. --JuanMuslim 03:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

From the following link: Aspects of Tawheed

...These three aspects form the basis for the categories into which the science of Tawheed has been traditionally divided. The three overlap and are inseparable to such a degree that whoever omits any one aspect has failed to complete the requirements of Tawheed. The omission of any of the above mentioned aspects of Tawheed is referred to as "Shirk" (lit. sharing); the association of partners with Allaah, which, in Islamic terms, is in fact idolatry....

...The early caliphs and their governors were closer to Islamic principles and the consciousness of the masses was higher due to the presence of the Prophet's companions and their students. Hence, the demand for the elimination of open heretics received immediate response from the rulers. In contrast, the later Umayyad caliphs were more corrupt and as such cared little about such religious issues. The masses were also less Islamically conscious and thus were more susceptible to deviant ideas. As greater numbers of people entered Islaam, and the learning of an increasing number of conquered nations was absorbed, the execution of apostates was no longer used to stem the rising tide of heresy. The task of opposing the tide of heresy fell on the shoulders of the Muslim scholars of this period who rose to meet the challenge intellectually. They systematically opposed the various alien philosophies and creeds by categorizing them and countering them with principles deduced from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah. It was out of this defense that the science of Tawheed emerged with its precisely defined categories and components. This process of specialization occurred simultaneously in all of the other areas of Islamic knowledge as it has done in the various secular sciences of today. Therefore, as the categories of Tawheed are studied separately and in more depth, it must not be forgotten that they are all a part of an organic whole which is itself the foundation of a greater whole, Islaam itself.

Shafi3i, I want to see your proof/references that the three aspects of Tawhid are limited to the Salafi madhab. I have already posted my own references and explanations. --JuanMuslim 08:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Sectarian Differences

It is important that we acknowledge sectarian differences in a proper, accurate way. We must avoid categorizing all Muslims as either Wahabbi and all else. --JuanMuslim 03:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be best to Acknowlage them as Sunni, Shia, Whahabie, Ekwan, Qurbursi [pseduo-sufi] etc..a distinction MUST be made, if we generalize, then the readers will think that all the diffrent beleifs of each group is - islam - when they arn't. if the whahabies beleive such and such, we should nto sAy 'muslims believe such and such, rather, we should point out, in EVERY instance, who the beleif being mentioned, belongs to. Crono 19:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in Mind

The basis/fundamentals of the Salafi madhab are essentually Hanbali, because the founders of Salafi dawah were Hanbali. Hence, like the other schools of thought, they all share similar fundamental ideas regarding fiqh. For example, these different madhab accept certain fundamental concepts regarding various aspects of aqeeda. the various founders/scholars of the schools of thought had tremendous respect for one another. They're all known for making statements, such as "If he is correct then that is my madhab." The Salafis do, however, reject the direction/evolution that the the various madhab took. However, the three aspects of tawheed predate the Hanbali and Salafi madhab. The three aspects are something that Sunni Muslims do not debate although they may differ about details (halal and haram) of each aspect. The details regarding differences (such as about graves, shia, etc) would be better as its own section after the section called "Aspects of Tawhid." Hope that helps. --JuanMuslim 07:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

More accuracy

The version from September 17, 2005 of the article about Tawheed was more accurate. --JuanMuslim 04:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it was pure Salafi propaganda. I know that Salafis have been having their way in various articles, but really, that is not NPOV and it must stop. There is no reason for a position held by a MINORITY of Muslims to take up 90% of the article. Nor is there any call for endless quotes from the Qur'an, which may have a place in a religious tract, but not in an encyclopedia.

I may have been rough on the Salafis. I've been reading about the early history of Wahhabism and the House of Saud and I definitely have an opinion at this point. There's one sentence that is definitely POV as it stands (though I think it's an accurate statement of the case) but I'll take it out. Zora 06:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The following was inserted by 81.130.8.54 after blanking some content. Content blanked has been restored. Comment by 81.130.8.54 below--inks 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Shias are not Muslims but Mushrikeen (polytheists). Their prayers are directed towards a mythical and non-exsitant naked cave dwelling savage known to them as the 12th Imam

^Absolutely false. How about consulting a Shi'a for some facts?

Hey, anon, this is the talk page, not the article. We don't let stuff like that stand in articles, but almost anything goes in a discussion. Zora 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nahj

I added the famous sermon in which Ali describes Tawhid, and Zora removed it saying it had nothing to do with the topic, and it is shia-prolesizing... surprise... not...

I wonder how comes that The Quran is not muslim prolesizing, and the salafi section is not wahabi prolesizing, but Nahj is shia-prolesizing?

Waiting for a answer...

--Striver 19:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Every view about the Oneness of Allah needs to be represented. That includes the inclusion of the quote you mentioned as well as other quotes from the Quran. Maybe you could add a section about the Shia view about tawheed, and maybe you can include your quote as an introduction and use references to the quote within the section. --JuanMuslim 21:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, will do :) --Striver 21:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Object strongly to giving Striver carte blanche to mangle the article. So far as I know, the mainstream Sunni and the Shi'a view of Tawhid are exactly the same. Unless there's a difference, there's no need to go into details. It's the Wahhabis who made Tawhid controversial, and it's that view that's covered in detail.

Tell me where mainstream Sunni belief and Shi'a belief re Tawhid differ. Zora 23:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, i first tried to add to the article some primary sources that expanded on the Issue of Muslim view of Tawheed. Of course, it must be a Shia or Sunni source. I choose a Shia source. If i would have Choosen a Sunni source, im sure you would have nothing against having the primary source regarding the issue. Either you have a anti-shia bias, or you dont want to have primary sources in the article. Wich one is it? Im going to reinsert the additional information under the headlin "primary sources". Dont oppose giving information on the sole account that its Shia. As you sais, Shia and Sunni hardly differ regarding the issue, therefore both sources will do equally good. I give you credit for one thing: You do know how to upset me. If you have some primary sources where Umar is expanding on the issue of Tawheed, you are welcome to ad that as well. --Striver 00:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly WHAT is to be discussed? So far as I know, no Muslims have disputed Tawhid, they have merely disputed how the principle is to be applied. The quote from Ali had nothing to do with that. It doesn't explain anything. Zora 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What is wr... *calming down*...

...*sight*

it DOES NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING!!!! IT EXPLAINS THE CONSEPT FROM A PRIMARY SOURCES!!!!

--Striver 01:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see any difference between Ali's explanation, and the Qur'anic explanations, which are surely more noteworthy. You are putting that bit here because it's a quote from Ali, not because it's particularly useful or notable. He may be important to you, but to many others, he's just another caliph. Zora 05:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Already in the first line you can see a detail not expresed in the Noble Quranic vers: "Whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like". Further, the sermon is LONG and it would not be appropiate to paste all of it in the article. Take and read it, and it you will se how much more info it contains :)

The tawheed part of the sermon is three sections, and that is a lot more than the five Quranic lines. --Striver 12:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, we can link to it -- IF we also have links to various Sunni explications of tawhid. And to be fair, Ibadi as well, if such is to be found. Zora 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, lets do that. I quote myself a few lines earlier: "If you have some primary sources where Umar is expanding on the issue of Tawheed, you are welcome to ad that as well". Anyone feeling up for the task? --Striver 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Zora, finds no problem with Biblical quotes in the Holy Trinity article, but refuses to allow references to Tawheed from Quranic and Haddith, etc. Striver, refer to my previous edits on this talk page. --JuanMuslim 04:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora removing first hand material only to replace it with a equaly long section using her own prose is one of my standing issues with her.--Striver 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora

You removed the Ali quote since you said that the other caliphs where not quoted. Whell then, go find some quotes from them! You wont find any, because they did not knew anything about tawheed!

Stop removing information that is relevant to the article only because the other caliphs where ignorat of the Issue. Other caliphs not having anything to contribute with does not warant the removal of those that did have something, acctualy a lot, to contribute with. --Striver 13:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem Zora has with your quote by Ali is that she also wants a description of what the quote means in light of concept of Tawheed in Shia Islam. That would also help others understand. Right now, the quote by Ali is pretty much random. Maybe you could mention some of the similarities and differences of Tawheed with Sunni Islam. I personally don't think Muslims have to address all the criticism. I know that you are familiar with the following quote by Abū Bakr: "If anyone worshipped Muhammad, let them know that Muhammad is dead, but if anyone worshipped God, then let them know that God is living and cannot die." --Juan Muslim 19:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not add the Ali quote to reflect any particular Shia view... i just added it to present a first hand source. Acctualy, your Abu Bakr quote might go into the same category... I myselfe dont see how the quote relates to tawheed, as it could just as well relate to trinity, it only states that God can not die, and so do trinitarians. But notheless, if you want to put the Abu Bakr quote along in the original sources section, i wont object. Maybe ill do something about Abu Hurrairas non-tawheed someday, but not today... Shia and most Sunnis have the same view of tawheed, as far as i know. --Striver 20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is the Salafi "God has a face, hand, foot and so on, but not like any foot we know of" that i, and most Sunnis also for that matter, object to. --Striver 20:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is too short. This is a complex subject. And, not everyone has the same views. --Juan Muslim 20:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Added Sections

I added additional sections to encourage more balance on the article. I also readded the expert template to encourage more knowledgeable people to assist on the article. --JuanMuslim ^1m 07:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You say that Sunni and Shi'a views of Tawhid differ, and give a quote from Ali (that Striver wanted) with which no Sunni would disagree. That does not illustrate any differences. What ARE they, then?

So far as I know, Muslims agree about Tawhid with the exception of the Salafis, who believe that Tawhid forbids many things that other Muslims accept. There doesn't seem to be room for much complexity here. Just what complexity do you see? Zora 14:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Your statements should just how little you know about Tawhid, hence, the request for expert assistance. It's not all about that Salafis just forbid certain things more than others. You could, for example, write about what traditionalists have written/stated about Tawheed, and the similarities and differences between the various divisions of islam. --JuanMuslim ^1m 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Check out the article on Trinity; the sections/info/analysis/etc. That article provides good ideas for the article on Tawhid. --JuanMuslim ^1m 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Juan, you seem to believe that there are complexities, but I haven't run across them. Aside from the Salafi dislike of tawwasul (sp?), the only other dispute I can recall is the created/uncreated Qur'an controversy. Supporters of the created Qur'an position said that positing an eternal Qur'an seemed to be creating an additional deity. However, they lost. You seem to me to be insisting that there MUST be complexities, you don't know what they are, and therefore an expert is needed. Surely the complexities would have made it into histories of Islamic thought if they existed, yes? But there's nothing there but the uncreated Qur'an.

The Trinity is an entirely different matter. Christians split into sects and killed each other over different formulations of the Trinity. Homoousian or Homoiousian -- people killing for an iota. Any history of Christian theology is going to be full of names for the different beliefs and long accounts of their conflicts. I don't find that in histories of Islam. Zora 14:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The same applies within Islam. That's another thing I wanted to mention. To understand the differences, etc, you would have to learn about Islamic history, such as how fiqh has evolved. --JuanMuslim ^1m 15:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was the Ali quote moved to a "shia" section? Is there enything in that quote that makes it Shia? --Striver 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be good if there are sections on the Shia view, etc of tawheed. That is to show similarities and differences. That particular quote you mentioned looks neutral. I don't know. --JuanMuslim ^1m 20:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the commentary on that particular quote. I've never met any Sunni Muslim that would use Nahj al-Balaghah as legitimate source material in explaining their beliefs about the concept of God. --JuanMuslim ^1m 21:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Shi'a-Sunni

Quote:

There is a clear difference between the two creeds. The views of the ahl al-sunna wa'l-Jama'a which maintain [the belief in] corporealism and claim that Allah, Glory be to Him, has a body, form [which is] seen and His shape is in human form. He walks and descends and He bends His body and does other abominable things. God is above and exalted over these things.

The beliefs of the Shi'as who dissociate Allah from forms, bodily traits, and corporealism and maintain the impossibility of seeing Him in this world and in the next. I personally believe that the traditions which the ahl al-sunna wa'l-Jama'a base their arguments upon are all [the result of] interpolation of Jews in the time of the companions because Ka'b al-Ahbar, the Jew who became a Muslim in the time of 'Umar b. al-Khattab, inserted these beliefs which the Jews maintain, using some naive companions like Abu Hurayra and Wahb b. Munabbih. Most of these are reported in al-Bukhari and Muslim by Abu Hurayra. [1]--Striver 08:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm reading a book on the history of Shi'a Islam, by Moojan Momen, and he says that the proto-Shi'a were anthropomorphists until approximiately 900-1000 CE, when the Twelvers adopted Mu'tazili views. From the Sunni -- who then proceeded to reject those views, leaving them to the Shi'a. A complete changeabout of positions. Tracing this to Jewish influence is both wrong and possibly anti-Semitic. Zora 09:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, that's the type of info I was referring to. So, there are differences among Shia and Sunni. Like what Striver said is one thing Shia say about Sunnis, but Sunnis will say Shia are committing shirk with their beliefs about the 12 Imams. It's complex, and if I wrote about it, I wouldn't release it into GFDL. lol. --JuanMuslim ^1m 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

But tawhid and anthropomorphism are two different things. Tawhid merely says that god is one; anthropomorphism says that he's one human-like person. No contradiction that I see. Zora 06:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And, for most Muslims anthropomorphism is an example of shirk. God is not to be associated with creation and vice versa. That's why Muslims would say belief that Jesus is God is shirk. --JuanMuslim ^1m 06:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Juan is correct, The vast majority of muslims are in agreement that God is not and cannot be physically incarnated. Surah Ikhlas (referenced in the article) clearly states nothing is comparable to Him; human, creation, imams, whatever. Additionally, even the Prophet of Islam says that he was human and not God. (I hope this argument isn't considered Salafic... ;-) user:Abdullah_Tahir

More Shi'a belives

THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF ALLÁH 1) Qadím: Alláh is eternal. He has neither a beginning nor an end. 2) Qadir: Alláh is omnipotent. He has power over all things. 3) 'Alim: Alláh is omniscient. He is all-knowing. 4) Hai: Alláh is living. He is alive and will remain alive forever 5) Muríd: Alláh has his own discretion is all affairs. He does not do anything out of compulsion. 6) Mudrik: Alláh is all-perceiving. He is all-hearing, all-seeing, and is omnipresent. Alláh sees and hears everything though he has neither eyes nor ears. 7) Mutakalim: Alláh is the Lord of the Worlds. He can create speech in anything: the burning bush for Musa and the curtain of light for Muhammad. 8) Sadiq: Alláh is truthful. His words and promises are true.

THE NEGATIVE ATTRIBUTES OF ALLÁH 1) Sharík: Alláh has no partners. 2) Murakab: Alláh is neither made, nor composed, of any material. 3) Makán: Alláh is not confined to any place and has no body. 4) Hulúl: Alláh does not incarnate into anything or anybody. 5) Mahale hawadith: Alláh is not subject to changes. Alláh cannot change. 6) Marí: Alláh is not visible. He has not been seen, is not seen, and will never be seen, because he has no form or body. 7) Ihtiyaj: Alláh is not dependant. Alláh is not deficient, so he does not have any needs. 8) Sifate zayed: Alláh does not have added qualifications. The attributes of Alláh are not separate from His being.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/shia.htm

--Striver 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[2] -anon --Striver 01:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bounced Edits

I had added edits recently to this page in the attempt to clarify certain statement regarding the topic and was surprised to find that my revisions were labeled "Salafi" and then removed. What is the working definition of Salafi we are using and how did my edits fall outside of the general Muslim understanding of Tawhid? Additionally I am concerned because my edits were labeled Salafi when I myself am not even Salafi. Maybe someone can shed some light on this?

--Mr. Tahir

Edits

Brother Anonymous editor, i appreciate your co-edition. Could i convince you that the "critique of the Salafi view" to be a sub-set of "critique of the Sunni view", since Salafis are a sub-denomination of Sunnis?

Peace! --Striver 14:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ali quote, critique section

Striver keeps trying to put that long Ali quote here. It's not needed, there's nothing distinctive about it, and it unbalances the article. Shi'a do not need more attention than the 85-90% of Muslims who aren't Shi'a.

As for the critique section that was added -- it was badly written and a bad idea. Tawhid is one of the central concepts of Islam -- when you start getting into sectarian back and forth about what it REALLY means, you're falling off into deep theological water! For one thing, there are shades and divisions within Sunni, Shi'a, or Salafi thought; you can't talk about kalam as if there were just one Sunni kalam. It could be argued that even the material I've left is a gross caricature.

The best way to handle this would be to make sure that the best-known Islamic theologians are covered in articles and that those articles have notes re their views of tawhid. Then we could link the tawhid article to those article, as covering the subject in sufficient detail. Zora 09:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Zora, it is possible that there are different shades within the denominations, but it does'nt change the fact that there are some commmon ciritique aimed at each denomination. It is possible that you are not familiar with this, in that case: become familiar with it, instead of deleting the material.

Also, the Ali quote is central, Shi'a take great pride in it, and it does need representation in the Shi'a view section. There is no such thing as "you cant include it since it gives you to much space". If the other have have'nt anyting to say, they dont, its there "problem", as if it was a problem.

If they have anyting more to add, they do. Information is more important then having proportionate space, this is not a competiontion over space, where you get a share according to the number of your denomination, this is about representing information.

If this is really such a concern for you, move the part that "unbalances" it to a break out article Shi'a view of Tawhid, dont delete the material.

The Ali quote is distinct, since it does not have a counterpart in Islamic literature, its unique.

Peace.

--Striver 10:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Striver has completely munged the article

Striver, you've taken a good article and turned it into gibberish.

If you want to get into theological mudslinging re tawhid, I'd say that the Shi'a are highly vulnerable to charges that they exalt the Ahl-ul-Bayt to co-equal status with God. What else can you make of doctrines that say that "Muhammad, Fatima, and the Imams are conceived in their mystical dimension as being a light that God created before the creation of the material world. This light then became the cause and instrument of all the rest of the creation". (Momen, Introduction to Shi'i Islam, 1985, p. 185). Saying that the Imams created the world? Are you sure that you want to get into this? Zora 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Add that to the critique of the Shi'a view if you want. However, make sure that you got the information straight, "Imams created the world" is not the Shi'a view, further, i do not see how that conflicts with tawhid, i have not seen anyone use it to claim Shi'as are mushrik. --Striver 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutazilites

The article is looking much better although I disagree with the accuracy of various parts. Anyway, there needs to be a longer, better discussion on the Mutazilites. The article could use a better discussion on the evolution of fiqh as it pertains to the understanding of God among various Muslims. --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

page title

The page title should be moved to Tawhid. None of the other Islam related pages have accents in their page titles, and the proposed MOS for Arabic suggests not doing it. Cuñado - Talk 07:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page title, as nobody responded. Cuñado - Talk 20:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Q

from here

It is the very basic of Muslim faith. Why they have divided it into Sunni/Shia? Even many attributes of Allah consider by Sunni as well as Shia are written ONLY under Shia. Even Quranic Ayats are divided into sects. Can someone look at it and try to get common thing out from Sect sections, so that the sizes of shia/sunni sections could be reduced ? --- Faisal 03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

What specifibaly did you have in mind? --Striver 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Reduce the sizes of Sunni/Shia etc views and make the common thing large. Do not divide the Ayat and other things like the way it is currently. --- Faisal 18:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... it does seem like somebody added text to the Salafi view that is shared by all views, if that is what you are refering to, then im all for moving it up to the Muslim view. Is there any particular part in the Shi'a view that you feel is shared by the Sunnis? --Striver 19:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Allah attributes etc. However, I do not know for sure. Hence I have asked User:Islami to help. -- Faisal 19:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Shi'a and Sunni differ on some of those issues. I hope User:Islami talks before starting to change. --Striver 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, take into account, sub-groups, for instance, the 12%ers and the Assassins [two historic shia groups, with differing views], we should not put what they may believe, and mix it under the geenral title of 'shia' rather, it should be specified. Crono 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

I edited out what I perceived to be a couple of unnecessary comments. Some on had wrote in "tawhid sucks and shirk rules ha ha" and had also made a coment about BDSM which I felt did not fit in at all. It would probably be a good idea for a subject matter expert to review the entire article for less blatant discrepancies. PatrickRF 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

why are we adding 'Sunni' to the salafi title?

Sunni and salafi are two completely oppostie groups in the most core issues, why are we [not in just this article, but all over wiki pedia refering to salafis as 'sunni salalafi'? in the salafi world, there is no division amoung the salafies, thus no distinction on which 'type' of salafi should be made, there is one salafi, salafi, not sunni salafi, sayign sunni salafi is like saying jewish christian Crono 04:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well... there are those who call themselves "jewish christians." See messianic judaism. By the way.. I think it's interesting to note that Jews known as Dor Daim, students of the Rambam, and apparently a few other segments of Orthodox Judaism have seemingly the same realization of the Tawhid as do Shiite muslims. Additionally, the same groups seem to have in common with Salafi muslims the same digust towards use of partners or intermediaries between oneself and the Almighty or in crying out to any force or power (whether it is a dead saint or otherwise). Just an interesting note.

Also, the Rambam wrote in the Mishneh Torah that he considered the muslims of his lifetime to have the same essentials/fundamentals of belief/faith as Judaism (as he perceived it). From this I wonder whether there was ever a movement or group in Islam that combined the concept of Tawhid as proclaimed by Shiites with the disdain for mediators/intermediators proclaimed by Salafi muslims. Do any salafi muslims agree with the Shiite perspective of Tawhid?

Most Salafi [whahabie salafi that is, as there is no other 'salafi' in existance anymore] cosnider shia to be non-muslims period. Because they do not believe god is a phsyical body. This is also why many salafi whahabies cosnider Sunnis as non-muslims, becasue we do nto believe god has a phsyical body [or mental body or any sorta of body or part what so ever] The salafies believe god has a body [but not like ours] and is sitting on the arsh [not like we do], but reguardless, they still say they believe god has a body, though they add the 'not like ours' tag to it. [even if it wasn't liek ours, its still a body] Crono 21:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC) [and i think this went a bit Ot, i just wanted to point out the diffrences...]

Salafism is a movement within Sunni Islam. Even those opposed to the Salafi movement agree on that. MezzoMezzo 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is always a problem with categorizing divisions of religions because the members of a religion see themselves differently than those who are not members. So wahhabi salafis might not consider themselves sunni but they are never the less a movement coming from the Sunni background, even if they are Sunni rejectionists. The best thing is to describe the history of the movement, how it is viewed by others and how they see themselves. Pokeraddict 00:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Negative theology and Divine Simplicity

Hi. I came to this article via the link at the top of the Divine simplicity article - nice work gents!

Please could I request:

1. In Divine simplicity, a small overview of this topic under its own subheading - In Islamic Thought - with the link at the top of the new section.
2. A similair overview + appropriate link in the Negative theology article.

Thanks.

Fintor 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Muslim viewpoint

There is agreement among Muslims about "Oneness" of "Allah", but interpretations are different. So we shuold write the main idea about Tawhid under Tawhid#Muslim view then write each sect's interpretation. But we have done in opposite way in this article.--Sa.vakilian 07:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Merger discussion

Disagree NO MERGER: Islamic concept of God and Tawhid are two different things and should not be merge. Tawhid should have things that is about uniquness of God abilities and his oneness. It has nothing to do with the things discuss here. We should move those useless Shia / Sunni stuff to Islamic concept of God and make this article what actually Tawhid means. If someone does not believe in Tawhid then he is not considered a Muslim. However, not believing the things discuss in this article will not make anyone non-Muslim. I am Sunni and I am okay to accept Shia concepts too. Hence these things should NOT be discussed in this article but should be placed in Islamic concept of God article. --- ALM 17:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... good point... --Striver 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My father seems to agree... --Striver 17:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

father? He also use wikipedia? Say my special salam to him then. --- ALM 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but i ask him for advice from time to time :) --Striver 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with ALM. We can maintain main ideas on the basis of Qur'an.--Sa.vakilian 03:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with merge. --Aminz 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with all due respect to the users I disagree with. I think Islamic concept of God should be merged with Allah, and then Allah should be improved.Bless sins 13:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Tawhid, i.e. God's oneness forms only one part of the Islamic concept of God. I agree with the user above though, in that Allah should be merged with Islamic concept of God. --Bluerain ^talk 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to change it

I wish to change the article by moving thing related to Shia/Sunni believe out from it. The article will have thing on which all Muslims agrees and denying that one become non-Muslim. We all know that believe or not believing that Allah has shape or not does not make anyone non-Muslim hence it has no place here. We can create a new article about that or otherwise put them in Islamic-concept-of-God. Tawhid is a basic principle of Muslims and many thing mentioned in the article has nothing to do with it. I hope some help will come to support my work in totally good intentions. --- ALM 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Believeing God has a body, makes you a non-muslim. Period, And there is no other consensus about this under classical scholarship. THe attributes of Allahs self arethe MOST BASIC aspects of tawhid. Apostacy, what you mentioned, is just a single part of Aqqedah, Just as Tawhid is a part of Aqqedah. Aqqedah branches off, and two of those branches are Al-Riddah [apostacy] and Tawhid. The part i posted long ago entitled Sunni View, is the most basic outline or summary of Sunni Tawhid. And it is my stand that it stays.

The Oness of Allah is just oen attribute out of the 13 arttibute which describe the self of Allah. Those 13 attributes are here:

""Summing up what has been mentioned before, it is affirmed that Allah, ta^ala, has thirteen attributes which were mentioned repeatedly in the Qur'an, either explicitly or implicitly. These are: Existence (al-Wujud), Oneness (al-Wahdaniyyah), Eternity (al-Qidam, i.e., al-'Azaliyyah), Everlastingness (al-Baqa'), Non-neediness of others, (al-Qiyamu bin-Nafs), Power (al-Qudrah), Will (al-'Iradah), Knowledge (al-^Ilm), Hearing (as-Sam^), Sight (al-Basar), Life (al-Hayah), Speech (al-Kalam), and Non-resemblance to the creation (-al-Mukhalafatu lil-hawadith). Since these attributes were mentioned many times in the Qur'an and hadith, the scholars said knowing them is a personal obligation (fard ^ayn).""

http://www.aicp.org/IslamicInformation/English/Summaryessential.htm

They are listed in this book i linked to. Not believeing in ANY of these attributes [denying any of them] is blasphemy, and the one that does it is NOT a muslim, More Over, even if one was not aware of these attributes, and they still denied them, they are STILL held accountable, and they still are not muslim.

Knowing who Allah is, is what Tawhid is, Oness is jsut 1/13 of that knowlage if you want to get technical.

Imam Ashariyy and Imam Asakir have both said this in thier books. Maturid also said them, though they were explined diffrently, the meanings were still the same, and Ashariyy and Maturid are the only known valid schools of Aqqedah.

Crono24.92.71.203 04:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be Shia view. Even not all the shia views too. We wish to have in the article what we all agreed on. We can create seperate article about this. --- ALM 17:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody believes literally that Allah swt has physical body parts, like us. Even the most extreme Zahiris don't believ that, they simply affirm that he has a "hand" and say it means "hand" not power, but they do not then say that the hand is anything like an human or physical body, they argue to leave such delving alone. I agree that this article should only contain the agreed upon definition and explanation of Tawheed without getting into nitty gritty Sunni/Shia/Salafi split hairs. Aaliyah Stevens 14:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please spend some time on this article. I will be thankful. Wassalam --- ALM 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Open any book by Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahahab, and he will state that Allah is Literally sitting on the arsh, in person. this implies a body or form of some sort. IP7564144211 23:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ALM and Aaliyah. I think a neutral page on tawheed is something we need to aim for. I'm willing to help out though I won't work on it alone. This seems like something that needs a few strong editors with diverse viewpoints. MezzoMezzo 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity

I mean no disrespect for those who believe in the Trinity, but I'm just wondering, would the Trinity be considered shirk in Islam - having God associated with the Son and Holy Spirit? --Fantastic4boy 23:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

yes. see ^{[Quran 5:72]} onwards. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections

I have a proposal to remove some text I find irrelevant to the subject of tawhid and the article as a whole; I wanted to make sure I discuss it here before I go ahead with it. First, under the sub-section Sunni Salafi view for Muslim views, there is some information on what Salafis consider to be shirk. There is already a separate article for Shirk (polytheism) and I think such information belongs there, not here. Also the entire Critique of the Sunni Salafi view sub-section only contains information on Salafi and Shia disputes on the validity of Mawlid, for which there is also already an article. Because that information would be most relevant there, I don't see why it should be contained here and I suggest dropping that entire section, as it adds nothing to the Tawhid article. Please leave any feedback here. MezzoMezzo 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

quite right... since when did the issue of mawlid become relevant to tawhid?? ITAQALLAH 09:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Considering that the mawlid article is a bit lacking (and still frequently - including this very morning - hit by vandalism) I think the information should at the least be moved there. It just doesn't belong here. MezzoMezzo 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

shirk the opposite of tawhid

its to believe in somthing comparable to GOD the creator. as a companion or helper of god may be thought as equal to his nature and powers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.161.44.11 (talk) 08:43, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Shi'a defying Ali? no description

In "Critique of the Shi'a view" it says Sunni's believe Shi'a are Defying Ali. I was wondering how they think the Shi'a are defying Ali, there is no explanation of why they think so. Pokeraddict 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Attributes of Allah

"Shi'a maintain that it should not be said that God has strength or wisdom, creating a duality and nullifying Tawhid. Rather, it can be said that God is strong and wise."

"attributes should not be attached to God...However, Shi'a do not understand this as the notion that God lacks attributes"

I don't understand the difference between saying "God has strength" and "God is strong" both gives attributes to God. Shi'a believe you should not give attributes to God yet there is a list of attributes for God that Shi'a believe in. Can someone give an explanation of this? Pokeraddict 01:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy Paste You Say?

Actually, you know what, screw it,you guys do what ya want.

Recent Vandalism

Recently, this deletion took place a few times to the article, which including the removal of the entire section for criticism of the Shi'a view of tawhid. The reasoning given was:

Citing the beliefs of an almost non-existance heretical Shi'a subdivision, is not a "critique of the Shi'a view". And similarly, tawassaul - also a SUNNI belief, has nothing to do with issues of Tawhi

A few issues come to mind here:

1. The Alawis do exist.
2. Whether or not they are heretical is merely the editors own opinion.
3. The accusation of deifying Ali is one that is leveled by mainstream Ithna Asheri Shi'a as well.
4. Tawassul is a practice, not a belief.
5. Tawassul is practiced by Shi'as and well as Sunnis.
6. Some Sunnis criticize the Shi'a practice of it for a seeming breach in tawhid, specifically in regard to the oneness of worshiping Allah. There is Shi'a criticism of the Sunni practice as well.

With these in mind, I would ask the offending editor to please review the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Just because we may disagree with some of the views presented doesn't give us the green light to delete sourced information. As editors of an online encyclopedia, we simply make information available. It is up for the readers to make up their own minds. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The same deletion took place again, this time without so much as an edit summary. This is both disruptive editing and edit warring. Please either discuss the issue here beforehand or cease this pattern of editing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo is demonstrating extreme intellectual dishonesty, and is deleting facts - that are cited with references. He provides no credible reason to remove these facts, and should desist. HussHuss (talk) 12:15, 31st December 2007 (UTC + 10) —Preceding comment was added at 13:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi HussHuss. Material shouldn't be inserted except with reliable sources. Sunnipath.com doesn't conform to Wikipedia specifications as to what makes a reliable source, and, to be fair, neither does ansar.org etc. There is far too much polemic and "views" on this page, which is a shame and not what this article topic deserves. A major revamp of the entire article using reliable sources is warranted. ITAQALLAH 16:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started making some substantial changes to this article. It is still far from what is acceptable - the size of this Sunni vs. Shia conceptions must be reduced, the latter still overwhelming the article entirely. But hopefully everyone agrees this article needs to be less of an avenue for point-scoring, and more of a sensible, uncontroversial overview of some basic fundamentals of the concept. ITAQALLAH 16:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Huss Huss, I have explained multiple times in my edit summaries, despite your constant stream of personal attacks.

• First and foremost, both your earlier edit summary on the article and your comment here is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. You can't read a person's mind to know if they're being dishonest or not and to simply accuse anyone who disagrees with you of dishonesty is not only an attack but also very immature. Try stopping to consider the notion that maybe a reasonable person just doesn't agree with you.
• Second of all, I have primarily been deleting your insertion of POV. You have been labeling both the criticism and the references already there in the consensus version as Wahhabi, which is not only your own personal POV and thus a violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy but also an insult as "Wahhabi" is a derogatory term.
• Third, the "facts" I have been deleting are rather skewed. If you'd actually READ the section, you'd realize that the criticism is not toward Tawassul as if you'll read the article you'll notice that Sunnis do indeed practice it, but rather that many Shi'a seek tawassul through people that are dead. Whether the accusations against the Shi'a are true or not, that is the case. Your "reference" points out that Sunnis also believe in tawassul which is already established and thus irrelevant, as the criticism is in regard to tawassul through the dead in specific. Furthermore, information on what Sunnis believe has absolutely, positively no relevance at all in regard to criticism of the Shi'a view of tawhid and practices which critics may charge are contrary to it.

These are issues I have already made apparent to you via edit summaries and now comments on your own talk page. The criticism exists and thus readers should be aware of it whether it is right or wrong; Wahhabi is an insult and only your own personal opinion, and for you to label anything with that word violates two separate policies; and your "facts" have no relevance to the section whatsoever as the criticism is of tawassul through the dead, not tawassul in general. The consensus version of this article was already fine and to date your only justification for it has been along the lines of "Irrelevant to Tawhid. Wahhabis need to find something relevant, or not post anything" and other edit summaries. YOU are the one who must desist now, otherwise I will be forced to take this to the next level.
Please understand this is neither a threat nor an insult, as in the long run reporting your behavior will help to protect this and other articles from such editing patterns and (I hope) that the prospect of that will be enough to spur you to read the policies I posted above, learn a little more about how this site works, and become a strong contributing editor. If you don't like the current references, then perhaps you could help find some more agreeable onces for criticism of the Shi'a view of tawhid. If you don't like the current wording, then suggest a version you find to be better and we can discuss it seriously. Please consider what i've said for a moment, don't rush to formulate a response as though this is a flame war because I am trying to help you here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)