Talk:God in Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. (Qur'an 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 (Qur'an 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 Chriastians 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)