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)

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.[3]--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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Etymology

I've added a reference to the strict and common etymology.Cpsoper (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy pasting of primary sources

User:Islamic11111, after I removed large portions of the article which were merely copy pastes of primary sources you reverted without discussion. As can be seen above in the talk page - and as I pointed to in my initial edits - large copy paste jobs of entire primary sources (in this case, passages from religious scripture) are not allowed per Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and WP:NOTESSAY. The way in which these sources were presented also gravitated toward a third violation, of Wikipedia:No original research to be specific.
In addition, your edit summaries were quite aggressive and combative; you told me I don't own Wikipedia, yet my edits were based on sound reasing backed by site policy while you have refused to provide any justification for your edits at all, short of a snide comment on my talk page that I shouldn't revert your edits because they "are Islam." Please review WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND before doing anything else, and then respond here next. I can see that you're new on Wikipedia so there is some leeway but from your end, you also need to recognize that there are policies and guidelines with which you are not familiar. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've written the article myself, not coping it somewhere and pasting it on wikipedia. It's taken from credible articles about tawhid. Islamic11111 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Islamic11111:, you're lying. I made a note above over a year ago that I would be removing copy-pastes of primary sources. I did so over multiple edits, and at 05:00 on 20 November 2014, you reinserted all of them. Every single passage you reinserted - every single one without exception - was based on direct copy pastes of an English translation of the Qur'an. You didn't write the Qur'an, therefore it is simply copy paste of something else - a primary religious scripture to be specific. Please reread the one guideline and two policies I linked to above. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge

How about we merge this article with God in Islam? 119.154.27.97 (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see that happening eventually, but not in its current state. As it stands right now, this article is full of a lot of rubbish. Tons of claims cited solely by the Qur'an in addition to other primary sources. The result is that most of this article - yes, most, I will stand by that comment - consists of original research. Removing so much content, however, is bound to be controversial. It needs to be done in steps and with much discussion, and by the time such a long process is completed I am sure that very little material will be left. At that point, merging might be possible as Tawhid refers to the understanding of God in Islam. But given all the work that is needed, this will take a very, very long time unless more editors are willing to help sort out this mess of an article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A few months on and this article is still filled with primary sources which seem as though they're trying to convince the reader of the editor's viewpoint. If no one else fixes it, I may have to start reducing material in this article soon - as it is, it comes off as way too polemical. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been a year and this article is still mostly full of lengthy quotes of primary sources. I'm going to chop away now per both WP:NOT#OR and WP:NOFULLTEXT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@MezzoMezzo: Why should it be merged? God In Islam Is Allah, on the other had "tawheed" is the belief that He is One.There's a difference if u ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Al Wasif (talk • contribs) 14:56, 2015 April 16 (UTC)

Well there is no difference if you ask me, or the guy who suggested the merge, and probably half a dozen editors. Please try to contribute positively to the discussion or your comment will just be ignored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tawhid

The overarching theme of tawhid is at the core of Islamic belief, Ruthven states that tawhid can be taken as 'can be taken to represent the primary impulse of Islam' ( Ruthven, 2012, p.57) and yet, the disunity apparent within Sunni and Shi'ite belief and practice demonstrates the political, social and theological diversity and disunity within Islam. The five pillars of Islam are fundamental indicators of Islamic faith and yet the disagreement between denominations of Islam and their relationship to these five pillars highlight significant differences in their interpretation. Even though many Muslim's would refute that the Qur’an can be interpreted, the actions, political structures and disagreements about the correct way to honour Allah's words and the Prophet Muhammad's actions illustrate that whilst tawhid is a Islamic ideal , the reality, evident in the way the umma, or 'worldwide community of believers' (Herbert(b), 2012, p.6) live their faith, demonstrates that this ideal has yet to be realised universally. Tawhid or 'making one' is implicit in the creedal formula' (Ruthven, 2012, p.57) of Islam. The Qur’an makes explicit reference that there is no god but God and that he has no spouse, offspring or equal, 'He is God, Unique, God, Lord Supreme! Neither begetting, nor begotten, And none can be His peer' (Qur’an surra 112). The very terms Islam and Muslim refer to the 'submission to God', ( Ruthven, 2012, p.12) a singular, unique God and a deep reverence to the Prophet Muhammad. The Fatiha, spells out the 'the principles of God's oneness' (Asad, 1984 in Ruthven, 2012, p.30) all Muslims therefore would reject the 'dualism of Arabian paganism' (Ruthven, 2012, p.58) and the Christian belief of Christ as the 'unique God-man' (Sinclair, 2006, p.27) but would more closely align themselves with the 'uncompromising monotheism of the Hebrew prophets' ( Ruthven, 2012. p.58). This idea of one God, without offspring, spouse or equal, accepted by all Muslims is the basis of tawhid. The means of acknowledging God’s uniqueness by abiding by the five pillars of Islam demonstrates a unity in the worship of one God but also highlights distinct differences within the Islamic world, especially notable between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.

The divide between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims centres around who would succeed Muhammad as Caliph, the 'shadow of God on earth' to carry 'religious and secular authority' (Herbert(b), 2012, p.2) within the Islamic world, whilst the majority Sunni Muslims elected Abu Bakr as Caliph the shi’at Ali party believed that Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali should have been Muhammad’s successor. Whilst Ali would ultimately become caliph this was not before he was bypassed twice by other ‘elected leaders ‘Umar and ‘Uthman’ (Herbert(a), 2012, p94). This difference of opinion and the subsequent deaths of Ali’s sons Hussein and Hassan would be a ‘defining moment in Shi’ite history’ (Herbert(a), 2012, p94) and would create a sense of martyrdom for Shi’a Muslims. These events would create a disunity within the Islamic world that would become evident in both the belief and practice of the five pillars of Islam.

The first of the five pillars is the shahada this is a declaration attesting to God’s uniqueness. A fundamental aspect of the Islamic faith, the duty of shahada is to declare that ‘There is no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet’ (Herbert(a), 2012, p.11.) by making this assertion Muslims are acknowledging the words of the Qur’an as God’s words and testifying to the revelations made by God to Muhammad. Such a fundamental statement of belief and submission unites the majority of the Muslims however, disunity can be observed by an addition to the shahada by Shi’ite Muslims who append the shahada with a declaration that ‘Ali is the friend of God (Ruthven, 2012, p.159). Further disunity is observable when discussing the shahada in relation the ‘qualifications for continuing to be called a Muslim’ ( Herbert(a), 2012, p93) with Murj’a believing that anyone who declares the shahada can be considered a Muslim whereas the Khawarij insist that unless one follow Shari’a law then one is not a Muslim and should be considered an unbeliever.

The second of the pillars is salat or prayer in the direction of Mecca five times a day. Whilst the amount of times to pray is not explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an, all Muslims are united in reverence of the Sunnah and the traditional practices of Muhammad for guidance. These traditions or Hadiths tell of Muhammad’s night journey where Muhammad goes back and forth between God and Moses several times until God reduces the number of obligatory from fifty prayers to five’ (Siddiqi, Muzammil H., and Tazim R. Kassam, 2005). Following much discussion and interpretation of the hadiths a consensus was reached that prayer five times a day would be a duty of every Muslim and, as such, Muslims are united in this practice however, a disunity is apparent as Sunni Muslims pray on five distinct occasions throughout the day whereas ‘The Shīʿah perform the five obligatory prayers thrice a day by joining the noon and late afternoon prayers and the evening and night prayers’ .(Siddiqi, Muzammil H., and Tazim R. Kassam, 2005) in accordance with practices attributed to Ali. This difference in interpretation illustrates that whilst all Muslims look to the Sunnah for guidance the Shi’a are also guided by Ja’fari law in which ‘hadiths of ‘Ali and the imams feature prominently alongside those of the prophet’ (Ruthven, 2012 p.87)

The third pillar is Zakat in which alms are given to the poor, this is a compulsory specified amount of wealth either collected by Muslim government or left to the individual to donate. The final pillar shared by all Muslims if the haaj this is the pilgrimage to Mecca undertaken by all Muslims at least one in a lifetime. The hajj sees ‘around two million pilgrims undertaking the hajj every year’ (Ruthven, 2012, p.161) an experience that some Muslims describe the hajj as a pivotal moment in their Muslim life or ‘our first experience of the fully fledged Muslim way of life’ where Muslims can be seen ‘uniting in a single belief’ (Baltanova, 2003, in Ruthven, 2012, p.26). With so many Muslims gathering in such vast numbers the hajj can be seen as a mass representation of the unity within Islam, with all pilgrims undertaking the Tawaf around the Ka’ba (Ruthven, 2012, p.161) with ‘eyes turned towards a common goal’ (Baltanova, 2003, in Ruthven, 2012, p.27). However, such scenes of unity has been undermined by unrest during the hajj. In 1987 four hundred Muslims were killed in clashes between 'Iranian Shiite Moslem [sic] pilgrims and Saudi riot policemen in Mecca' ( New York Times, 1987). The clash stemmed from a protest by Shi'itte Muslims aimed at the Sunni led Saudi's support of Iraq in its war against Iran. Such motivations bring to the fore political as well as religious disunity within Islam.

The seperation of politics from religion that is evident in Western christian majority parts of the world has not been entirely accepted by the Muslim majority world with many viewing the secular, analytical view of religion with suspicion (Herbert(a), 2012, p16). The reason for this suspicion is that the obligations to God expressed within shari'a makes it difficult to seperate the secular from the religious in everyday life. Much as the observance of the Sunnah and the hanith requires a Muslims to act in a certain way, dress in a certain way and observe certain practices before prayer, shar'ia places demands on everyday day life that cannot comfortably be ignored, indeed interpretations of the Qu'ran have, in some countries, has become legally binding with punishments for breaching shar'ia , which, to Western, Christian-majority eyes with the aid of inflamatory media, seems extreme and inhumane; Despite Western criticism, those whom wish to restore an 'Islamic state' in order to enforce obedience to the revealved law of Islam' (Ruthven, 2012, p.9) namely shar'ia resist the seperation of the secular and the religious. There is a divide between Muslims as to how this should, or could, be achieved given that globalisation has seen Muslims take up home all over the world, including in Western, Christian-majority countries. Indeed, given the geographical spread of Muslims throughout history there has always needed to be an adaption of shar'ia to alllow for adpated for 'local customary laws' (Ruthven, 2012, p.10), thus making shar'ia more of a concept than an absolute reality.

To some extreme Muslim groups, adaption of local laws, or acceptance of national Western laws could be seen as an attack on shar'ia, which would imply an attack on the authority of the Quar'an and therefore an attack on Islam itself. The acceptance of local laws, to some, is seen as a failiure to achieve ijtihad, a 'struggle or effort' to interprate the shari'ia. (Herbert, 2012, p.125. Sunni Muslim's have largely allowed ijtihad, to deminish in importance however Shi'ia Muslims have always insisted on the significance of it This difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims is one that marks not only the diversity between Islamic orthodoxy and Islamic orthopraxy but also has been a key indicator for friction and disunity between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims. In conclusion, whilst tahwid displays and ideal of one God, one faith and a unity that transends race through the fundamaental decleration of no God but God and Muhammad is his prophet there are clearly schisms within Islam that make Shi'a and Sunni faith comparable to Woodhead's description of Christianity as 'Christianities’ in that 'They fall along a spectrum' ( Woodhead, 2006) therefore, Islam's core principle of tawhid is belied laregely by the belief and practice of its adherants due to the diversity of Islam.

Bibliography Herbert, D(a) (2012 ) A217 Book : Islam, Oxford, Oxford University Press/Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Herbert, D (b), (2012) Glossary for Ruthven, Islam: A Very Short Introduction Oxford: Oxford University Press accessed via https://learn2.open.ac.uk/pluginfile.php/1502191/mod_resource/content/1/a217_islam_glossary.pdf

New York Times website (1987), accessed online 26/01/2016 via http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/02/world/400-die-iranian-marchers-battle-saudi-police-mecca-embassies-smashed-teheran.html?pagewanted=all

Ruthven, M. (2012) Islam: Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Siddiqi, Muzammil H., and Tazim R. Kassam. 'Salāt' Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. 2nd ed. Vol. 12. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 8054-8058. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 26 Jan. 2016

Sinclair, S. and Bowman, M. (2006 ) A217 Book 1:Christianity, Oxford, Oxford University Press/Milton Keynes, The Open University.

Woodhead, L. (2004) Christianity: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart G74 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Tawhid, When

One question about the tawhid, because the answer should be in the article: When did the tawheed be formalized as such?

I mean, In the Coran, there are several statements linked with monotheism and unicity of God. But my questioning regards the fact to put them together and to call it Tawhid.

Who did this wording and when?

And who first write some book on this topic (apart from the Coran)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.253 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tawhid. 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/20090203085754/http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5052 to http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203085754/http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5052 to http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5052
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060914195543/http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/phillips/pages/305/avicenna.html to http://inic.utexas.edu/asnic/phillips/pages/305/avicenna.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203133350/http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5053 to http://www.encyclopaediaislamica.com/madkhal2.php?sid=5053

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

"Opposition to democracy" section needs to be removed as this does not reflect the actual values taught by Islam

"Opposition to democracy" section needs to be removed as this does not reflect the actual meaning of "tawhid" and values taught by Islam. The cited report "Salafism in the Netherlands: Diversity and dynamics (PDF). General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) & Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid (NCTV) (National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism). 2015. p. 12." does not provide any reference to any original source. There are numerous sources that provide the broader interpretation of "Tawhid": http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2356 https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/84/84575EAC059788C5E8DFA51FEF117E4A_The%20Fundamentals%20of%20Tawheed.pdf To give a definition that provides legitimacy to the views of certain extreme groups of Islam is not right. Therefore, this section should be removed as the widely held view supported by religious texts is that Tawhid does not clash with the democratic system. 203.104.29.82 (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done – section removed, althought due to the unreliability of the reference rather than (non)compliance with religious texts. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I support this removal. There are much better sources to use, and sweeping generalizations about religious beliefs and their implications today are best avoided for more academic discourse. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Recommend removing gesture

I propose deleting the index finger gesture popularized by ISIS. It subconsciously associates audiences' initial reading about Tawhid with ISIS. It may unintentionally help ISIS to promote their view of Tawhid as authoritative. Theologians do not use this gesture in educating about Tawhid. Therefore it is educationally unhelpful to have this image for this article. Reader8472 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is apparently false that ISIS popularized this gesture; it is a common gesture of faith made by all kinds of Muslims during prayer. [4] [5] [6] So I would say we can augment the description, but I feel it is an excellent and straightforward illustration of this otherwise abstract concept. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. We should work on removing the association of the gesture with ISIS propaganda, rather that deleting this picture completely. I still can not find reliable scholarly references for the importance of this gesture in Tawhid. However, I found that your reference (MENA symbolism) helpful. Thank you for pointing it out. Reader8472 (talk) 04:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. The ISIS reference has little to do with actual Muslim theology, so it is misleading to mention it so early in the article. ISIS is an incredibly recent phenomenon compared to the history of Islam, and important doctrines like Tawheed are better introduced without unnecessary references to current politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.166.152 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It has literally nothing to do with that. The sign of Tawhid which is the oneness of God has always been used and it is common. 77.16.73.25 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please, both of you, do not delete useful and substantiated information from any article without discussing and explaining it, and/or verifying it independently. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed his latest edit since it was irrelevant and not verified. 77.16.73.25 (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you removed a valid reference, which I had to replace. Also, you removed references from other articles too. Where'd you come from, by the way? Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You will have to discuss that on this talk page first and reach a consensus before you can make such an bold edit and add unverifiable and false content. 77.16.73.25 (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

(please indent your replies with ":::::" colons so they thread properly.)

Actually, you also need to discuss your removals on the relevant talk pages, because contrary to your claims, the material is quite verifiable because my last edit actually added 3 more reliable references. You, on the other hand, are bent on removing references no matter what they may say. Why so defensive? Elizium23 (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I ask you again to please discuss first on the talk page and reach a consensus before you make an WP:BOLD edit (unhelpful edit) and add unverifiable content. The 3 sources you added were unreliable and non-notable such as the Express UK, the Daily Mail and a unknown website called ‘’yenisafak.com’’. I ask you again, Please discuss on article Talk page as previously requested - Thanks. 77.16.73.25 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

IP, you can't just remove the lead. And Yeni Şafak isn't "some unknown website". Drmies (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly the same user already blocked on at least 2 other IP addresses: [7], [8], for making the same and similar removals without consensus. A block is on you, the person, not the IP address. I have replaced the content. Do not remove it again without consensus. Thank you. -- Begoon 02:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

You will have to discuss that on this talk page first and reach a consensus before you can make such an bold edit and add unverifiable content. 77.16.73.25 (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• You will have to stop evading blocks. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)