Tawhid was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 21, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Theology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@24.36.110.61 Nothing is wrong. 86.99.205.30 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Should there be a section on etymology of the word "Tawheed". I'm trying one. Please list the problems here after I have made my edit

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [2] [3] [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You are clearly the same user already blocked on at least 2 other IP addresses: [5], [6], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• While history-merging Tawhīd to Tawhid, I found an independent second start to writing an article about tawhīd, attached to the start (old end) of Tawhid's history. I moved this second article to Tawhid (version 2). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'more generally Tahwid is used to connote unification union fusion combination (15)

This is incorrect and will no doubt be used by Trinitarians to support their position.

God is ONE and the meaning has not changed throughout the millenia ! One means one!! Tawhid in Arabic

               Echad in Arabic!

2C0F:F8F0:204:0:5575:57A4:B972:A29F (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently reads "From an Islamic standpoint, there is an uncompromising monotheism at the heart of the Islamic beliefs (aqidah) which is seen as distinguishing Islam from other major religions." (Turner (2006), p. 75.) While the pronouncement is referenced to Turner, it's actually incorrect as applied to Judaism. See Monotheism#Judaism and Jewish principles of faith#Monotheism. Furthermore, aside from being incorrect, the Turner statement in the article is taken out of context. Here's the full quote from Turner: "There is, as many Western writers have pointed out, an uncompromising monotheism at the heart of the Islamic endeavour which distinguishes Islam from other major religions. This is not to say that, in theory at least, the oneness of God is any less a reality in Christianity and Judaism than it is in Islam. In practice, however, the emphasis on Divine Unity in Muslim theology far outweighs the attention paid to this concept by theologians of other faiths."

In that sentence of Tawhid it's strongly implied that Islam is uncompromisingly monotheistic to the exclusion of Judaism (or Christianity). What Turner actually claims, however, is that uncompromising monotheism, though not unique to Islam, is given greater attention and emphasis than in other faiths.

Instead of revising that above sentence in Tawhid to not be out of context and misleading, it should frankly be deleted. Turner not only lacks firm support for his implication that Judaism doesn't properly believe in Tawhid, but is flat out wrong in his claim. By the millions, when Jews say God is one, it is one in the sense of Tawhid, just as Muslims by the hundreds of millions intend in saying that God is one. No less a religious authority than Maimonides lists as principles essential to Judaism "the existence of God, the absolute unity of God, the incorporeality of God" (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maimonides/) and devotes tremendous attention to the philosophy of this. Someone reading Tawhid as it's currently written would walk away thinking that Islam is unique in Tawhid, when in fact Jewish and Islamic theology do not differ in this respect.

There are many fundamental differences between Judaism and Islam; Tawhid is not one of them, but a common denominator. Contributor613 (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid produces in man self-respect and confidence 2405:201:2E:800F:7805:4964:CAFD:7A0F (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]