**ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ** Dear brothers and sisters, I'm on a journey to deepen my understanding of Islamic theology and I'm exploring the methodologies of the Athari, Ash'ari and Maturidi schools. My goal is to understand the core appeal and spiritual benefit that we can find in each path. I hope to get answers grounded in facts, supported by citations or books that I can read, without the conflation of personal opinions. **جَزَاكُمُ ٱللَّٰهُ خَيْرًا**

If in the beginning there was only god and god is boundless and without end, then this means "nothing" didn't exist. Only finite things have boundaries outside of which that thing ceases to be. Even if we assume that God is separate from his being somehow it would be more like panentheism like god is a pregnant mother. And remember that god can't do logically contradictory things. This problem is talked about in sufism and I think tzimzum of isaac of luria. What is the orthodox Islamic perspective on this, how do the theologians handle this one ?

As we know Dajjal will come from Khorasan. Chapter: The tribulation of Dajjal, the emergence of 'Esa bin Maryam and the emergence of Gog and Magog, Sunan Ibn Majah and he will be followed by 70,000 jews from Ispahan Chapter: The Rest Of The Ahadith About Ad-Dajjal, Sahih Muslim . But according to history, Assyrian's exiled the people of Kingdom of Israel which are 10 Lost tribes(Asher, Dan, Ephraim, Gad, Issachar, Manasseh, Naphtali, Reuben, Simeon, and Zebulun). Jews are expecting their king messiah from the progeny of David(PBUH) and the tribe of david was Judah from the southern kingdom of Judah(Which includes the tribes Judah and Benjamin). If dajjal come from area near Khorasan then he must be from the 10 tribes and historically the persian jews are not from the tribes of Judah The “Persian” Period . How the islamic theologians and scholars explain this dillema? I am studying the comparative theology for last 2 years. Can someone help me in this particular matters?

I can't stop thinking about that question since i first has been asked it from an atheist. I am a Muslim and I believe none has a 100% belief in Allah s.w.t even me, and that is because the logical questions that come to our minds from time to time. Then I decided to try atheists' questions, and see their answers or try to answer it in order to clear all these questions to me to reach 100% certainty in Allah.

Islam rather famously disapproves of polytheism, but I have noticed something of an overlap between Islamic and Hindu ideas, and want to know what classical Islamic scholars have concluded on the matter. Muslims and Hindus have lived together in India for centuries, and Mughal Emperors fluctuated between interfaith dialogue and intolerance. Mughal rulers even elevated Hindus to Dhimmi. As far as I understand it, Islam emphasises strict monotheism (no God but Allah), in a way Judaism and Christianity don't. The Second Commandment doesn't deny the existence of other Gods, but rather insists that the God of Abraham must come first. *To clarify; for Muslims Allah is indivisible and absolute (tawhid ), while for most Christians the trinity exists: God is father in heaven, son in Jesus, and Holy Ghost (comparable to the Holy Spirit in Judaism).* *Furthermore, in the Old Testament God phrases things to imply there are other Gods or divine characters of equal status (Genesis 1:26 "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness"). At least, in this podcast world expert in the New Testament and early Christianity Bart Ehrman concludes as much (1h:20m... I'm not in a position to argue against someone who has studied the oldest copies of the Bible in ancient Greek and Hebrew).* Hinduism is a very broad spectrum of belief and practice, which lacks anything considered an immutable source of absolute truth, like a Torah, Bible, or Quran. However, a common foundational Hindu belief is that the nature of reality is illusionary (Maya versus Atman ), and there is one absolute and ultimate creator God (Brahman). The other Gods are 'avatars', which is to say illusionary forms. The most common interpretation is of a 'supreme divinity' in the Trimurti ; Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, Shiva the destroyer. It's also worth clarifying, as per Britanica.com : > "The trimurti collapses the three gods into a single form with three > faces [...] Scholars consider the doctrine of the trimurti to be an > attempt to reconcile different approaches to the divine with each > other and with the philosophical doctrine of ultimate reality > (brahman)" Many Hindus believe in an 'ultimate reality/truth' in the form of Brahman (easily confused with Brahma ). This is said to be both the source of all existence and an unchanging absolute. Some Hindus are also practically monotheist, in the sense of worshiping Krishna as the source of all reality. This made me wonder... given the coexistence of Muslims and Hindus in India, **there must be classical scholarship by Islamic theologians on the question of how Islam and Hinduism compare with specific regards to Allah and Brahman**. What seems most curious to me, is that if Brahman is understood as a singular, absolute, and ultimate God/reality, then that is essentially Allah without (or pre?) Mohammad. This comparison must surely have been written about by some scholars, presumably most likely during the Mughal Empire. To be clear, I am not interested in a simple definition, but an educated and technical one. I would like the cited opinions of experts who are familiar with both Islam and Hinduism.

The Ash'arite أشعرية‎ or Asha'irah ٱلْأَشَاعِرَة are a known theoligcal sect of creed that refers by name to abu al-Hassan al-Asha'ary and most of its followers can be found among followers of the shafi'i and maliki school of fiqh. And they regard themselves as representatives of ahl-as-Sunnah wa Jma'ah beside other sects (of creed) such as the Maturidi's and the Salafi's. Now I've read somewhere -correct me if I'm wrong- that abu al-Hassan al-Asha'ari passed through three phases in his life. 1. A phase in which he was a follower of the creed of al-Mu'tazilah . 2. A phase in which he started debating al-Mu'tazilah based on 'ilm al-Kalam . 3. A phase in which he defended the creed of ahl as-Sunnah wal Jama'a. And as far as I know in each of these phases or at least in the last two he has compiled books defining his creed and theology. My question now is: Those scholars who claim to be 'Ashra'arites like the imams and scholars: - Among the Shafi'is: al-Juwayni, al-Ghazali, al-Bayhaqi, an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, al-Fakhr a-Razi, ibn 'Abdassalaam, as-Subki, ibn 'Asakir ... - Among the Maliki's: al-Baqilani, abu Bakr ibn al-'Arabi - Among the Hanbali's: ibn al-Jawzi (at least wikipedia claims he was because of his works in ilm al-Kalam) - ... which of his creeds or phases did they follow? It could be great if your answer could include some details.

I've read a few articles with statement of ibn Taymiyyah pointing at a further sects of creed beside the Salafi, Ash'ary and Maturidi which claim to be part of ahl as-Sunna wal Jama'a (or at least derived from them) against the Mu'tazilah. One among these is the sect of al-Kullabiyah -in reference to the sunni theologian ibn Kullaab ابن كُلاَّب‎ One may read for example in Maju' al-Fatawa مجموع الفتاوى (when talking about Allah's speech and the qur'an after explaining the view and interpretation of ibn al-Kullab on whether or not the qur'an is the word of Allah) explaining how a group that partially agreed with ibn Kullaab acted in some disputes: In the following I'm translating from Arabic language, as these translations are of my own take them carefully. > فَصَارَ قَوْلُ هَؤُلَاءِ مُرَكَّبًا مِنْ قَوْلِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ وَقَوْلِ **الْكُلَّابِيَة** فَإِذَا نَاظَرُوا الْمُعْتَزِلَةَ عَلَى أَنَّ الْقُرْآنَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ غَيْرُ مَخْلُوقٍ نَاظَرُوهُمْ بِطَرِيقَةِ **ابْنِ كُلَّابٍ** وَإِذَا نَاظَرَهُمْ **الْكُلَّابِيَة** عَلَى أَنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الْعَرَبِيَّ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ وَأَنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي يَقْرَأهُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ كَلَامُ اللَّهِ نَاظَرُوهُمْ بِحُجَجِ الْمُعْتَزِلَةِ. These words became a composite of the words Mu'tazila and telling **Al-Kullabiyah** if they dispute with the Mu'tazila that the Qur'an is the word of Allah and was not created. They would use for this dispute the way of **ibn Kullaab** and if they dispute with **al-Kullabiyah** on the subject that the Arabic Q'uran is the word of Allah and the Qur'an, which Muslims read is the word of Allah they would use arguments of al-Mu'tazila. (Source ) As I've never heard about this sect before I'd be happy if somebody could shed some light on it, its major principals, creed and history. At least it seem to me that this sect does no more exist. Ibn Taymiyyah in fact also quoted much more sects that I've never heard about.

I already have studied the Torah (Old Testament) and I'm now studying the New Testament and The Holy Quran. I have a question regarding prophets. How come Muslims believe in prophets after Malachi since in the Torah it's said that in Yehoshua 23:6: > וַחֲזַקְתֶּם מְאֹד--לִשְׁמֹר וְלַעֲשׂוֹת, אֵת כָּל-הַכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר > תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה: לְבִלְתִּי סוּר-מִמֶּנּוּ, יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול > > Be very strong to protect and do everything that is written in Moshe's > Torah. Do not deviate from it to the right or to the left. In Deuteronomy 4:2 : > ... לֹא תֹסִפוּ, עַל-הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם, וְלֹא > תִגְרְעוּ, מִמֶּנּוּ > > Do not add onto what I am commanding to you, and do not detract from > it... Proverbs 30:6 : > אַל-תּוֹסְףְּ עַל-דְּבָרָיו: פֶּן-יוֹכִיחַ בְּךָ וְנִכְזָבְתָּ > > Do not add onto [God's] words, lest he test you and you be found to be > a liar. Rambam writes in his Mishneh Torah about it : > לפיכך אם יעמוד איש בין מן האומות בין מישראל ויעשה אות ומופת ויאמר שה' > שלחו להוסיף מצוה או לגרוע מצוה או לפרש במצוה מן המצות פירוש שלא שמענו > ממשה או שאמר שאותן המצות שנצטוו בהן ישראל אינן לעולם ולדורי דורות אלא > מצות לפי זמן היו הרי זה נביא שקר שהרי בא להכחיש נבואתו של משה ומיתתו > בחנק על שהזיד לדבר בשם ה' אשר לא צוהו > > Therefore, if a person will arise, whether Jew or gentile, and perform > a sign or wonder and say that God sent him to: > > a) add a mitzvah, > > b) withdraw a mitzvah > > c) explain a mitzvah in a manner which differs from the tradition > received from Moses, or > > d) if he says that the mitzvot commanded to the Jews are not forever, > but rather were given for a limited time, > > he is a false prophet. He comes to deny the prophecy of Moses and > should be executed by strangulation, because he dared to make > statements in God's name which God never made. All these sources, from original holy scripture but also from commentaries express that nothing may be added or subtracted from the Torah. Even someone who claims to be a prophet may never do so, and to attempt to do so will show him to be a false prophet. So how come Muslims believe in the Torah/Old Testament but also believe in prophets such as Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh)? Thank you for your help and guidance.

The problem of evil: How does an infinitely merciful & compassionate Allah create an evil Shaitan to plague us every day of our lives?

Allah is the cause of all things, and the creator of all things. Allah is eternal, never ending and timeless, with no beginning or end. Him and all of his attributes are eternal and never ending. This might help you understand this question. Do you understand eternality in the abstract sense, do you have any abstraction that allows you to understand eternality? To put it, eternality here means never ending , however its the timeless eternality, something with no beginning and no end, Allah has no beginning and no end, if something has no beginning you can't apply seconds to it to count how long its existed because that doesn't apply to it. Unfortunately I've argued with lots of really dumb people, so I'm just going to say right now that the fact I'm showing a seeming contradiction is showing that I am starting to feel Allah isn't real, because him being the first cause seems to violate the law of non contradiction. This post is showing a contradiction in the existence of a first cause, meaning maybe its not possible for it to exist. You might not get this immediately so look at the second paragraph and read again, for now just read this:can you get this: a first cause is eternal, meaning it is timeless, never ending. You can't apply seconds to it if it is eternal, all of its processes are eternal, its process of causation is also eternal,, all of its processes are eternal, and its process of causation is eternal, thus since its causation process doesn't end, it will continue to cause forever and ever, being eternal in the timeless sense, without a beginning and end. Now, I say this: if a first causes causation doesn't end, it will continue to cause and cause the exact same thing as its causation of that thing doesn't end, however, this means that the law of identity would be violated, because how can there be two of the same thing , if it continues to cause that thing then that would mean there are two things that are the same, but everything is equal to itself, it would go agains't the law of identity, so how do we overcome this contradiction? I thought of something like,non beings don't have properties, and this is important because of the fact that we can say that our abstract understanding is wrong, but then I thought of this: maybe we can't define the being abstractly since its trancendent, and other things but it seems i need help from smeone else on this. Mind you, an inherent aspect of a first cause is its ability to cause, and its actual act of causing is also never ending, inherent here means it exists as a permanent aspect of it, because we know causation is an aspect of the first cause that is inherent to it, as if it wasn't permanent it would mean it had an aspect that was added to it, which is impossible because is eternal and timeless and can't change. So its causation being an inherent aspect of it is also eternal, and the process, non timely process which takes place in causing it is also never ending.

Disclaimer: I am a true muslim, but asking to get the right answer. So, if we accept that Allah has created us to worship him, it doesn’t seem too convincing from a high level. Let’s say Allah gave us free will and that’s why he wants to see who worships him, and who doesn’t. But if that’s the case, why did he need it at all? If the answer to this is that he wanted to “test” us, it brings everyone back to square one. If “testing” us was the case, why not just test if we act good to each other? Why also imply the rule of worshipping him? Initially Allah created angels, then other beings (i might be unaware) and finally us. If he wasn’t fulfilled with the other beings’ worship, did this spark his interest to create humans? If that’s so, doesn’t that mean that Allah is provoked by a motive, which he, by definition, shouldn’t be? Some people tend to give the example of a teacher and his students, where the teacher would test his students to see who is doing better. But this us a very vague comparison given that the “Job” of a teacher is to test. The society expects a teacher to test and created/filter the best students. But Allah has no such surrounding to provoke him this way. Then why…? So if anyone could answer this in the most logical way, it would be highly appreciated.

What are the Sunni Schools of Islamic Theology, a brief introduction to their views, similarities/differences and origin. The Sunni Schools of Islamic Theology are : - Athari - Muʿtazila - Ashʿarīyyah - Mātūrīd’iyyah Are they entwined with Islamic Jurisprudence ? [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Islamic_schools_of_Jurisprudence.jpg) show this linkage of schools and jurisprudence:

Kalam Nafsi is the eternal speech of Allah, while Kalam Lafdhi refers to the created speech of Allah within time and space. Ibn Hajar, writing about the opponents of Kalam Lafdhi, states that some went so far as to affirm the uncreatedness of the paper and ink by which the Qur'an was written: > As for Bukhārī, he was tried by those who said ‘The voices of the > slaves (of Allah) are uncreated’ until some of them went overboard and > said, “**The same goes for the ink and the paper after being written (i.e. > they are also uncreated**).” وأما البخاري، فابتلي بمن يقول: أصوات العباد غير مخلوقة، حتى بالغ بعضهم فقال: والمداد والورق بعد الكتابة فكان أكثر كلامه في الرد عليهم (Source ) Is this still an acceptable position within Sunni Islam? Are there still scholars who hold this position? Further reading and sources would be greatly appreciated.

Quran often refers to the previous books such as Torah, Zaboor, and Injeel. Those books do contain genealogies that authenticate prophets that were sent by God. Muslims do believe that Muhammad was the prophet sent by the same God who sent the prophets that brought the previous scriptures. Muslims also believe that Muhammad was a descendent of Ishmael the first son of Abraham. My question is on what bases Muslims believe that Muhammad is a descendent of Ishmael? Where is the genealogy record that confirms Muhammad's place among Ishmael's descendants?

since any necassery existance or God is absolute and one,he is absolutely one. a composite one would be a generic and abstract 'one',and abstractions do not have concrete and actual existance,so any actual being must be absolutely one. and that multiplicity in any essence must be by nature contigent(if someone knows why then add it and do give your wisdom)and a accidental property. and 'necasseriness'and 'being'are by definition ontologically absolutely one(if anyone can answer why that would help me). IDK,I made up this argument after making dua that sayyiduna muhammed said would always be answered for farasa in knowing absolute yaqeen of tawheed(I come from a trinitarian backround). any help or corrections are welcome.

Quote from Al-Shahrastani [Milal p. 67, II. 2-3], as mentioned by Harry Wolfson in his work *The Philosophy of the Kalam* > The assumption of an attribute which can be described neither by > existence nor by non-existence is the assumption of something which is > in the middle between existence and nonexistence, between affirmation > and negation, but this is something absurd

So, with my elementary readings in Shi’ite theology, specifically the Ithnā‘ashariyyah or the Twelver Shi'a branch, I couldn't differentiate between a Prophet and a Shi'ite Imam. - The Prophets are divinely appointed by Allah for a mission, so are the Imams. - The Prophets are divinely guided, so are the Imams . - The Prophets are infallible with respect to the religion, so are the Imams. - The Prophets are leader of the ummah and obedience to them is obligatory, so it is for the Imams. - The Prophets communicate with the angels, so do the Imams. - The Prophets performed miracles with the permission of Allah, so do the Imams. - The Prophets were revealed the things of the future by Allah, so it is for the Imams. - The Prophets have a higher rank/status compared to the average believer, so do the Imams. What are the differences between them then? Please clarify the misconceptions if any.

I'm learning much about the division of Shia and Sunni Islam from [this wonderful primer](http://www.cfr.org/peace-conflict-and-human-rights/sunni-shia-divide/p33176#!/) by the Council on Foreign Relations. I'm understanding the main divisions resulting from the succession question and understanding the importance of Karbala, etc... I'm seeing generally that Sunni's predominate, but that there is a strong Shia presence in Iraq, Iran, and Azeribaijan. And then, when I look at this map of the various schools, I'm seeing Oman. They seem to be largely out of the geopolitical debate, and from the "family tree" seem to be an offshoot that is neither Sunni nor Shia. What exactly are they? How do they differ theologically or historically from Sunni Islam?

I've just answered a question, and then posted this comment : >If your asking is Allah the universe then no, Allah is seated upon his throne, i.e. islam does not claim Allah is omnipresent. If you are asking if what they call the 'universe' is actually Allah then...I'm going to say no but it's not as clear cut. *I don't think anyone calling on the 'universe' consciously or subconsciously would 'get' Allah, unless they intended to call on him.* So I'm left wondering (as I am not 100% certain, and at a slight tangent), if you called upon Allah but not by a known name, but in your heart you wanted 'whatever supreme power out there' to respond (even if you called it 'the universe'), would that be considered Taghut? Would that be a valid (if flawed) form of right-worship?

Does any children that come from the widow's previous marriage considered the same as a man's own children. Are a man's obligations towards his own children the same as what he has to the widow he may marry children?