Topic: The Knowledge of God doesn't change?

[Chrono]

Allah Eternally knew that at point 'X' in time 'A' hasn't happened yet.
And Allah Eternally knew that at point 'Y' in time 'A' has happened Y-X ago

WHERE IS THE CHANGE IN THAT?
and I won't accept repeating the first post with different words.

Actually, I think that's a fairly good explanation.

Much of this depends upon how one views God and the universe. If the events of the universe can be viewed as things which have all already happened, so to speak, from the perspective of different points in time... and if, at the same time, God is viewed as a being who doesn't relate to time in any way whatsoever, existing neither in the past, the present nor the future... then we can say that the Knowledge of God doesn't change, and your argument is perfectly correct.

The problem with this is that the Islamic texts (and texts of other religions for that matter) are not consistent with the idea that God absolutely does not relate to points in time. On the contrary, the texts depict a God who speaks to His creations at different moments in history, tells them new things and gives them new orders at varying points, sees that His prophet has a great desire for the prayer direction to be changed (and changes it accordingly)... does any of this remotely resemble the concept of a God who relates in no way whatsoever to time, existing neither in our past, our present or our future?

Of course one could respond that God did all these things from Eternity, without a beginning, and that when God "spoke" to his slaves he didn't really "speak" to them at all, but rather willed for them to hear His eternal speech. One could respond that God eternally knew about the conditions of his slaves and willed new commands to come into existence at various points in time.

While all this is definitely very clever, at the end of the day it is just theology and theological reasoning, rooted in old philosophy. It's not really derived from the texts of Islam, but rather from the minds of geniuses who sought to reconcile these texts with the demands of the human intellect.

Nevertheless, they are good arguments and counter-objections. But like I've implied, whether or not they are truly Islamic is another story entirely.

[alurdumaaniyy]

While all this is definitely very clever, at the end of the day it is just theology and theological reasoning, rooted in old philosophy. It's not really derived from the texts of Islam, but rather from the minds of geniuses who sought to reconcile these texts with the demands of the human intellect.

Nevertheless, they are good arguments and counter-objections. But like I've implied, whether or not they are truly Islamic is another story entirely.

Revelation does not comply with what everyone thinks it should include. Qur'ān and Sunnah set all the basics we need to understand and explain.

There are and have been "Geniuses" on the Islamic side as well as outside, on the Sunni side as well as among others. The Mu^tazilah for instance, eventually failed because they could not reconcile these texts with their ideas. Scholars merely pointed at the incompatibility of their doctrine with the texts. Their failure was not due to a lack of intellectual ability and being "geniuses" would not have have been enough to save Ash^aris and Māturīdis if Qur'ān and Sunnah had been flawed.