I'm sure you are familiar with Allah and have some knowledge of Allah, even if you don't believe in His existence.
So for example, I'm sure you know by definition Allah exists prior to creation. So I don't understand why you ask that loaded question. Allah by definition exists prior to creation. Were I to affirm otherwise, my sentence would be a contradiction. If we affirm the existence of Allah, we necessarily by definition affirm that Allah exists prior to creation. If you wish to deny Allah's existence and attributes, you are free to do so but you should respect that I as a Muslim of course cannot deny my own beliefs. So two out of your four sentences (the middle sentences) imply propositions I necessarily must reject and are not a common ground for discussion.
As to the first sentence, Surah Al-Ikhlas describes Allah (I don't think all His attributes are covered in the Surah but it's a good brief description if you want a brief description- for a more complete description, read the Quran)
Say, "He is Allah, [who is] One,
Allah, the Eternal Refuge.
He neither begets nor is born,
Nor is there to Him any equivalent."
-Surah Al-Ikhlas [112]
As to the last sentence, God by definition necessarily exists prior to creation. Even Christians and Jews would understand that.
Anyways, you brought up the Marxian critique of religion (religion as "opiate of the masses"). Maybe that critique could have seemed plausible and "revolutionary" to people in the 19th century when Marx made that claim. In the latter half of the 19th century, openly opposing religion was still a shocking thing. However, this is a long time later. Even in Marx's day I don't think that was all that "radical"- look at people like Darwin for example. I think Marx was actually part of a trend and that Western culture was turning against religion in that period. So his "revolutionary" stance against religion I think was actually part of a trend.
Things in the period since then have intensified. The Marxist critique of religion is nonsense. The Marxist view is that religion is a "noble lie" promulgated by the system. If we lived 700 years ago, maybe that might seem more convincing. Even in Marx's day, I don't think it was all that convincing when one really examines it. Religion in the West was
crumbling at that time.
Anyways, who are the bad guys if you follow the Western media? Muslims and Christians are "terrorists". Muslims more so but Christians also are demonized. In the Cold War period, who was the US fighting? Communists. The USSR has fallen- now who? Muslims. Muslims are portrayed as "enemy #1" of the US. The US people are groomed continually for bombing, invading and killing Muslims. No one is afraid of Marx. You can declare yourself a Marxist all you want. No one cares. Marxism has become part of accepted dogma and is forced on people in the universities. If Marx was really a threat to the system- why do the universities push Marxist doctrine on people? Where I live, I cannot say "God bless you" to someone without being regarded as a "fanatic". Yet I am to believe that
the system is pushing religion? It is the reverse. They're not bombing Muslims, killing Muslims, invading Muslim countries, dehumanizing Muslims, targeting Muslims because the system is in favor of religion. The system is terrified of religion. The system is terrified of Muslims. That may have been less obvious in Marx's day and in his time I can understand why people might have thought his critique was "radical"- however, in our day it does not hold up to even cursory examination.
Marxism and his materialism was so "radical" that the so-called "Russian" Revolution was financed by Wall Street bankers:
Amazon product ASIN 1634241231(let anyone read it for themselves and see for themselves if they want)
