Muhammad

[ChristineM]

A lot of what people assume is history regarding this period is actually mostly theology or religious narrative. Western pop-culture understandings of early Islam often tend to be of the theological variety.


In recent years, scholars have increasingly used the label “proto-Sunni” to denote a
late Umayyad — early Abbasid period movement which played a pivotal role in the
formation of Sunni Islam... the category proto-Sunni usefully underlines the fact that, like other
religious traditions,5 Sunni Islam did not appear in history fully formed; but that it
emerged through a complex historical process, a process which yielded widespread
Sunni self-awareness no earlier than the late 9th century.6 As such, the designation
proto-Sunni underscores the provisional nature of the many competing versions of Islam
in this period, and against that background, the crucial role of those who prepared the
way for an eventual Sunni consensus... While much of the credit for the
“Sunni synthesis” must go to jurists and theologians of the 10th through the 13th centuries,
such as al-Ash‘arı¯ (d. 936) and al-Ghazza¯lı¯ (d. 1111), who absorbed many of the
cross-currents of early Islam into grand legal and theological schemes, it is important to
remember that those very schemes would have proven impossible without the
foundations laid by the early proto-Sunnis.83 Laying these foundations or plausibility
structures is their greatest achievement; an achievement which was the result of the
proto-Sunnis’ uniquely satisfying solutions to the historical pressures they faced on one
hand, and the increasing prestige they enjoyed on the other.

The Roots and Achievements of the Early Proto-Sunni Movement: A Profile and Interpretation - Matthew J. Kuiper
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Yeah well i provided a link too but didn't bother with all the pretentious copy and paste.

And i noticed you highlighted "While much of the credit..."


Not all the credit because, from my link
The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No links. Its research paper.

You are mixing religious rhetoric to religious scholarship. Absolutely wrong and pretty lay to do that.

Child marriages happen everywhere. Worse is in the Sub Saharan Africa. And there, Muslims and Christians both do it. Both have their own justifications which means they have religious justifications to suit their culture.

This matter has two sides to it. One is child pregnancy and the second is the age of marriage. According to the study the worse in statistics is the for ages 15-19 and the worse is Angola, which is a Christian country. WHO states that the worse is Sub Saharan Africa, then the Americas, then the Middle East and North Africa put together, 4th is South Asia, and the last is Europe. When it comes to South Asia, India is the worst and there more Hindus marry children than Muslims.

In the Arab world what considered research is to identify girls below the age of 19 getting married. But in India the research begins with the age of 15. Do you know that 26% are married in India? These are children. And if you go uptown 18 years of age, 54% are married. All of this results in child pregnancies and a whole lot of repercussions that come as aftermath.

Did you not notice the Americas? Why have you focused on Sudan in one article who are changing their laws? If you care about children, do your research mate. And do it unbiasedly.

You seem to have gone off on one. Backtrack to my earlier comment when I asked whether if the marriage to Aisha or even Islam had anything to do with marriage to very young girls (Aisha was reputedly 9), and I admitted that child marriage had been common in the past and occurs all around the world, and not necessarily just in Islamic countries either, but do look at where it occurs even if illegal in such countries - those below puberty and often being below the radar.

From a Muslim:

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries | Shaista Gohir

So why is the practice of child marriage sanctioned in Muslim countries? Unfortunately, ultra-conservative religious authorities justify this old tribal custom by citing the prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. They allege Aisha was nine years old when the prophet married her. But they focus conveniently on selected Islamic texts to support their opinions, while ignoring vast number of other texts and historical information, which suggests Aisha was much older, putting her age of marriage at 19.

And another:

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1779&context=student_scholarship

After analyzing the religious justification for child marriage, it’s clear that some interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah played a role in the practice of child marriage.

I'm not saying that this definitely is the reason for all or most cases though.

 

[firedragon]

You seem to have gone off on one. Backtrack to my earlier comment when I asked whether if the marriage to Aisha or even Islam had anything to do with marriage to very young girls (Aisha was reputedly 9), and I admitted that child marriage had been common in the past and occurs all around the world, and not necessarily just in Islamic countries either, but do look at where it occurs even if illegal in such countries - those below puberty and often being below the radar.

From a Muslim:

The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries | Shaista Gohir

So why is the practice of child marriage sanctioned in Muslim countries? Unfortunately, ultra-conservative religious authorities justify this old tribal custom by citing the prophet Muhammad's marriage to Aisha. They allege Aisha was nine years old when the prophet married her. But they focus conveniently on selected Islamic texts to support their opinions, while ignoring vast number of other texts and historical information, which suggests Aisha was much older, putting her age of marriage at 19.

And another:

https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1779&context=student_scholarship

After analyzing the religious justification for child marriage, it’s clear that some interpretations of the Quran and the Sunnah played a role in the practice of child marriage.

I'm not saying that this definitely is the reason for all or most cases though.

Invalid. Not research. And straw man. Anymore?

 

[firedragon]

The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.

How do you know?

 

[Augustus]

Yeah well i provided a link too but didn't bother with all the pretentious copy and paste.

Actually reading about a topic so you can quote peer-reviewed scholarship to support your points rather than having to quickly Google it = "pretentious copy paste"

And i noticed you highlighted "While much of the credit..."

And who was the rest of the credit due to?

(Seeing as you never bother to try to understand the posts you reply to, it was the late Umayyad/early Abbasid proto-Sunnis)

Not all the credit because, from my link
The original split between Sunnis and Shiites occurred soon after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, in the year 632.

As I said, pop-culture understanding is often based on Islamic theological narratives, not history. If you want to uncritically swallow it whole then that's up to you.

If you'd like to start with some of the basics of contemporary scholarship so you can understand why you don't even know enough to know why you are wrong you can start here: What do we actually know about Mohammed?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Invalid. Not research. And straw man. Anymore?

You might like to search out a thread we had some time back - about (false) Imans providing young girls, or sanctioning such, and all based on the good old book - apparently. A TV programme exposing such was cited. Anyway, what do you mean not research. Evidence doesn't have to spring from formal studies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Invalid. Not research. And straw man. Anymore?

Thats not a starwman. Those are historic claims. He even pointed out Aisha may have been 19, nit saying it must be this way or that, and thats how you respsond?
Be honest, are you even reading our posts? It really doesn't seem like it if you are.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually reading about a topic so you can quote peer-reviewed scholarship to support your points rather than having to quickly Google it = "pretentious copy paste"



And who was the rest of the credit due to?

(Seeing as you never bother to try to understand the posts you reply to, it was the late Umayyad/early Abbasid proto-Sunnis)



As I said, pop-culture understanding is often based on Islamic theological narratives, not history. If you want to uncritically swallow it whole then that's up to you.

If you'd like to start with some of the basics of contemporary scholarship so you can understand why you don't even know enough to know why you are wrong you can start here: What do we actually know about Mohammed?

Actually making statements then posting "scholarship" that contracts your statement

And once again you are guessing in order to attempt to belittle me. I have known about Aisha for many years by talking to Muslim friends.

What you said was "Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries"

It emerged during the schism that followed Mohammed's death in a dispute over who should take charge.

Sorry bud, i will take the word of muslins over some bod on a forum

 

[firedragon]

You might like to search out a thread we had some time back - about (false) Imans providing young girls, or sanctioning such, and all based on the good old book - apparently. A TV programme exposing such was cited. Anyway, what do you mean not research. Evidence doesn't have to spring from formal studies.

Many many people do a lot of atrocities. Thats not relevant to the thread. If you wish to demonise Muslims of course you can do that. Your prerogative. But its just your intent, not the subject.

You understand what research is.. I have quoted you research. When you are discussing a particular subject, make claims, evidence has to be relevant to the claim. not anecdotal beliefs or some story specific to suit your agenda to make Muslims some kind of monsters.

Muslims also do a lot of atrocities. They also marry young girls off. Its an atrocity. Studies show that this is a cultural phenomena, and that people use religion to justify their cultural needs and wants. I have given you extensive research studies and statistics. But of course you don't like them because you don't intend to look at global research but you are interested in demonising Muslims.

Anyway, that's that. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Thats not a starwman. Those are historic claims. He even pointed out Aisha may have been 19, nit saying it must be this way or that, and thats how you respsond?
Be honest, are you even reading our posts? It really doesn't seem like it if you are.

Nope. That was not the issue that was at hand. He claims that it is Muslims who marry young girls, and I quoted studies by independent research that many do. Including Muslims, not exclusively Muslims. So you claiming "Our posts" as if you and him are saying the same thing and has the same posts is claiming group mentality. Its another straw man.

If you have something to point out about the OP do it directly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope. That was not the issue that was at hand. He claims that it is Muslims who marry young girls, and I quoted studies by independent research that many do. Including Muslims, not exclusively Muslims. So you claiming "Our posts" as if you and him are saying the same thing and has the same posts is claiming group mentality. Its another straw man.

If you have something to point out about the OP do it directly.

He never claimed it was just Muhammad or just Muslims. He even stated hes aware that isn't the case.
When Ibsay "our post," its everyones pists here you seem to not be reading or deliberately misrepresenting.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And once again you are guessing in order to attempt to belittle me. I have known about Aisha for many years by talking to Muslim friends.

Seems a common trend here.

 

[firedragon]

He never claimed it was just Muhammad or just Muslims. He even stated hes aware that isn't the case.
When Ibsay "our post," its everyones pists here you seem to not be reading or deliberately misrepresenting.

Great. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Actually making statements then posting "scholarship" that contracts your statement

And once again you are guessing in order to attempt to belittle me. I have known about Aisha for many years by talking to Muslim friends.

What you said was "Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries"

It emerged during the schism that followed Mohammed's death in a dispute over who should take charge.

Sorry bud, i will take the word of muslins over some bod on a forum

So you take Muslims word as absolute historic fact? Infallible? Is that you take the word of any Muslim and about everything or only about this particular subject you choose?

 

[ChristineM]

Seems a common trend here.

Especially with this guy.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry bud, i will take the word of muslins over some bod on a forum

As I said, theology and history are not the same. You could always try to read for yourself rather than uncritically swallowing "muslin" theology as fact too.

Do you take the word of Christians on the Gospel narratives over critical historical scholarship too?

Also it was actually the word of a scholar from the University of Notre Dame published in a peer-reviewed journal, but I understand why you feel the need to try to misrepresent this fact rather than respond to it rationally.

Actually making statements then posting "scholarship" that contracts your statement .

If you were as well informed as you claim, and put a bit of effort into actually reading before hitting the reply button, you'd be able to work out why that source doesn't contradict what I said at all. The Dunning-Kruger effect always seems to get in the way of you actually understanding anything though.

As such it's a waste of time expending any more effort trying to get you to the point where you can start to understand the difference between religious narratives and actual history.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Many many people do a lot of atrocities. Thats not relevant to the thread. If you wish to demonise Muslims of course you can do that. Your prerogative. But its just your intent, not the subject.

You understand what research is.. I have quoted you research. When you are discussing a particular subject, make claims, evidence has to be relevant to the claim. not anecdotal beliefs or some story specific to suit your agenda to make Muslims some kind of monsters.

Muslims also do a lot of atrocities. They also marry young girls off. Its an atrocity. Studies show that this is a cultural phenomena, and that people use religion to justify their cultural needs and wants. I have given you extensive research studies and statistics. But of course you don't like them because you don't intend to look at global research but you are interested in demonising Muslims.

Anyway, that's that. Cheers.

Well you seem to think I am trying to demonise Muslims, and you are apparently trying to paint them all as lily-white, but my comments are and were about the confusion over Aisha's age (not so clear-cut as you seem to make out), and how such might affect those apparently pushing for lower age limits (or none) or as to why any would want to be married to such young children. I couldn't care less whether she was of what age, and I have about as much chance of knowing this as you have.

 

[firedragon]

Well you seem to think I am trying to demonise Muslims, and you are apparently trying to paint them all as lily-white, but my comments are and were about the confusion over Aisha's age (not so clear-cut as you seem to make out), and how such might affect those apparently pushing for lower age limits (or none) or as to why any would want to be married to such young children. I couldn't care less whether she was of what age, and I have about as much chance of knowing this as you have.

Great. Peace.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Nope. That was not the issue that was at hand. He claims that it is Muslims who marry young girls, and I quoted studies by independent research that many do. Including Muslims, not exclusively Muslims. So you claiming "Our posts" as if you and him are saying the same thing and has the same posts is claiming group mentality. Its another straw man.

If you have something to point out about the OP do it directly.

I never said Muslims exclusively. Try to read the comments.

 

[firedragon]

I never said Muslims exclusively. Try to read the comments.

Thats good. Have a great day.