Muhammad

[Piculet]

Sheesh??? The history of the American Revolution...

If you don't know what we are talking about then why?

just say it or stop nagging.

 

[Augustus]

Evidence?

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

'Some bod on a forum' was actually a secular academic historian writing in a peer-reviewed journal which was cited and linked to.

So you accept the religious narrative as true because some Muslims say it, whereas critical historical scholarship is to be rejected out of hand.

History and theology have agreed for 1400 years, recently apologists have tried changing history to massage their theology. All they can do is go by what is known or believed to be known, otherwise they are guessing and making up whatever suites their "scholarship".

Again not remotely true, but you are dismissing the 10+ cited secular academic historians, including professors at Oxford and Harvard as 'apologists massaging their theology'.

The reason you dismiss them out of hand as 'apologists' is purely because they contradict the religious narrative you insist is objective fact.

Also, they are not simply 'guessing' and making up fake "scholarship"' as to the emergence of Sunnism centuries later as there are plenty of primary sources by this stage that document the uncertainties regarding the early sources and document changes in Islamic theology and politics.

To put in a manner you might be able to understand more easily, think of the emergence of Christian orthodoxy in the Roman Empire centuries after the birth of Christianity. Certain histories get reified and others erased.

Btw, you never did explain how you are so certain they are all ludicrously wrong despite knowing nothing of their work and also accepting that you are not particularly well informed on the topic.

 

[ChristineM]

Some bod on a forum' was actually a secular academic historian writing in a peer-reviewed journal which was cited and linked to.

Do you not remember what you actually highlighted in your copy and paste??? Maybe is not evidence

Again not remotely true, but you are dismissing the 10+ cited secular academic historians

Will you stop telling me what i am thinking.

The reason you dismiss them out of hand as 'apologists' is purely because they contradict the religious narrative you insist is objective fact.

As explained several times, history and theology agree that the split occurred in 632 so please stop your silly projection simply because the facts don't agree with your apologetics ideas

Btw, you never did explain how you are so certain they are all ludicrously wrong despite knowing nothing of their work and also accepting that you are not particularly well informed on the topic.

I have told you often enough, the schism occured in 632. This is well documented, sorry is it is in disagreement with your dreams but i cannot take the blame for they. My first post to you explained all that so no need for the childish personal insults

 

[Augustus]

Do you not remember what you actually highlighted in your copy and paste??? Maybe is not evidence

Duning-Kruger strikes again.

Yes, I remember. Unlike you, I actually understood it and understood why you were barking up the wrong tree from the start.

Let's simplify it again, shall we...

As explained several times, history and theology agree that the split occurred in 632 so please stop your silly projection simply because the facts don't agree with your apologetics ideas

Seeing as you are allergic to secular academic scholarship, we'll move down a couple of notches to Wikipedia, which apparently engages in the same fact-free "dreams" and "apologetic ideas" as the dozens of world-renowned secular historians who informed my perspective

What you 'corrected' me on to initiate this discussion: The idea that there have been Sunni and Shia fighting since the succession is somewhat misleading. Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries

Wikipedia:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]


You don't need to keep repeating "but 632!!!". I know the story dear, it's not complicated. The scholars you disparage as "apologists" certainly know the story far better than you. Everyone knows that the Shia (i.e. Party of Ali) has 'something' to do with the succession.

What you lack the wit to grasp is that, even if we uncritically accept the theological succession narrative at face value and use a tautological concept of 'Shia', this doesn't make the Abu Bakr faction "Sunni".

Now, if you want to become slightly better informed, I've pointed you in the right direction. You'll have to work out what 'Sunni' is and how it came to be yourself though.

I can recommend some accessible sources if you like, you'll have to red them yourself though

 

[ChristineM]

Duning-Kruger strikes again.

Yes, I remember. Unlike you, I actually understood it and understood why you were barking up the wrong tree from the start.

You made a claim, it was wrong, no trees involved.

The rest of the round and round we go and personal insults that seem to be your hallmark are ignored

 

[Augustus]

You made a claim, it was wrong, no trees involved.

The rest of the round and round we go and personal insults that seem to be your hallmark are ignored

No need to suffer fools gladly. The ignoring of information that proves you wrong, which is your hallmark, continues in force.

Feel free to make a rational, evidence based argument this time if you can.

Seeing as you are allergic to secular academic scholarship, we'll move down a couple of notches to Wikipedia, which apparently engages in the same fact-free "dreams" and "apologetic ideas" as the dozens of world-renowned secular historians who informed my perspective

What you 'corrected' me on to initiate this discussion: The idea that there have been Sunni and Shia fighting since the succession is somewhat misleading. Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries

Wikipedia:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]


You don't need to keep repeating "but 632!!!". I know the story dear, it's not complicated. The scholars you disparage as "apologists" certainly know the story far better than you. Everyone knows that the Shia (i.e. Party of Ali) has 'something' to do with the succession.

What you lack the wit to grasp is that, even if we uncritically accept the theological succession narrative at face value and use a tautological concept of 'Shia', this doesn't make the Abu Bakr faction "Sunni".

Now, if you want to become slightly better informed, I've pointed you in the right direction. You'll have to work out what 'Sunni' is and how it came to be yourself though.

I can recommend some accessible sources if you like, you'll have to read them yourself though

 

[ChristineM]

No need to suffer fools gladly. The ignoring of information that proves you wrong, which is your hallmark, continues in force.

Feel free to make a rational, evidence based argument this time if you can.

Seeing as you are allergic to secular academic scholarship, we'll move down a couple of notches to Wikipedia, which apparently engages in the same fact-free "dreams" and "apologetic ideas" as the dozens of world-renowned secular historians who informed my perspective

What you 'corrected' me on to initiate this discussion: The idea that there have been Sunni and Shia fighting since the succession is somewhat misleading. Sunni identity didn't really emerge for another few centuries

Wikipedia:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]


You don't need to keep repeating "but 632!!!". I know the story dear, it's not complicated. The scholars you disparage as "apologists" certainly know the story far better than you. Everyone knows that the Shia (i.e. Party of Ali) has 'something' to do with the succession.

What you lack the wit to grasp is that, even if we uncritically accept the theological succession narrative at face value and use a tautological concept of 'Shia', this doesn't make the Abu Bakr faction "Sunni".

Now, if you want to become slightly better informed, I've pointed you in the right direction. You'll have to work out what 'Sunni' is and how it came to be yourself though.

I can recommend some accessible sources if you like, you'll have to read them yourself though

No, it means you are railroading the thread with reams of copy and paste stuff that massages your ego

There is no doubt the split between Sunni and Shia began soon after Mohammed's death. You can post all the apologetics that makes you feel good, it makes no difference to fact.

 

[Augustus]

There is no doubt the split between Sunni and Shia began soon after Mohammed's death. You can post all the apologetics that makes you feel good, it makes no difference to fact.

"Any source that is beyond my intellectual capacity is apologetics and should be dismissed out of hand"

Well known apologetics website dedicated to making Augustus feel good, Wikipedia:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]

No, it means you are railroading the thread with reams of copy and paste stuff that massages your ego

"People who support their arguments by quoting scholarly evidence are egotistical as they ignores the feelings of those who find it too hard to read and think for themselves and so get consistently shown up for their wilful ignorance"

 

[ChristineM]

"Any source that is beyond my intellectual capacity is apologetics and should be dismissed out of hand"

Well known apologetics website dedicated to making Augustus feel good, Wikipedia:

One common mistake is to assume that Sunni Islam represents a normative Islam that emerged during the period after Muhammad's death, and that Sufism and Shi'ism developed out of Sunni Islam.[19] This perception is partly due to the reliance on highly ideological sources that have been accepted as reliable historical works, and also because the vast majority of the population is Sunni. Both Sunnism and Shiaism are the end products of several centuries of competition between ideologies. Both sects used each other to further cement their own identities and doctrines.[20]



"People who support their arguments by quoting scholarly evidence are egotistical as they ignores the feelings of those who find it too hard to read and think for themselves and so get consistently shown up for their wilful ignorance"

Sheesh, you want scholarly papers, do what i do, search for them, Google scholar is a good source, or arxiv if you want to know what id cutting edge.

The Shia/Sunni schism followed soon after Mohammed's death.

I dont really care about all the strawman fluff you are throwing in to hide behind

 

[Augustus]

The Shia/Sunni schism followed soon after Mohammed's death.

I dont really care about all the strawman fluff you are throwing in to hide behind

Strawman fluff like noting only Sunni apologists think Sunni Islam existed in 632, and highlighting that you are still incapable of grasping the fact that a non-existent group can't split from another non-existent group?

Your argument is the same as saying Jesus' disciples were Catholics.

I know you won't read it as ignorance is bliss, but for anyone else who actually is interested in secular scholarship:

The name “Sunni” derives from a technical term that we have already encountered: “Sunna.” When the term “Sunna” appears in Islamic legal theory, it is used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the normative life of Muhammad that was constructed and imagined as authoritative by later generations...

The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the Peo- ple of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envis- aged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop and were done so largely by means of a group of legal scholars (ulama; sing., alim), whose main concern was to determine what obedience to God should mean in a daily context.3 The product of their collective efforts is the sharia, literally the “path” or “way” that Muslims should follow. Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam - M White (Columbia University Press)

 

[ChristineM]

Strawman fluff like noting only Sunni apologists think Sunni Islam existed in 632, and highlighting that you are still incapable of grasping the fact that a non-existent group can't split from another non-existent group?

Your argument is the same as saying Jesus' disciples were Catholics.

I know you won't read it as ignorance is bliss, but for anyone else who actually is interested in secular scholarship:

The name “Sunni” derives from a technical term that we have already encountered: “Sunna.” When the term “Sunna” appears in Islamic legal theory, it is used in a more restrictive sense to refer to the normative life of Muhammad that was constructed and imagined as authoritative by later generations...

The name “Sunni” abbreviates a phrase that better clarifies the Sunni movement’s ideological parameters: “ahl al-sunna waʾl-jamaʿa” (the Peo- ple of the Tradition [of Muhammad] and the Community). As with Shiʿism, however, it is imperative that we not regard this tradition as emerging fully formed at the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it took time to develop, often in relationship to a series of legal and theological disputes, certain answers to which would emerge as “orthodox.” Although many of these answers would at a later date be taken to have existed at the time of Muhammad, there is no clear evidence that they did.

Sunni Islam is defined not by its allegiance to a particular individual (e.g., Ali and the ahl al-bayt) or institution (e.g., the Imamate), as Shiʿism is, but by following one of the four authentic schools of law that are envis- aged as representing the true elaboration of Muhammad’s Sunna. These schools took generations to develop and were done so largely by means of a group of legal scholars (ulama; sing., alim), whose main concern was to determine what obedience to God should mean in a daily context.3 The product of their collective efforts is the sharia, literally the “path” or “way” that Muslims should follow. Muslim Identities: An Introduction to Islam - M White (Columbia University Press)

Sheesh, check the history not semantics

Remember trees have existed far longer then humans have named them.

The split followed Mohammad's death, either prove otherwise or bye

 

[Piculet]

The split followed Mohammad's death, either prove otherwise or bye

You're claiming the positive – it's your responsibility to prove that true. But it is weird how you keep arguing without making any actual arguments in addition to your first one. Everyone is wasting their time here.

 

[Augustus]

Sheesh, check the history not semantics

Remember trees have existed far longer then humans have named them.

The split followed Mohammad's death, either prove otherwise or bye

Quelle surprise, as predicted you didn't read the secular scholarly source that shows why you are wrong (again) and (again) have to resort to pretending it doesn't exist rather than making a rational defence of your position (I do enjoy your mental gymnastics shows btw which are the only reason I actually bother to interact with you )

If someone said Jesus' disciples were Catholics and thus Catholicism is the one true faith, pointing out that this is obviously historically illiterate apologetics is not simply 'semantics, because trees'.

I know you certainly can't do this, but try to explain what a Sunni Muslim is in a manner that makes it possible that such a thing existed in 632.

0% chance of that happening though

 

[ChristineM]

You're claiming the positive – it's your responsibility to prove that true. But it is weird how you keep arguing without making any actual arguments in addition to your first one. Everyone is wasting their time here.

I gave provided evidence right at the beginning of this thread.

You want more?

And i still see no answer to my question, i wonder why?

 

[ChristineM]

Quelle surprise, as predicted you didn't read the secular scholarly source that shows why you are wrong (again) and (again) have to resort to pretending it doesn't exist rather than making a rational defence of your position (I do enjoy your mental gymnastics shows btw which are the only reason I actually bother to interact with you )

If someone said Jesus' disciples were Catholics and thus Catholicism is the one true faith, pointing out that this is obviously historically illiterate apologetics is not simply 'semantics, because trees'.

I know you certainly can't do this, but try to explain what a Sunni Muslim is in a manner that makes it possible that such a thing existed in 632.

0% chance of that happening though

Round and round you go, as stated in the previous post,i i have provided my evidence. You want more then just ask

Or sod it, here...

https://hhs.helenaschools.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2018/01/Split-of-Islam.pdf

And here

http://onlinecampus.fcps.edu/media2...2010/Era4Topic19/Resources/Sunni_and_Shia.pdf

Scholarly papers in pdf pdf format, download and read if you want, i i nt really care

 

[Augustus]

Round and round you go, as stated in the previous post,i i have provided my evidence. You want more then just ask

You could stop going round and round by simply addressing the evidence you keep pretending doesn't exist.

But, as I said, 0% chance of you explaining how a Sunni Muslim could have existed in 632 because you can't, and unless you can do this you have no argument.

Unfortunately you still don't understand the 2 sentence post you replied to to initiate this discussion and so everything keeps going over your head.

Scholarly papers in pdf pdf format, download and read if you want, i i nt really care

Aw bless

"Scholarly papers" One appears to be a high school worksheet and the other is from a Muslim website recounting the religious narrative.

No wonder you are always so misinformed in every historical thread if you think that those are high quality critical historical sources.

Finding some high school handouts on the internet definitely proves you were right to dismiss Harvard and Oxford professors whose work you've never read as ignorant "apologists".

Thanks for the chuckle

 

[ChristineM]

You could stop going round and round by simply addressing the evidence you keep pretending doesn't exist.

I have, just because it does not agree with your apologetics is not my problem

But, as I said, 0% chance of you explaining how a Sunni Muslim could have existed in 632 because you can't, and unless you can do this you have no argument.

And as i said there were trees before humans called them trees, this is not about word usage bit about a split in religious mores, that you fail to comprehend that is not my problem

Unfortunately you still don't understand the 2 sentence post you replied to to initiate this discussion and so everything keeps going over your head.

Oh wow, more personal insults based on ignorance, please read firum rules

Scholarly papers" One appears to be a high school worksheet and the other is from a Muslim website recounting the religious narrative.

Ha,ha, so you cannot even bare academic papers to contradict your apologetics. It must be so had for you to admit you are beaten by a blonde woman.

No wonder you are always so misinformed in every historical thread if you think that those are high quality critical historical sources.

WTF has your personal opinion got to do with this.

They are genuine, academic/scholarly documents, you don't like them, i i wond why ;-)

Finding some high school handouts on the internet definitely proves you were right to dismiss Harvard and Oxford professors whose work you've never read as ignorant "apologists".

Prove highschool handouts are not valid

 

[ChristineM]

just say it or stop nagging.

Say what?i have asked you several times if there are 2 different histories for Shia and Sunni. You appear to imply there is but on repeatedly requesting you to justify your claim you refuse.

 

[Augustus]

WTF has your personal opinion got to do with this.

They are genuine, academic/scholarly documents, you don't like them, i i wond why ;-)

Prove highschool handouts are not valid

This is getting slightly embarrassing now given the number of times you've (very unconvincingly) pretended you've done a load research from scholarly journals. You've just proved, in public, you don't understand the difference between a religious website, a school handout and a scholarly journal

It's not my 'personal opinion' that they are not scholarly texts, they are not, by definition, scholarly texts. Schoolchildren are taught this.

A very basic primer for you:

What is a scholarly source?
Scholarly sources (also referred to as academic, peer-reviewed, or refereed sources) are written by experts in a particular field and serve to keep others interested in that field up to date on the most recent research, findings, and news. These resources will provide the most substantial information for your research and papers.

What is peer-review?
When a source has been peer-reviewed, it has undergone the review and scrutiny of a review board of colleagues in the author’s field. They evaluate this source as part of the body of research for a particular discipline and make recommendations regarding its publication in a journal, revisions prior to publication, or, in some cases, reject its publication.

Why use scholarly sources?
Scholarly sources’ authority and credibility improve the quality of your own paper or research project.

https://www.library.illinois.edu/ug...also referred to,research, findings, and news.

 

[Piculet]

Say what?i have asked you several times if there are 2 different histories for Shia and Sunni. You appear to imply there is but on repeatedly requesting you to justify your claim you refuse.

I haven't noticed a request for that, but it's too obvious to be cited.