Muhammad

[Augustus]

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

A tree has an objective existence, a sectarian religious identity is defined by adherence to certain principles that differentiate their group from others, and there were many others before 'Sunni' even existed.

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

You much more entertaining today than you usually are (unfortunately you aren't doing much for the stereotype by running Dunning-Kruger victory laps)

I'll stop dumbing it down for you though and see how well you can respond (0% possibility of anything substantial again, but as long as you continue to be a source of amusement I'll keep rolling the dice ).

What became Sunni Islam emerged from a long process that cumulated in a number of factional disputes in 8th/9th C Iraq such as those between Mutazilite and traditionists, between whether it was correct to follow the sunnah of Muhammad or the Sunnah of the Caliph, etc

As you can see from this example, the 'sunni' are 'the oppressed' in this conflict with a Mutazilite caliph.

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

This is an actual scholarly source btw, The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit and is from the journal Islamic Law and Society Vol. 23, No. 1/2 2016, published by Brill (an academic publisher) The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be on JSTOR

If what became the 'Sunni' had been the dominant group who Ali split from as you claim, how would you explain them being marginalised at this point ?

Would you say the Sunni represent the Islam of the historical Muhammad, and ibn Hanbal was simply restoring Islam to its former state?

 

[Mike.Hester]

I just read on Wikipedia that Muhammad married a six year old. I wasn't expecting to read that.

Sahih al-Bukhari's hadith says "that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. One of the most scared books of Islam. Even worse he married his adoptive sons wife.

 

[ChristineM]

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/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/#:~:text=Scholarly sources (also referred to,research, findings, and news.

You have not shown my sources to be wrong, rather you have once again chosen to shoot the messenger

Show my (now) 3 sources are wrong or admit that you cannot

 

[ChristineM]

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

Wow, just wow, you replied to part of the posts, i am assuming you therefore choose selective to mentally delete the bits that you don't want to reply to

 

[ChristineM]

A tree has an objective existence, a sectarian religious identity is defined by adherence to certain principles that differentiate their group from others, and there were many others before 'Sunni' even existed.



You much more entertaining today than you usually are (unfortunately you aren't doing much for the stereotype by running Dunning-Kruger victory laps)

I'll stop dumbing it down for you though and see how well you can respond (0% possibility of anything substantial again, but as long as you continue to be a source of amusement I'll keep rolling the dice ).

What became Sunni Islam emerged from a long process that cumulated in a number of factional disputes in 8th/9th C Iraq such as those between Mutazilite and traditionists, between whether it was correct to follow the sunnah of Muhammad or the Sunnah of the Caliph, etc

As you can see from this example, the 'sunni' are 'the oppressed' in this conflict with a Mutazilite caliph.

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

This is an actual scholarly source btw, The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit and is from the journal Islamic Law and Society Vol. 23, No. 1/2 2016, published by Brill (an academic publisher) The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be on JSTOR

If what became the 'Sunni' had been the dominant group who Ali split from as you claim, how would you explain them being marginalised at this point ?

Would you say the Sunni represent the Islam of the historical Muhammad, and ibn Hanbal was simply restoring Islam to its former state?

Look pal, i have now provide 3sources that show the approximate date (soon after Mohammads death) when the schism occured. You can attempt to belittle me and my sources all you want if that's what gets you off, i really don't care how you pleasure yourself.

Either prove my sources are incorrect or admit they are not.

 

[Augustus]

Either prove my sources are incorrect or admit they are not.

The post you replied to explains why you are wrong to uncritically accept the theological narrative that emerged centuries after the events as fact. Unfortunately you do not understand why it shows this, which is why you have to either pretend it doesn't exist or find a way to dismiss it out of hand. Again there is a 0% chance you will address the argument, as we both know you cannot.

What became Sunni Islam emerged from a long process that cumulated in a number of factional disputes in 8th/9th C Iraq such as those between Mutazilite and traditionists, between whether it was correct to follow the sunnah of Muhammad or the Sunnah of the Caliph, etc

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

This is an actual scholarly source btw, The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit and is from the journal Islamic Law and Society Vol. 23, No. 1/2 2016, published by Brill (an academic publisher) The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be on JSTOR


And no, it's not about 'semantics', it critical historical scholarship rather than a theological narrative. Your argument is no different from a fundy insisting St. Paul was a Protestant.

 

[ChristineM]

The post you replied to explains why you are wrong to uncritically accept the theological narrative that emerged centuries after the events as fact. Unfortunately you do not understand why it shows this, which is why you have to either pretend it doesn't exist or find a way to dismiss it out of hand. Again there is a 0% chance you will address the argument, as we both know you cannot.

What became Sunni Islam emerged from a long process that cumulated in a number of factional disputes in 8th/9th C Iraq such as those between Mutazilite and traditionists, between whether it was correct to follow the sunnah of Muhammad or the Sunnah of the Caliph, etc

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

This is an actual scholarly source btw, The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit and is from the journal Islamic Law and Society Vol. 23, No. 1/2 2016, published by Brill (an academic publisher) The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be on JSTOR


And no, it's not about 'semantics', it critical historical scholarship rather than a theological narrative. Your argument is no different from a fundy insisting St. Paul was a Protestant.

And the schism began following the death of Mohammad, as i stated. So despite your reams of following history you still have not shown the links you mocked to be wrong. Thanks for your honesty

 

[firedragon]

And the schism began following the death of Mohammad, as i stated. So despite your reams of following history you still have not shown the links you mocked to be wrong. Thanks for your honesty

You see, your statements are based on stories you will find 4 or 5 centuries after the fact. Its strange that you are sticking to your guns without exploring a little bit of research.

According to the same Hadith you are believing in so much dogmatically, the name Sunni did not appear until Ali was killed and the khalifate of Muawiah was established where it was him who invented the term "Jumah al Sunnah". This is according to the same books you accept as historical fact. So according to the same books, they say immediately after Muhammed died they started quarrelling, yet they also say that the Sunni Shia conflict as sects officials began after Ali and his children died. So bottomline is you are wrong even according to the same books you are referring to.

The primary detail you are missing for whatever reason is that the stories you believe in so much were actually written 4 or 5 hundred years after Muhammed. If you take the Bukhari ahadith, an un-vouched-for man called frabry narrated Bukhari's so called "collection" after Bukhari died. So this is 10 or 11 generations after Muhammed and the so called "Schisms".

You see, you should not believe "everything" Muslims say. Thats blind faith.

 

[Augustus]

And the schism began following the death of Mohammad, as i stated. So despite your reams of following history you still have not shown the links you mocked to be wrong. Thanks for your honesty

Is it really that hard for you to understand that if Sunni Islam around the 9th C in Iraq then there couldn't possibly have been a split between Sunni and Shia in the 7th C Hijaz?

What you tried to 'correct':

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.

There are a dozen scholarly sources in this thread that support this view, and even Wikipedia for good measure. All you keep doing is uncritically parroting a sectarian religious narrative written centuries after the events as fact.

Either you can respond to these sources and explain what Sunni Islam is and how it could possibly have existed around 632, or you are just handwaving and dancing as usual. Which is it?

(Remember it's already been shown that this is not just semantics, and that your tree analogy is incoherent as Sunni doesn't mean 'generic follower of Muhammad who is not a Shia')

 

[Augustus]

despite your reams of following history you still have not shown the links you mocked to be wrong.

As noted above, the reams of history did show them to be wrong, but just to clarify I didn't mock the sources, I mocked you for proudly proclaiming to have discovered some scholarly texts and instead proving that you don't actually understand the difference between a religious website, a high school handout and actual peer-reviewed scholarship. Seeing as you repeatedly pretend to be basing your arguments on the latter, it was quite funny.

Also you dismissed secular academic scholarship as 'apologetics' while thinking actual apologetics from a religious website was secular academic scholarship

And all because you wanted to appear smart by correcting a 2 sentence post you didn't understand

 

[ChristineM]

Is it really that hard for you to understand that if Sunni Islam around the 9th C in Iraq then there couldn't possibly have been a split between Sunni and Shia in the 7th C Hijaz?

What you tried to 'correct':

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.

There are a dozen scholarly sources in this thread that support this view, and even Wikipedia for good measure. All you keep doing is uncritically parroting a sectarian religious narrative written centuries after the events as fact.

Either you can respond to these sources and explain what Sunni Islam is and how it could possibly have existed around 632, or you are just handwaving and dancing as usual. Which is it?

(Remember it's already been shown that this is not just semantics, and that your tree analogy is incoherent as Sunni doesn't mean 'generic follower of Muhammad who is not a Shia')

I am not repeating myself over and over just because you want to rewrite history. Prove that my sources are incorrect of admit you can't

 

[ChristineM]

As noted above, the reams of history did show them to be wrong, but just to clarify I didn't mock the sources, I mocked you for proudly proclaiming to have discovered some scholarly texts and instead proving that you don't actually understand the difference between a religious website, a high school handout and actual peer-reviewed scholarship. Seeing as you repeatedly pretend to be basing your arguments on the latter, it was quite funny.

Also you dismissed secular academic scholarship as 'apologetics' while thinking actual apologetics from a religious website was secular academic scholarship

And all because you wanted to appear smart by correcting a 2 sentence post you didn't understand

See above

and of course, more personal attacks. You posted on a public thread, get over yourself

 

[Augustus]

I am not repeating myself over and over just because you want to rewrite history.

Are you saying we should uncritically accept that sectarian religious narratives composed centuries after events should be regarded as objective history?

Or are you saying that these are not religious narratives composed centuries after the fact?

Prove that my sources are incorrect of admit you can't

So you think that it is possible that for Sunni Islam to have emerged around the 9th C in Iraq and also possible for there to have been a split between Sunni and Shia in the 7th C Hijaz?

If you insist...

 

[ChristineM]

Are you saying we should uncritically accept that sectarian religious narratives composed centuries after events should be regarded as objective history?

Or are you saying that these are not religious narratives composed centuries after the fact?



So you think that it is possible that for Sunni Islam to have emerged around the 9th C in Iraq and also possible for there to have been a split between Sunni and Shia in the 7th C Hijaz?

If you insist...

Are you saying objective history should be changed?

So no proof that my sources were wrong. Ok

 

[Augustus]

Are you saying objective history should be changed?

No, like any rational person, I'm saying religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures are not objective history.

Do you think there are actually sources other than the above? If not, how could it possibly be 'objective'?

Just for fun, if you want to know how opaque Early Islamic historiography is and how orthodoxy emerges centuries after the fact look at the disagreement on something as straightforward as Muhammad's birthdate among the early scholars you seem to think are incapable of error:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

 

[ChristineM]

No, like any rational person, I'm saying religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures are not objective history.

Do you think there are actually sources other than the above? If not, how could it possibly be 'objective'?

Just for fun, if you want to know how opaque Early Islamic historiography is and how orthodoxy emerges centuries after the fact look at the disagreement on something as straightforward as Muhammad's birthdate among the early scholars you seem to think are incapable of error:

According to various Muslim sources Muhammad "was born in the Year of the Elephant, or fifty days after the attack of the troops of the Elephant, or thirty years after the Year of the Elephant, or forty years after the Year of the Elephant Many traditions are recorded in Ibn N~ al-Din's Jami' al-iithiu, fols. 179b-180b:the Prophet was born in the Year of the Elephant, he received the Revelation forty years after the Elephant (The fight at - K.) 'Ukaz took place fifteen years after the Elephant and the Ka'ba was built twenty-five years after the Elephant; the Prophet was born thirty days after the Elephant, or fifty days, or fifty-five days, or two months and six days, or ten years; some say twenty years, some say twenty-three years, some say thirty years, some say that God sent the Prophet with his mission fifteen years after the Ka'ba was built, and thus there were seventy years between the Elephant and the mission (mab'aJh) of the Prophet; some say that he was born fifteen years before the Elephant, some say forty days or fifty days, some say thirty years before the Elephant, and finally, some say that there were ten years between the expedition of the Elephant and the mission"

So making it up hundreds of years later is objective?

 

[Augustus]

So making it up hundreds of years later is objective?

No ancient history is objective, it's about probability.

But you still don't seem to understand the issue being discussed

You: Religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures in an environment of sectarian and tribal conflict are objective history and cannot be questioned.

Me: If contemporary written sources clearly demonstrate the emergence of Sunnism in 9th C Iraq, it is highly unlikely to have existed in 7th C Arabia. Moreover, if you understood what makes someone a Sunni Muslim, you would understand why it makes no sense to think they existed in 632.

Feel free to actually identify anything 'made up' btw, you are big on claims, but allergic to arguments and evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

No ancient history is objective, it's about probability.

But you still don't seem to understand the issue being discussed

You: Religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures in an environment of sectarian and tribal conflict are objective history and cannot be questioned.

Me: If contemporary written sources clearly demonstrate the emergence of Sunnism in 9th C Iraq, it is highly unlikely to have existed in 7th C Arabia. Moreover, if you understood what makes someone a Sunni Muslim, you would understand why it makes no sense to think they existed in 632.

Feel free to actually identify anything 'made up' btw, you are big on claims, but allergic to arguments and evidence.

Me, the split in the islamic religion began soon after Mohammad's death, the quarrel about who should lead Islam. Those two groups eventually became known as Sunni and Shia. The groups and the reason for those groups dates back to the 7th century. As i said, it is not about semantics but about faith

You, you dont agree with me so you don't know what you are talking about so i will be condescending and use ad hominem.

 

[Augustus]

Those two groups eventually became known as Sunni and Shia.The groups and the reason for those groups dates back to the 7th century. As i said, it is not about semantics but about faith

Those 2 groups did not become the Sunni and Shia, they became Kharijites, Mutazelites, 'traditionists', and all sorts of other sectarian identities. Centuries later, after Islam had evolved significantly and for reasons completely unconnected to 632, some of them became Sunnis.

Serious question, do you understand the following text and why it is relevant?

The stage was set for a confrontation between the caliph and the ulama. The link between Iraq and the ashãb sunna may be explained by the fact that the Mihna was initiated and enforced primarily upon the ulama of Iraq.46 The caliph wanted the ulama to submit to his will and acknowledge him, as caliph, as the religious authority to guide all believers. One of the ulama who directly opposed the caliph was Ahmad b. Hanbal who, by any standard, was pivotal in the development of Sunnism.47 Paradoxically, the Mihna resulted in the opposite of what the caliph intended: it united the opposition as the ulama rallied around the figure of Ibn Hanbal, who, together with other ashãb sunna , said that a caliph does not define Islam. They rejected the caliph's carefully crafted rational arguments, while paying lip service to al-Ma'mūn's demands.48 The ashãb sunna highlighted their accounts about the correct behavior of a Muslim rather than a caliph's opinion about what a Muslim should believe. Thus the first and most important tenet of Sunnism was established in opposition to the caliph's will and a momentous step was taken in the crystallization of Sunnism as we know it.

The Appellation "Ṣāḥib Sunna" in Classical Islam: How Sunnism Came To Be - John A. Nawasit

 

[Muffled]

I just read on Wikipedia that Muhammad married a six year old. I wasn't expecting to read that.

I believe I can remember the uproar when Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Different strokes for different folks I suppose but it seems less than pure to me.