1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Sunni's follow Islam as defined by the Qur'an more than the Shia.

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by stevecanuck, Oct 28, 2021.

  1. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    Just my opinion after reading the Qur'an for 20 years and observing actions and rituals practiced by various sects of Islam.

    First, Mohamed would recoil in horror at the phrase "sects of Islam". He thought he was creating a monolith, but after he died men do what men do and started messing with it. IMO, if Mohamed didn't do it or advocate for it, then it isn't part of Islam. The Shia added things like line-of-succession rules and Ashara, and off they went to create an offshoot.

    NOTE: Not being a Muslim, I believe the Qur'an was created solely by Mohamed. No god(s) were involved.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    Given the Sunnis were a sect that appeared a few centuries after the death of Muhammad (c. 9th C ) , why do you think they better represent the authentic actions of Muhammad?
     
  3. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    Because I can’t think of anything they do that doesn’t comply with the Qur’an or the deeds of Mohamed.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    Who do you think decided on what the correct 'deeds of Muhammad' were and then used them to explain the Quran and its orthodoxy?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    As I said at the outset, this is my opinion. It's based on my knowledge of the Qur'an and early Islamic history.

    Can you think of something Sunni's are known for that run counter to the dictates of the Qur'an?
     
  6. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    That doesn't answer the question of who you think decided on what the correct 'deeds of Muhammad' were and then used them to explain the Quran and its orthodoxy?

    IIRC you are one of these non-Muslims who has a curiously strong attachment to treating (mostly Sunni) Islamic theology (sirah/hadith) as actual history.

    Whether something runs counter to the Quran depends on your own theological position and exegesis.

    Some would argue with the Sunni belief that the sunnah (as decided on by theologians) is of equal status to the Quran, tells us how to interpret the Quran and can even abrogate it.

    Sunnis obviously disagree.
     
  7. TransmutingSoul

    TransmutingSoul One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,490
    Ratings:
    +6,677
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I am inlined, as a Baha'i, to see that the line through Ali, was what Muhammed requested.

    In the end I see the Faith was confirmed in the Shia line.

    I see it all went wrong because they did not embrace Ali after the passing of Muhammed (Peace be upon Him).

    Regards Tony
     
  8. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    Here is a list of Mohamed's activities according to Wiki. Do you doubt any of this?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad

    No, I use actual history as actual history.

    Did you miss the "IMO"?

    Right. Again - I M O.
     
  9. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    Hello Tony,

    One argument in support of my claim that the Qur'an was authored by a human rather than by a god is that a god would have foreseen a session argument and pre-emptively nipped it in the bud with a clearly worded revelation. He had already issued 6,236 of them. A 6,237th would have gone a long way towards keeping Islam intact. That's pretty poor planning for a god, don't you think?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    Yes, of course.

    Just like I doubt the gospels are primarily comprised of 'actual history', or the Ramayana.

    By actual history you mean stuff written down centuries after the fact by people who said Muhammad split the moon and flew around on a donkey-like creature?

    Personally I'd say religious narratives based on 200 years of oral transmission across diverse societies and cultures that contain fantastical aspects should not be uncritically accepted as 'actual history'.

    Why do you have such faith in these sources as 'actual history'?

    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 highly reliable:

    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"

    As I said, when your opinion of what is 'correct' is simply to accept Sunni theology as 'actual history', it's not surprising you think Sunnis best match it ;)
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  11. TransmutingSoul

    TransmutingSoul One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,490
    Ratings:
    +6,677
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I see that Allah in control and what happened to the Message of Muhammed and it was foretold in the Bible and By Muhammed Himself. We can not know that wisdom, but to know there is always a reason.

    This goes a lot deeper into Scriptures, so happy to discuss. I can do as many answers have been given in the Baha'i Writings.

    The book of Revelation offered prophecies about Muhammed and Ali as being the Two Witnesses who influence would last 1260 years.

    Regards Tony
     
  12. TransmutingSoul

    TransmutingSoul One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,490
    Ratings:
    +6,677
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I see that is deep in metaphor as numbers play a very significant part in Revelation.

    A quick reply.

    6,236 adds to 8

    6,237 adds to 9, a Message yet to come, so the Book could not go any further.

    Thus I see this is prophecy for the return expected by Islam.

    Regards Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    That was a historical record, not a religious one. You're mixing apples and Volkswagens.

    Ummmmm, nope. I mean real events recorded by real historians.

    I agree. What does that have to do with anything I've said?

    I think you're on entirely the wrong track. We are talking at cross-purposes, and I'm feeling done. If you don't have anything to say regarding Sunni vs Shia beliefs and practices, then I think we're done.
     
  14. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    If you have a genuine interest in Islamic history, and are not a Muslim so don't have an apologetic agenda to maintain, I find it strange you are so resistant to actually understanding what modern scholars think about the period.

    The problem is you don't actually realise that you are relying on the same sources that said Muhammad split the moon, and are unwilling to even entertain the possibility (and that within these traditions moon splitting and flying to Jerusalem are better attested to than most other events being mutawatir and thus basically considered unimpeachable fact).

    This is why I asked you who you think wrote down the stories you insist on as fact and in what context (and why you are unable to answer it).

    Scholarship on this issue has moved on a lot from the days people used to uncritically treat Islamic theological history as being 'actual history'.

    Islamicists, who once rejoiced that their subject “was born in the full light of history,” have recently been discovering just how much apparent history is religio-legal polemic in disguise, some even doubting whether the host of Arabic historical works that appear in the late eighth and early ninth centuries contain any genuine recollection of the rise and early growth of Islam.
    Robert Hoyland - Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam

    You can read the full book here if you want to get an idea about what was written about Islam in the first couple of centuries (tl;dr: Muslims wrote basically nothing and non-Muslims wrote a little bit none of which supports your insistence Muhammad's near every deed was recorded by objective historians.

    Another scholar, Patricia Crone:

    The biggest problem facing scholars of the rise of Islam is identifying the context in which the prophet worked. What was he reacting to, and why was the rest of Arabia so responsive to his message? We stand a good chance of making headway, for we are nowhere near having exploited to the full our three main types of evidence – the traditions associated with the prophet (primarily the hadith), the Qur'an itself, and (a new source of enormous promise) archaeology... The first is the most difficult to handle; this overwhelmingly takes the form of hadith – short reports (sometimes just a line or two) recording what an early figure, such as a companion of the prophet or Mohammed himself, said or did on a particular occasion, prefixed by a chain of transmitters....

    The purpose of such reports was to validate Islamic law and doctrine, not to record history in the modern sense, and since they were transmitted orally, as very short statements, they easily drifted away from their original meaning as conditions changed. (They were also easily fabricated, but this is actually less of a problem.) They testify to intense conflicts over what was or was not true Islam in the period up to the 9th century, when the material was collected and stabilised; these debates obscured the historical nature of the figures invoked as authorities, while telling us much about later perceptions.

    What do we actually know about Mohammed?


    Don't you think the fact that 2 of the most eminent scholars of the period are completely unaware that 'actual historians' just wrote everything down accurately and objectively might mean you are somewhat mistaken in you assumptions about the sources you are relying on?

    If you were willing to entertain the idea that your 'actual history' is in fact the same theology that underpins the Sunni tradition, then you would be able to understand why this is essential to the question you are asking.

    You can only lead a horse to water...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,786
    Ratings:
    +11,831
    Religion:
    none
    One more Volkswagen for you, that also notes the theological dimensions that relate to your OP:

    The paucity of documentary evidence is made more difficult due to the paucity of the archaeological record as well, which preserves no evidence of widespread destruction nor large scale flight as one would expect from the time period of the early Islamic conquests (futūh.āt; ca. 630–656 CE).24 While there are some non- Muslim sources dated to the latter half of the first/seventh century from nearby lands that mention the advent of a new Arabian prophet and the conquests of hordes coming from Arabia,25 there exists no narrative of the prophet Muhammad and the revelation of the Qur’ān prior to the Sīrah literature—written over one
    century after the fact.26

    Subsequent Islamic literary sources, far removed from the Qur’ān’s milieu and Muhammad’s locale, embellish historical fact with pious lore and political forgery. This reality was well known by early Hadith compilers and was brought to light by orientalists and traditional scholars alike, both of whom insist that one must understand the Qur’ān through the Qur’ān and not through the accretions of later ascribed Hadith reports.27 Abandoning the Hadith’s exegetical qualities and focusing on understanding the Qur’ān through itself was also amethodological consideration by reformist Muslim scholars28 and proponents of the Qur’ānist/Qur’ān Only School (ahl al-qur’ān; qur’āniyyūn) who accept the veracity of the Qur’ān but reject that of the Hadith corpus.29

    The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Tradition - Emran el-Badawi
     
  16. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    21,184
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    deist
    Steve..... can you help us by showing a quote of Muhammad's after telling us what he said in your own words.
    For instance, what did he actually say about this:-
    First, Mohamed would recoil in horror at the phrase "sects of Islam"

    Just one quote with chapter verse would teach me something. :)
     
  17. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    He only ever referred to Islam. Period. Sectarian divisions simply didn't exist. He created Islam and only Islam.
     
  18. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    21,184
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    deist
    OK, so anybody who follows Islam is a Muslim. True?
     
  19. stevecanuck

    stevecanuck Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2014
    Messages:
    502
    Ratings:
    +119
    Technically, yes. However, ask a Sunni if a Shia is a real Muslim, and he'll say no because said Shia is not properly "following Islam".
     
  20. oldbadger

    oldbadger Skanky Old Mongrel!

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2012
    Messages:
    21,184
    Ratings:
    +7,559
    Religion:
    deist
    They kill each other. But Christians point to other churches and often declare 'they are not Christians!'
    Sad
     
Loading...