Prolegomenon: Islamic history of the world . .

[Marcus]

At the suggestion of another member, I purchased and am reading The Muqaddimah or Prolegomenon by Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406). British historian, Arnold Toynbee considered it "undoubtedly the greatest work of its kind that has ever yet been created by any mind in any time or place."

Anyway, am only into the "Introduction To The 2005 Edition" by Bruce B. Lawrence and have questions already:

Lawrence claims that for Khaldun, "There are four elements without which law could not be law in an Islamic key: the Qur'an, the Sunnah, consensus, and analogy. Though the Qur'an would seem to be prior to consensus, it is in fact the consensus of the Community of Believers in Allah and His Last Prophet who confirm that the Book is the Revealed Word to Muhammad . ."

How can Islam, in the face of the divisions between Sunni and Shia, which, I think, began shortly after the Prophet's death, claim any sort of consensus? Explain please without using the divisions between Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestantism as an analogy. Where might Islam exhibit any sort of consensus between Sunni and Shia?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

Each of those sects is a community unto itself with its own internal consensus. The heretic does not break up the consensus; on the contrary, the demand for consensus creates the heretic.

[Marcus]

Each of those sects is a community unto itself with its own internal consensus. The heretic does not break up the consensus; on the contrary, the demand for consensus creates the heretic.

Agreed, JN, and I appreciate that fact.

However, there is great similarity between Khaldun's "validity arising out of consensus" for the Qur'ran and the Christian community's reception of the New Testament scriptures.

The One, Holy, and Apostolic Church (as opposed to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant) defined the NT, and the NT defines the Church even today in spite of her denominational differences.

Given that the Church, institutionally, was one for a millennium, and that the NT arose out of and was validated by such consensus, how can Islam claim any sort of such consensus for the Qur'an as does Khaldun according to Lawrence?

[Parodite]

Just to throw in a coin, I think people overestimate the value of official declarations in theology. It is rather easy to create sentences where things of considered importance are arranged or rearranged in the desired fashion, for instance as to how consensus emerges and who or what it then represents, officially. What is official though, at any given moment, can be anything.

[Marcus]

Just to throw in a coin, I think people overestimate the value of official declarations in theology. It is rather easy to create sentences where things of considered importance are arranged or rearranged in the desired fashion, for instance as to how consensus emerges and who or what it then represents, officially. What is official though, at any given moment, can be anything.

Again, I agree, but that's not the point here.

The whole point is that the author of the book, written in the 12th century, claims Islamic consensus as the validation of Islam and the Prophet. I'm simply asking how, in light of the very early and continued division between Sunni and Shia, that Khaldun can legitimately claim Islamic consensus.

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

. . author of the book, written in the 12th century, claims Islamic consensus as the validation of Islam and the Prophet. I'm simply asking how, in light of the very early and continued division between Sunni and Shia, that Khaldun can legitimately claim Islamic consensus.

.

I do not want to enter the debate as I do not know much about Khaldun etc

but

Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus



.

[Parodite]

The whole point is that the author of the book, written in the 12th century, claims Islamic consensus as the validation of Islam and the Prophet. I'm simply asking how, in light of the very early and continued division between Sunni and Shia, that Khaldun can legitimately claim Islamic consensus.

I don't know how they claim what they claim. But don't Sunni and Shia Islam both consider Muhammad and the Quran their home base upon which all the rest builds? If that is so... there is a consensus of sorts.

[Marcus]

. . Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism*

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus.

Thanks, ALI, and if such is the case, that's validation of Lawrence's claim for Khaldun.

• *Until the schism in the 11th century, Christianity meant the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After that Christianity in the West meant Roman Catholicism until the Reformation. Christianity in the East after the schism meant Orthodoxy.

[anderson]

Well, first, it is to be pointed out that Ibn Khaldun was himself of one party, namely, Sunni, and when he speaks of "Islam," he means "Sunni." The emphasis on consensus and on the majority/collective agreeing on something as a proof of truthfulness is a distinctly Sunni point of view.
Shi'as have a notion of consensus as a secondary criterion of proof of things, but even there it is restricted to consensus amongst not the whole of the people but amongst those who have knowledge about what they're talking about.

That said, there is a consensus on the Quran even between Sunni and Shia in that everybody is agreed on the contents of the book. There are differences in interpretation and differences in understanding of who is qualified to interpret / speak about the religion / book, but everyone agrees on the book. It is something that the community as a whole transmitted. It is an example of what is called a "mutawattir" or "widely transmitted" report. This is seen as one proof of a report being genuine - a person can fabricate something and say it came from the Prophet through one chain of transmission; it is another to fabricate hundreds of independent chains transmitting the same thing, to have a community collectively transmit something.

[anderson]

. . Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism*

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus.

Thanks, ALI, and if such is the case, that's validation of Lawrence's claim for Khaldun.

• *Until the schism in the 11th century, Christianity meant the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After that Christianity in the West meant Roman Catholicism until the Reformation. Christianity in the East after the schism meant Orthodoxy.

Naw, that's a load of horse dung. A sizeable Shia minority goes back to the earliest days, in places like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, Bahrain, etc. There's a continuous line of well known, prominent Shia scholars with surviving works going back to the 9th and 10th centuries.
The 16th century Safawid period saw Shiism get a high powered state sponsor for propagation, and a lot of modern folk Shiism practice got pushed then, but it is illiterate nonsense to say the Safawids invented Shiism in the 16th century.

[Hans Bulvai]

. . Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism*

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus.

Thanks, ALI, and if such is the case, that's validation of Lawrence's claim for Khaldun.

• *Until the schism in the 11th century, Christianity meant the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After that Christianity in the West meant Roman Catholicism until the Reformation. Christianity in the East after the schism meant Orthodoxy.

Naw, that's a load of horse dung. A sizeable Shia minority goes back to the earliest days, in places like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, Bahrain, etc. There's a continuous line of well known, prominent Shia scholars with surviving works going back to the 9th and 10th centuries.
The 16th century Safawid period saw Shiism get a high powered state sponsor for propagation, and a lot of modern folk Shiism practice got pushed then, but it is illiterate nonsense to say the Safawids invented Shiism in the 16th century.

I don't think he means invented as much as he means propagated.
And Sunnis did make the majority of Muslims. They still do. There is nothing to argue there.

[anderson]

. . Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism*

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus.

Thanks, ALI, and if such is the case, that's validation of Lawrence's claim for Khaldun.

• *Until the schism in the 11th century, Christianity meant the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After that Christianity in the West meant Roman Catholicism until the Reformation. Christianity in the East after the schism meant Orthodoxy.

Naw, that's a load of horse dung. A sizeable Shia minority goes back to the earliest days, in places like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, Bahrain, etc. There's a continuous line of well known, prominent Shia scholars with surviving works going back to the 9th and 10th centuries.
The 16th century Safawid period saw Shiism get a high powered state sponsor for propagation, and a lot of modern folk Shiism practice got pushed then, but it is illiterate nonsense to say the Safawids invented Shiism in the 16th century.

I don't think he means invented as much as he means propagated.
And Sunnis did make the majority of Muslims. They still do. There is nothing to argue there.

He wrote what he wrote, and there's plenty to argue with in what he wrote, as I have already pointed out.

[Hans Bulvai]

Well, first, it is to be pointed out that Ibn Khaldun was himself of one party, namely, Sunni, and when he speaks of "Islam," he means "Sunni." The emphasis on consensus and on the majority/collective agreeing on something as a proof of truthfulness is a distinctly Sunni point of view.

Again, how many Shia's were there during his time? He died in the year 808 hijri. Didn't Shia'ism sorta gradually emerge rather than just appear?
I have to reread the book but I don't remember him making a destinction or reference to Shia'ism.

Shi'as have a notion of consensus as a secondary criterion of proof of things, but even there it is restricted to consensus amongst not the whole of the people but amongst those who have knowledge about what they're talking about.

Have knowledge about what? Literal or philosophical interpretation of the Quran?

[Farcus]

Just to throw in a coin, I think people overestimate the value of official declarations in theology. It is rather easy to create sentences where things of considered importance are arranged or rearranged in the desired fashion, for instance as to how consensus emerges and who or what it then represents, officially. What is official though, at any given moment, can be anything.

Again, I agree, but that's not the point here.

The whole point is that the author of the book, written in the 12th century, claims Islamic consensus as the validation of Islam and the Prophet. I'm simply asking how, in light of the very early and continued division between Sunni and Shia, that Khaldun can legitimately claim Islamic consensus.

Does the term "Self Authenticating Authority" mean anything to you?

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

.

. . Marcus, FYI , until Shah Ismail, say till 1520 , Shia did not exist .. meaning 99% of Muslims were Sunni , Islam meant Sunni .. very similar to Christianity, till reformation, Christianity meant Catholicism*

Shia was invented and elevated to a major player in Islam by Shah Ismail

Shia had minuscule follower before Pomegranates took it over .. Shia was a negligible Ali-cult .. Iranians took it and elevated into a major player (for political reason, to differentiate from Ottoman Sunni Khalifat) , meaning SHIA as religion starts with Shah Ismail in 1520)

In that sense, till 1520, there was Islamic consensus.

Thanks, ALI, and if such is the case, that's validation of Lawrence's claim for Khaldun.

• *Until the schism in the 11th century, Christianity meant the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. After that Christianity in the West meant Roman Catholicism until the Reformation. Christianity in the East after the schism meant Orthodoxy.

.

Naw, that's a load of horse dung. A sizeable Shia minority goes back to the earliest days, in places like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the holy cities of Medina and Mecca, Bahrain, etc. There's a continuous line of well known, prominent Shia scholars with surviving works going back to the 9th and 10th centuries.
The 16th century Safawid period saw Shiism get a high powered state sponsor for propagation, and a lot of modern folk Shiism practice got pushed then, but it is illiterate nonsense to say the Safawids invented Shiism in the 16th century.


.

Anderson ,

I have rudimentary theological knowledge, but knowledgeable in historical facts

Facts is ,

After Moh passed away, there was some dispute who should take the leadership of Islam

But, even Ali (son in law of Moh), to keep unity within Islam, was against "nefaagh", meaning splitting Islam, considering that at that time Omar was conquering all the territories for Islam

Meaning, Shia as religion, did not exist until Shah Ismail elevated it to status of a religion with all "ISM" necessary for a religion

Yes, there were some ALI-followers, and many other schools and cults, Yazidi and others .. like now in Christianity there is Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and and , but they were negligible (in size in meaning)

Shiasm comes from Sufism, Ali is lord of Sufi .. Shah Ismail was a Sufi

.
His father, Haydar, was the sheikh of the Safaviyya Sufi order and a direct descendant of its Kurdish founder, Safi-ad-din Ardabili (1252–1334). Ismail was the last in line of hereditary Grand Masters of the Safaviyah Sufi order
.

Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Ayyūb , Saladin, was a Kurd and follower of a Persian Sufi order (from Northern of Iran), Saladin grew up in a Muslim society that was powerfully influenced by Sufism .. he was follower of Ghazālī

.
Ghazālī was Persian Muslim theologian, jurist, philosopher, and mystic.

Ghazali has sometimes been referred to by historians as the single most influential Muslim after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Others have cited his movement from science to faith as a detriment to Islamic scientific progress. Besides his work that successfully changed the course of Islamic philosophy—the early Islamic Neoplatonism developed on the grounds of Hellenistic philosophy, for example, was so successfully refuted by Ghazali that it never recovered—he also brought the orthodox Islam of his time in close contact with Sufism. The orthodox theologians still went their own way, and so did the mystics, but both developed a sense of mutual appreciation which ensured that no sweeping condemnation could be made by one for the practices of the other.
.

Sufism was the forerunner of Shi'ism

What I meant Shah Ismail "Invented" Shia religion" is correct :

Shah Ismail , in Isfahan, his Persian capital, one of the most beautiful cities in the world,
gathered Islam expert and ordered them to INVENT "Shia 12-emami" based on Sufism with Persian character, making out of a CULT a divine religion with parity to Sunni Islam .. the Alawi of Syria and Alevi of Turkey not entirely a religion but rather a Shia cult

In that sense, it is correct saying B4 Shah Ismail, Shia RELIGION did not exist and there was Islamic consensus

would also like to know Ibrahim's take on that


.

[Ibrahim]

The Muqaddimah is an important historical book for its scope and detailed description of the Islamic world in that era. However it is not authoritative in any way, and as anderson points out there is plenty to argue with in the book, both in terms of factual details and theological pronouncements. A good analogy might be Herodotus. One of most important works of its era, but not necessarily reliable history or description of other nations' views and beliefs of that era.


Ideas like consensus or religious judgments in Islamic history are always, to some extent, local. For something to be held in consensus by, say, just the Sunnis of the Hijaz would be about as much consensus as anyone is going to get aside from the most basic tenants of the religion. Just like a fatwa applies only to those who respect that juror and believe in his authority to make judgments. Marcus doesn't want an analogy to Christian denominations, but that is the most obvious one to make, except that Islam is even more decentralized than post-Reformation Christianity.

But obviously there is consensus on basic points, e.g. the Quran, or the shahada. Without some degree of consensus you don't have a single religion.

[Marcus]

The Muqaddimah is an important historical book for its scope and detailed description of the Islamic world in that era. However it is not authoritative in any way, and as anderson points out there is plenty to argue with in the book, both in terms of factual details and theological pronouncements. A good analogy might be Herodotus. One of most important works of its era, but not necessarily reliable history or description of other nations' views and beliefs of that era.

Ideas like consensus or religious judgments in Islamic history are always, to some extent, local. For something to be held in consensus by, say, just the Sunnis of the Hijaz would be about as much consensus as anyone is going to get aside from the most basic tenants of the religion. Just like a fatwa applies only to those who respect that juror and believe in his authority to make judgments. Marcus doesn't want an analogy to Christian denominations, but that is the most obvious one to make, except that Islam is even more decentralized than post-Reformation Christianity.

But obviously there is consensus on basic points, e.g. the Quran, or the shahada. Without some degree of consensus you don't have a single religion.

Ib, though I have you on "Ignore," I clicked the "Display this post" to read your input . . good points . . thanks.

At this point I'm only looking for an explanation of Islamic consensus in light of the divisions between Sunni and Shia. The Qur'an is, as are the Christian scriptures, a self-authenticating source of authority, but Khaldun doesn't go that route (according to Lawrence). That's commendable as I see things . . after all, anyone can claim to have received a message from God. No, Khaldun would seem to ground validation of Islam on the consensus of its followers. What I'm looking for at this point is a better understanding of what constitutes Islamic consensus. When did the division between Sunni and Shia begin? ALI raises some interesting points in that regard. When did Sunni and Shia begin killing each other? My request for explanation without regard to Christian analogies is intended to avoid confusion . . to try understand Islam in terms of itself.

I'm expecting much more from Khaldun than from Herodotus . . from Khaldun I'm expecting an Islamic theory/philosophy of history.

[Ibrahim]

A history of the Sunni/Shia schism is a complex historical topic, but in my opinion the origins of it aren't as much theological as they are political, though they evolved theological differences along the way.

But as to consensus, obviously Shia and Sunni agree upon the same version of the Quran. Right away that is a lot of material to agree upon. If, as is the case, all Muslims agree that "there is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet," then there is consensus on a pretty important point with plenty of theological ramifications.

To render Khaldun's point in a more modern or post-modern way, over one billion people agree that "there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Prophet," so that confers a legitimacy to that statement simply because so many people agree upon it. An atheist might say that the only difference between a respected world religion and a crazy cult is the number of followers, and to a certain extent that is true. That's what consensus "buys" you.

[Hans Bulvai]

The Hajj is another showing of a strong consensus.
People of all stripes attending a single event for a single cause.

[Farcus]

A history of the Sunni/Shia schism is a complex historical topic, but in my opinion the origins of it aren't as much theological as they are political, though they evolved theological differences along the way.

But as to consensus, obviously Shia and Sunni agree upon the same version of the Quran. Right away that is a lot of material to agree upon. If, as is the case, all Muslims agree that "there is no god but God, and Muhammad is His Prophet," then there is consensus on a pretty important point with plenty of theological ramifications.

To render Khaldun's point in a more modern or post-modern way, over one billion people agree that "there is no god but God and Muhammad is His Prophet," so that confers a legitimacy to that statement simply because so many people agree upon it. An atheist might say that the only difference between a respected world religion and a crazy cult is the number of followers, and to a certain extent that is true. That's what consensus "buys" you.

Power is everything.

[Marcus]

Good points all, thanks . . . that said, the only intent of my questions is to understand Islam from Ibn Khaldun's perspective.

So far, so good.


Finally finished the introductions to the various editions . . now to the text itself . .

[Ibrahim]

The Hajj is another showing of a strong consensus.
People of all stripes attending a single event for a single cause.

Good point. The "five pillars" generally, and numerous prayers and rituals are shared by all Muslims worldwide.

[Farcus]

Ibn Khaldun starts the Muqaddimah with a thorough criticism of the mistakes regularly committed by his fellow historians and the difficulties which await the historian in his work. He notes seven critical issues:

"All records, by their very nature, are liable to error...

...Partisanship towards a creed or opinion...
...Over-confidence in one's sources...
...The failure to understand what is intended...
...A mistaken belief in the truth...
...The inability to place an event in its real context
...The common desire to gain favor of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame...
...The most important is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human society."

Against the seventh point (the ignorance of social laws) Ibn Khaldun lays out his theory of human society in the Muqaddimah.

[Jnalum Persicum]

.

Good points all, thanks . . . that said, the only intent of my questions is to understand Islam from Ibn Khaldun's perspective.

So far, so good.


Finally finished the introductions to the various editions . . now to the text itself . .


.

Marcus ,

Islam, as you and everybody else in the world knows, is Sunni Islam

Shia Islam, as a factor of any scale and meaning, appears only with Shah Ismail anno 1520

All, Giant philosophers of Islam period (pretty much mostly Pomegranates), without even a single exception, are Sunni .. I don't know of any Giant Philosopher of Shia Islam

in that sense, reading about history, philosophy of Islam, you can pretty much forget about Shia Islam

Answering your question, when did Sunni and Shia animosity began, it began when (Iranian) Shia Islam (meaning Persian 12-Emami Shia, who are 95% of Shia Islam world population of around 110+ million people) were introduced in Persia and Pomegranates were forced to convert from Sunni to Shia Islam .. that was the time when Shia-Islam (meaning Shia-Safavi) started appearing on Islam radars . . all began 1520

Shia and Sunni face-off was synonymous with Ottoman-Persian face-off .. Turks were Sunni Khalifa (head of Islam) and Persian Kings were head of Shia Islam .. this face-off lasted till nineteen century and than fizzled off with decline of Ottoman empire and weakening of Persian Kings

Things started again, Shia and Sunni clash, when colonial (western) powers, basically British, showed up in ME .. divide and rule .. Brits , like now America, promoted Shia Sunni animosity

Presently , Arab (and Turkish) antagonism with Iran, manifests, superficially, as Sunni & Shia clash, just to fool the street .. but the root of that antagonism is not Shia & Sunni , but Arab & Pomegranates, and Turk & Persian rivalry


.

[Marcus]

Marcus , Islam, as you and everybody else in the world knows, is Sunni Islam. Shia Islam, as a factor of any scale and meaning, appears only with Shah Ismail anno 1520 . . in that sense, reading about history, philosophy of Islam, you can pretty much forget about Shia Islam.

Answering your question, when did Sunni and Shia animosity began, it began when (Iranian) Shia Islam (meaning Persian 12-Emami Shia, who are 95% of Shia Islam world population of around 110+ million people) were introduced in Persia and Pomegranates were forced to convert from Sunni to Shia Islam .. that was the time when Shia-Islam (meaning Shia-Safavi) started appearing on Islam radars . . all began 1520.

Shia and Sunni face-off was synonymous with Ottoman-Persian face-off .. Turks were Sunni Khalifa (head of Islam) and Persian Kings were head of Shia Islam .. this face-off lasted till nineteen century and than fizzled off with decline of Ottoman empire and weakening of Persian Kings.

Things started again, Shia and Sunni clash, when colonial (western) powers, basically British, showed up in ME .. divide and rule .. Brits , like now America, promoted Shia Sunni animosity

Presently , Arab (and Turkish) antagonism with Iran, manifests, superficially, as Sunni & Shia clash, just to fool the street .. but the root of that antagonism is not Shia & Sunni , but Arab & Pomegranates, and Turk & Persian rivalry .

First, ALI, everyone else may know that, but I did not . . dumber'n a post about Islam.

And thanks for the rest . . you have anticipated some of the questions with which I approach Ibn Khaldun. When did (?) Persia become Muslim?