Duvduv

The Shia (Shia't Ali), the breakaway Druze, Ismaili and Alawites all revere Ali, and in fact the Alawites (of which the Assad family are members) consider Ali a deity.

Where did these ideas come from? How did Ali acquired pre-eminence over Muhammad himself in their theology?

I think it is more than likely that "Shia Islam"sects emerged from an encounter between Imamist syncretic and gnostic sects with emerging Islam in Lebanon. In other words, what became these sects under the title of "Shiism" are the result of the adoption by Imamist sects of features of the Quranic/Muhammadist sect called "Islam," and not originally part of Islam itself.

But again, why did these sects come to revere Ali even more than Mohammed, who the tradition says was the messenger of the Quran?!

Is it possible that "Ali" (who does not appear in the Quran) was not originally considered the son-in-law of Muhammad but was morphed into this relationship in histories and hadith as a way of bringing Imamists into Islam -- but in fact someone called "Ali" was revered as a divine imam figure by the syncretists BEFORE the encounter with Islam?

However, it would seem that Shiism as we know it did not exist, despite the legends and myths, BEFORE the emergence of the Safavid dynasty of Ismail I (who I have called an Islamic equivalent of Constantine), but was the result of the encounter of Quranic Islam with syncretist Imamist sects that existed in the Levant and later Persian influences.

Duvduv

Going one step further, the whole idea that Muhammed ibn Ismail Bukhari "collected" hadiths from all over the Muslim world is unlikely, and that he eliminated hadith that were not "authentic." What is more likely is that hadith were merely stories and aphorism circulating among the Abrahamistic/monotheistic/Hagarist Arabs that had nothing to do with a Mohammed of the Quran, as well as others that were simply invented.

All that is known of the alleged life of Bukhari is from someone named Muhammed ibn Ahmad Al-Dhahabi who lived four hundred years after Bukhari.

And of course we know that the histories of Muhammed himself all go back to one line of reports attributed back to Ibn Ishaq in the writings of Abu Hisham (since there were no extant writings of Ibn Ishaq himself).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

Finally, is it even credible that a coherent Islamic society had already become powerful enough to conquer all the way to Morocco and Afghanistan by the year 750, which is before evidence of the Quran and hadiths even existed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_conquests

sotto voce

Why is 'did' not capitalised?

Duvduv

As on previous occasions, I don't fathom what you are trying to say, and would appreciate more some input on this subject.

Duvduv

I thought you'd ask something substantive, such as "Why is there no historical reference outside of Muslim writings for the existence of a major trading center called Mecca, which would indicate there was no such place in the Hijaz as Mecca??

If there was no Mecca, then all that can be said about the Arabs was that there were sects and movements of monotheistic Bible-friendly Arabs with their own writings and ideas, some of which were later integrated into the new religion and the Quran under the Abbasid caliphate which sought to unify all the disparate groups under the leadership of the caliphate whose authority had to go back to a prophet in a sacred land and space......

sotto voce

Did you really think that? Why would anyone ask that, here?

Or did you think that I think that the word 'Reverence' in a thread title in Biblical Criticism & History might be just what would be appreciated by those who would rather Christianity was under the control of corrupt but reverenced men or women than a democratic theocracy as portrayed in the Bible?

Duvduv

Sotto Voce, just for your edification, this thread is about a critical examination of Islam, and in case you missed the description on the list of topics of FRD it says as follows:

Biblical Criticism & History
Textual and historical discussions of Abrahamic holy books (Bible, Talmud, Qur'an) to challenge and illuminate the stories therein.

Toto

This forum technically includes Qur'anic criticism, but most of the posters concerned about Islam hang out in the Abrahamic Religions forum. We don't have enough volume of posts on Islam for a separate forum.

I'm not sure what the solution is.

Duvduv

I can try over there, but I posted once a few months ago, and there was very little interest at the time.

sotto voce

Is that typo, or deliberate?

Edification?

edifying adj. intellectually or morally stimulating Chambers Dictionary

Is it implied that there is intellectual, or moral inadequacy?