andrewcriddle

There is a description of the Sunni and Shia sects in the History of things beyond the Sea by the Latin historian of the crusades William of Tyre who died c 1185. (Sorry there is no online English translation.)

Andrew Criddle

steve_bnk

I thought the basis of te split was a dispute over who was in the line of succession of Mohammed. Analogous to Catholic pope vs Protestants over who was the Christian authority.

Duvduv

That is the SHIA version of the history. As I have pointed out, any Sunni will tell you that this is a myth, and that Shiism did not exist before the establishment of the Safavid regime under Ismael I and his successors, who may in fact be the Shia equivalent to Constantine......For some reason historians generally accept the unproven claim of Shia legend. Of course we might have to examine the roots of Islam itself since historians generally accept the conventional Muslim position as sacrosanct.

andrewcriddle

I gave you evidence of the split already being known in a 12th century Christian Latin text.

Very rough translation Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

However, this is only the SHIA version since the establishment of Shiism in Persia. Not only are there no Sunni OR Shia sources or documents on the existence of Shiism before the 15th century, but there aren't any non-Muslim (including Jewish) about it either.
All you hear about are "rebellions" by Shia, with no data about it at all. That's all that exists between the death of Ali and Hussein (commemorated on Shia Ashura) and the emergence of Safavidism.
None. Shiism apparently emerged in the time of Shah Ismail I from sectarianism in the mountains of Lebanon who allegedly sent clergy to Persia to teach Shiism.
Ismail I and the dawn of the Safavid regime in Persia appears to be starkly similar to that of Constantine.
Even contemporary historians do not question the Shia claim without any evidence for it. Likewise there is no evidence at all for an Ismaeil Shia regime in Egypt that is claimed by historians.

andrewcriddle

I keep saying that this occurs in a Christian text written in the 12th century.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

Well, it sounds very peculiar even in Latin, and hardly likely since historians argue for more than two sects going "way back." That includes all the sub-sects of the Shia, the Fivers, the Druze, the Alawites, etc. This source is hardly something to rely on because of the mention of one or two words.
WHERE were the Shia? Who were their leaders? (Doesn't this sound familiar?!) Even the Shia have trouble providing this information.
IN FACT, there is no evidence of two competing sects of Islam before the Safavid regime anyway, Shia versus Sunni. Even if Shia HAD existed, they would have been some minority along with the Druze, etc. Not an equivalent of the Sunni. This is anachronistic.
The location from which Shah Ismael I brought scholars of "Shiism" is Jabel Amil in the mountains of Lebanon.

If this is so, then of course how could the Ismaili Muslims break off from the Shia in a dispute about who should be a certain imam, and how could the Druze break off from Ismailis? It is also worth considering that there were Islamophile sects that were not technically Islamic but adopted certain things from Islam. Some eventually acquired a description of a "sect of Islam" and others not (Druze).

Traditional Sunnis do not consider Shia Muslims (except for political correctness regarding pan-Islamism) and definitely consider Ismailis and Druze to be non-Islamic heretical sects. Of course the Ismailis have a number of sub-sub-sects as well.

Duvduv

One could even go one step further, i.e. that the sects that became identified with Islam as Shia or breakaway sects were originally movements in Syria and Lebanon of a gnostic and syncretic nature.

The worship of Ali for example may have had nothing originally to do with the Ali of Islam - the two merely coincidentally having the same name - and eventually became identified as a Muslim sect, whereas they are not truly Muslim at all in the traditional sense. So that extent the Sunnis could have a point.

Thus what emerged as Shia Islam in Persia was a syncretic event combining traditional Islam with the teachings of these Syrian syncretic sects, resulting in what is called Shia Islam......
And the various types of Shiism could better be referred to as IMAMISM rather than ISLAM. Imamism with its syncretism shares certain features with Islam, namely the book of the Quran ostensibly presented by Muhammad, but then go beyond that, including variations on the pillars of Islam, etc.

steve_bnk

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari? Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris!

Duvduv

Thus, the advent of the caliphate and orthodox islam to the exclusion of assorted other sects would suggest that from the emergence of the Quran and even before, there were assorted competing Arab monotheistic/syncretist sects of which Orthodox Islam was only one, and it prevailed because it was the movement of the caliphate. It prevailed over the Imamist/ Ali-ist and other gnostic sects.