u/zinarkarayes1221

Today, in many mosques, the experience can sometimes feel very "dry" or individualistic: people come in, pray behind the imam, maybe listen to a khutbah or short lesson, then leave. There often isn't much broader communal interaction, collective discussion, reconciliation, or social bonding beyond prayer itself.

So my question is:

* In the Prophet's mosque in Madina and the early Rāshidun masjid system and later Islam how integrated were social, educational, and communal functions with prayer?

* Did early mosques already function like later tekkes/ zâwiyas in practice, or is that a later institutional development?

* Is there evidence in early historical sources (Sira, hadith, early chronicles) showing structured community life inside the mosque beyond worship and teaching circles?

-Ashab I suffa

However, when I compare this with later historical institutions like Sufi tekkes/zāwiyas (and in some modern analogies, spaces like cemevis), those seem to function much more explicitly as full community hubs — places for remembrance (dhikr), teaching, spiritual training, eating together, hospitality, and social support structures alongside worship.

Today, in many mosques, the experience can sometimes feel very “dry" or individualistic: people come in, pray behind the imam, maybe listen to a khutbah or short lesson, then leave. There often isn't much broader communal interaction, collective discussion, reconciliation, or social bonding beyond prayer itself.

So my question is:

* In the Prophet’s mosque in Madina and the early Rāshidūn masjid system and Islam later how integrated were social, educational, and communal functions with prayer?

* Did early mosques already function like later tekkes/zāwiyas in practice, or is that a later institutional development?

* Is there evidence in early historical sources (Sīra, ḥadīth, early chronicles) showing structured community life inside the mosque beyond worship and teaching circles?

However, when I compare this with later historical institutions like Sufi tekkes/zāwiyas (and in some modern analogies, spaces like cemevis), those seem to function much more explicitly as full community hubs — places for remembrance (dhikr), teaching, spiritual training, eating together, hospitality, and social support structures alongside worship.

Today, in many mosques (especially in urban settings), the experience can sometimes feel very “dry” or individualistic: people come in, pray behind the imam, maybe listen to a khutbah or short lesson, then leave. There often isn’t much broader communal interaction, collective discussion, reconciliation, or social bonding beyond prayer itself.did the sahaba time and early generations of Islam masjids have social judgment occurs, difficulties are resolved, consent is given and given, morsels are eaten, and sharing is ensured and cultural acts like dhikr, singing.

But when I read about the Prophet’s mosque in Medina, I get the impression it was much more than a ritual prayer space. It seems like it functioned as:

* a communal gathering place

* a political and legal space

* a place for education and discussion

* a welfare center

* a place where disputes were resolved

* a place where delegations met

* a place where people simply sat together socially

Historically, were early mosques in Islam closer to this kind of socially integrated communal model than many modern mosques are today?

I'm trying to better understand what historians and academic scholars mean when they refer to "proto-Sunnism" in early Islam.

From what I understand, early Sunni identity wasn't fully systematized yet, and there were various scholars, regional traditions, and theological trends before later orthodoxy became more clearly defined.

I'm curious about:

* What beliefs distinguished proto-Sunnis from other early groups like the Kharijites, early Shi'a, Murji'a, Qadariyya, etc.?

* Who would be considered major proto-Sunni figures? For example scholars like Hasan al-Basri, Sufyan al-Thawri, Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas,

- what were their relations with the ahlulbayt imams.

* Were early ahl al-hadith, ahl al-ra'y, early ascetics/ zuhhad, and other movements all considered part of proto-Sunnism, or were these separate trends that later merged?

* What were their views on issues like leadership after the Prophet fe, free will vs predestination, faith and deeds, attributes of God, and the status of the Companions?

I’ve been trying to understand the beliefs of the earliest Shi’a (or proto-Shi’a circles around Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hasan ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali, Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja’far al-Sadiq, etc.) from a historical-critical perspective.

From what I’ve been reading, it seems like some later Twelver doctrines may have developed gradually over time (e.g. explicit infallibility theology, occultation doctrine, stronger tabarra traditions, cosmological Imamate ideas, etc.), and I’m wondering how much of that was actually present among the earliest supporters of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

A few specific questions:

* Did early proto-Shi’a mainly believe that Ali ibn Abi Talib was simply the better or more rightful political successor, rather than believing in a fully developed doctrine of divinely designated Imams?

* What were the actual views of early figures like Muhammad al-Baqir and Ja’far al-Sadiq regarding the first three caliphs: Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan?

* Is there strong historical evidence that early Alid circles openly condemned the first three caliphs, or is that something that intensified later?

* Were early Shi’i communities closer to what we’d now call Zayd ibn Ali / Zaydi Islam perspectives (preferring Ali while still recognizing Abu Bakr and Umar in some sense)?

I’m wondering what academic historians actually think.

* When does the term “Sufi” first appear?

* Were early figures like Hasan al-Basri, Rabi’a al-Adawiyya, or Junayd al-Baghdadi part of the beginning of Sufism? Or prophet Muhammad and his sahaba themselves

* Was early Sufism mainly just zuhd/asceticism?

* When did things like tariqas/orders, saint veneration, shrine culture, miracle stories, and more mystical philosophy develop?

* Do early Sufis themselves use Qur’an and hadith to justify their beliefs/practices?

Hi everyone,

The argument is that the Qur’anic term Torah may not always refer strictly to a single, original revelation given to Musa, but rather to the scriptural tradition actually present among the Jewish communities in Medina at the time of the Prophet Muhammed.

In several early reports attributed to the companions, rulings described as “Torah rulings” often correspond more closely to material later found in the Talmud rather than only the Pentateuch Hebrew bible.

It looks like parallels between Qur’anic discourse and Jewish tradition appear closer to material found in rabbinic sources such as the Talmud and oral Torah more??

What do you think? Leave your opinions and sources.

Thanks in advance.

I've been trying to understand whether Ugaritic high god 'Ilu and the Canaanite biblical god El and the are essentially the same deity under different linguistic forms, or whether there are important distinctions between how they appear in the sources.

This question came up for me while looking into the etymological background of the name "Allah," especially after reading Ahmad Al-Jallad's recent study on early Arabian inscriptions and the development of divine names in Northwest Arabia:

https://academic.oup.com/jss/article-abstract/70/2/693/8129546

From what I gather, there seems to be a broader Northwest Semitic pattern where El / 'Ilu / Ilah all share a common linguistic root meaning "god" or "the god," with El in Canaanite tradition often appearing as a high creator deity, and 'Ilu in Ugaritic texts functioning in a similar high-god role.

Some discussions also suggest that Arabic Allah came from ugaritic ‘ilu’ eventually becoming fossilized as "Allāh." I've also seen references (including in classical Islamic-era traditions like al-Tabari) where II/El is mentioned as a divine name used in Hebrew/earlier Semitic contexts, which seems to reinforce the linguistic continuity idea.