Would Zoroastrianism or Nestorianism be more or less conservative than Islam?

If we imagine a world with no Islam, it is likely that Nestorian Christianity or Zoroastrianism would take its place as major religions in the Middle East. Would these religions be more or less socially and politically conservative than Islam in OTL?
 
As far as I recall, Zoroastrianism is in theory extremely conservative, because almost everything you do, don't do or could possibly ever think of doing has significance in the cosmic battle between good and evil. Think Infinitely, Act Locally, sort of.

How well theory fits with practice and how closely the fine details are observed, however, well...

It may be the case that Zoroastrianism is so prescriptive, in theory, that it leaves the realm of compatibility with the human and was bound to undergo radical reformation or outright revolution sooner or later; in our time line, it did, and Islam is what we got..but the story of the Zoroastrian Reformation might be fun to read.
 

fi11222

Banned
If we imagine a world with no Islam, it is likely that Nestorian Christianity or Zoroastrianism would take its place as major religions in the Middle East. Would these religions be more or less socially and politically conservative than Islam in OTL?
Hi. I am just writing a TL about such a scenario (see below).

What do you mean exactly by "conservative". It seems to me that in the VIIth century, Islam was anything but.
 
I'm talking about by the modern age: i.e. 1700 and later. It seems to me that Islam has difficulty with modernity because a political system has been set in stone by scripture.
 

fi11222

Banned
I'm talking about by the modern age: i.e. 1700 and later. It seems to me that Islam has difficulty with modernity because a political system has been set in stone by scripture.
In Zoroastrianism, the political system is just as much set in stone. There must be a Shah-n Shah to receive the Xwarrah (kingly glory) from Ahura Maza or otherwise it means the world is out of balance.

IMHO, only Christianity has the potential to be more flexible.
 
In Zoroastrianism, the political system is just as much set in stone. There must be a Shah-n Shah to receive the Xwarrah (kingly glory) from Ahura Maza or otherwise it means the world is out of balance.

IMHO, only Christianity has the potential to be more flexible.

We can blame that on our scripture's canon being so confusing and varied that even the weirdest cults get some credibility. :p:p:p:p:p
 
Claims that Zoroastrianism would be set in stone or be conservative forget that Judaism on paper should be extremely conservative and be even more like Wahhabi Islam. And yet Judaism has evolved and become quite liberal (much more liberal than the Christian branches out there) on a number of issues. Iran has given the world quite a few religions, many of which had either been "world religions" at one time or had an opportunity. Zoroastrianism, Zurvanism, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, and Mazdakism, and don't forget that Shi'ia Islam became the power it did because of Iran, and then there is Babism and Baha'i as well.

I see if Zoroastrianism is the religion of the Middle East, how Christianity would react would be important- it is one thing to argue that Islam "copied" things from Judaism and Christianity, but how do you argue against a religion that is older and which Christianity definitely "borrowed" (stole) ideas from. Kind of puts you on the defense when arguing for converts when Zoroastrians AND Jews are saying "Well, that's not original, and that's not what is meant by that text". Also hard for Christians to rile up and justify Crusades when it isn't a wave of a new religion. Judea/Samaria will probably be still full of Jews anyway and some Christians regardless of what Zoroastrian, Christian, or other empire comes along in this ATL; most likely a Zoroastrian/Gnostic/Eastern Orthodox/Jewish amalgamate based in Egypt, which probably incorporates all those religions along with Pharoah worship and some ancient Egyptian cultic beliefs, possibly acknowledging a union of Isis with the Virgin Mary and Horus with Jesus.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Claims that Zoroastrianism would be set in stone or be conservative forget that Judaism on paper should be extremely conservative and be even more like Wahhabi Islam. And yet Judaism has evolved and become quite liberal (much more liberal than the Christian branches out there) on a number of issues. Iran has given the world quite a few religions, many of which had either been "world religions" at one time or had an opportunity. Zoroastrianism, Zurvanism, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, and Mazdakism, and don't forget that Shi'ia Islam became the power it did because of Iran, and then there is Babism and Baha'i as well.

I see if Zoroastrianism is the religion of the Middle East, how Christianity would react would be important- it is one thing to argue that Islam "copied" things from Judaism and Christianity, but how do you argue against a religion that is older and which Christianity definitely "borrowed" (stole) ideas from. Kind of puts you on the defense when arguing for converts when Zoroastrians AND Jews are saying "Well, that's not original, and that's not what is meant by that text". Also hard for Christians to rile up and justify Crusades when it isn't a wave of a new religion. Judea/Samaria will probably be still full of Jews anyway and some Christians regardless of what Zoroastrian, Christian, or other empire comes along in this ATL; most likely a Zoroastrian/Gnostic/Eastern Orthodox/Jewish amalgamate based in Egypt, which probably incorporates all those religions along with Pharoah worship and some ancient Egyptian cultic beliefs, possibly acknowledging a union of Isis with the Virgin Mary and Horus with Jesus.

That's more or less because of the Diaspora. With the majority of its adherents living as minorities in, sometimes hostile, majorities, Judaism had to adapt with the times. If say Mohammad had converted to Judaism and it became the religion of the Middle East then Judaism would probably look much like Islam did OTL(though of course Wahhabism is hardly inevitable).
 
It depends purely on the region and its economic factors if history has anything to tell us. Religions don't exist in a static form, rather religions are living breathing traditions that beyond simple recognition are never uniform throughout their history.

It isn't as if an "orthodoxy" is neccesarily possible either. Its easy to take a religion as being more liberal/conservative based off of applying its values as taken to a literal extreme, but this never reflects even radicals and can't be done beyond propoganda.
Take Islam for instance. It is all well and good to say it holds X values through a hadith, but what if you are a Quranist who does not follow the Hadith? Both can be argued to be an orthodoxy, but the values of following 1 as opposed to both can lead to some very radical differences, hence modern Quranist philosophy is at the forefront of Liberalism within Islam.

Circumcision? That is a product of a Hadith following Islam, Quranists viewing it as a desecration of gods perfect form.
The penalty for apostasy as death? Yeah once again, not a Quranist thing.
Homosexuality? Actually sort of unclear from a Quranist pov, the Quran mentioning the sinful homosexuals of Sodom but otherwise mention of homosexuality specifically purely depends on translation of Surat An-Nisa

And this is on the group/philosophical level, nevermind the individual level. Mass religions are so good at surviving because they tend to be quite well written in their stories, being multi-meaning and readable to many personal interpretations. It is for instance a given to many that the serpent in the garden of Eden is Satan because a post-milton culture is looking for (forgive my pun) the devil-in-the-detail. No such reference exists, but it is so entrenched a view that it is now the "orthodoxy" for that tradition of Christianity.

As such, Zoroastrianism vs Islam for being conservative is a loaded question that no more can be honestly answered than is a BLT or Chicken Premier more communist?
 
It depends purely on the region and its economic factors if history has anything to tell us. Religions don't exist in a static form, rather religions are living breathing traditions that beyond simple recognition are never uniform throughout their history.

It isn't as if an "orthodoxy" is neccesarily possible either. Its easy to take a religion as being more liberal/conservative based off of applying its values as taken to a literal extreme, but this never reflects even radicals and can't be done beyond propoganda.
Take Islam for instance. It is all well and good to say it holds X values through a hadith, but what if you are a Quranist who does not follow the Hadith? Both can be argued to be an orthodoxy, but the values of following 1 as opposed to both can lead to some very radical differences, hence modern Quranist philosophy is at the forefront of Liberalism within Islam.

Circumcision? That is a product of a Hadith following Islam, Quranists viewing it as a desecration of gods perfect form.
The penalty for apostasy as death? Yeah once again, not a Quranist thing.
Homosexuality? Actually sort of unclear from a Quranist pov, the Quran mentioning the sinful homosexuals of Sodom but otherwise mention of homosexuality specifically purely depends on translation of Surat An-Nisa

And this is on the group/philosophical level, nevermind the individual level. Mass religions are so good at surviving because they tend to be quite well written in their stories, being multi-meaning and readable to many personal interpretations. It is for instance a given to many that the serpent in the garden of Eden is Satan because a post-milton culture is looking for (forgive my pun) the devil-in-the-detail. No such reference exists, but it is so entrenched a view that it is now the "orthodoxy" for that tradition of Christianity.

As such, Zoroastrianism vs Islam for being conservative is a loaded question that no more can be honestly answered than is a BLT or Chicken Premier more communist?


"Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.

Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?

EDIT: As well, you are right that religions are not static, but some can be more static than others depending on its circumstances and application and actual scripture, Islam is very clear in most issues, except the Hukm of rebelling, takfir, murtad, etc (which is exemplified by the conflict between Al Qaedah, Dawlah, Etc with Saudi and other Sunni regimes).
 
"Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.

Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?

This whole chain of logic depends on starting off with the Ulema being a source to be relied on. There's no reason Islam has to be that way. The whole Protestant reformation was based on people rejecting the teachings of religious authorities and returning to scripture.
 
"Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.
But not all Ulema. Quranism is by all means a minority belief, but it does have Ulema and most liberal muslims would find themselves closer to its ideas than say traditional Sunni Islam. The point isn't my saying "well this is the correct interpretation" but that it IS an interpretation. It would be silly not to call it a sect of Islam, it exists, that is all.

Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?
outline the full quality of Islam? Whilst I am not arguing any Islamic position, that challenge is vague to the point of not meaning anything... I teach games design but if somebody asked me to outline the full quality of games design, I could only ask them what on earth they could mean by that.
Specifically to the prophet, I am not a Muslim, but could not a Quranist (remember, a religious belief does not have to be grounded in any particular authority) merely hold that he was a great man but like all humans and prophets, fallible?

EDIT: As well, you are right that religions are not static, but some can be more static than others depending on its circumstances and application and actual scripture, Islam is very clear in most issues, except the Hukm of rebelling, takfir, murtad, etc (which is exemplified by the conflict between Al Qaedah, Dawlah, Etc with Saudi and other Sunni regimes).
The underlined is important. Islam for instance is (scripturally) no more conservative or perscriptive than Christianity, and yet political/economic factors favoured variants of Christianity that were willing to adapt, often to the point of ignoring orthodoxy (lower case) entirely. I would be suprised if this was impossible with Islam, indeed I would argue the mere existance of Quranists (even if they are a minority) shows more flexible readings can and could have existed in the right climate.
 
Early Islam was incredibly 'liberal' (for the times). Some strains of modern Islam (Wahabism, for instance) are incredibly reactionary.

It depends on cultural environment, far, far more than the label on the religion.

Thus, this is a meaningless question, I'm afraid.
 
This whole chain of logic depends on starting off with the Ulema being a source to be relied on. There's no reason Islam has to be that way. The whole Protestant reformation was based on people rejecting the teachings of religious authorities and returning to scripture.


One thing that is interesting is that the rejection of the Ulema is in both radicals of Islam and the call of the Quranists is the same as the Khawarij and the call of Khadaffi the same as Bin Laden, both reject the ones who have the knowledge of Arabic and matters of Fiqh and are among the Hafiz.

First of all before I deal with the need for the Ulema, I will outline why the Hadith is obligatory.

First of all the Sunnah (tradition of Muhammad) is the life of Muhammad and defines him as a prophet and creates his character. Without the Sunnah, the Quran is not known in regards to context. Such as, without the Hadith, how will one know the difference between a Ayat from the Makkan period and the Mahdinan period? Without the Sunnah, the prophet would barely even be known and would be a murky person indeed.

As far as Ulema:

" And among people and moving creatures and grazing livestock are various colours similarly. Only those fear Allah, from among His servants, who have knowledge. Indeed, Allah is exalted in Might and Forgiving." Surat Fatir (The originator)

Who have knowledge is the key...

To begin with, Islam began without written records in the way that Muhammad wrote the Quran or the Sunnaj but it was memorized and recited by those who had heard these things or had the mental capacity to memorize. Thus the ones who memorized these things put their memory to the scroll and collected the Sunnah and recited clearly the Quran. This automatically due to the circumstance gives an enormous reliance upon the Ulema (scholars) who know the Arabic and context. Further in the Sunnah, it is outlined that the Alam is the successor of Muhammad (SAW) in terms of Dawah, Fiqh, Hukm, etc and it is them who know the most of the religion through memorization (Hafiz). Changing this is changing the religion completely at its point of existence and isn't the argument.

Instead deal with real Islam, as in the Islam that is the vast majority and clear on the Sunnah, Ulema, Quran, etc.. Rather than sects that never were able to take control over the Ummah (perhaps because they have zero serious knowledge in terms of Fiqh, having them ruling the Ummah would take these sects eliminating traditional Muslims and Ulema).

Now I ask you with your incredible Islamic knowledge to enlighten me on how the reliance upon the Ulema will be removed in matters of religion?
 
But not all Ulema. Quranism is by all means a minority belief, but it does have Ulema and most liberal muslims would find themselves closer to its ideas than say traditional Sunni Islam. The point isn't my saying "well this is the correct interpretation" but that it IS an interpretation. It would be silly not to call it a sect of Islam, it exists, that is all.

outline the full quality of Islam? Whilst I am not arguing any Islamic position, that challenge is vague to the point of not meaning anything... I teach games design but if somebody asked me to outline the full quality of games design, I could only ask them what on earth they could mean by that.
Specifically to the prophet, I am not a Muslim, but could not a Quranist (remember, a religious belief does not have to be grounded in any particular authority) merely hold that he was a great man but like all humans and prophets, fallible?

The underlined is important. Islam for instance is (scripturally) no more conservative or perscriptive than Christianity, and yet political/economic factors favoured variants of Christianity that were willing to adapt, often to the point of ignoring orthodoxy (lower case) entirely. I would be suprised if this was impossible with Islam, indeed I would argue the mere existance of Quranists (even if they are a minority) shows more flexible readings can and could have existed in the right climate.


As in full quality of Islam I ask you how a Quranist in the 8th century would describe Muhammad without the Sunnah or how he would come to the conclusion that the life of the prophet he is following is not important.


Well I agree, Islam is equally conservative in many matters (mainly social) to Christianity, however politically Islam is far more conservative and is quite rigid in this since. Unlike Christianity, there is a definite outline for how a state is to be ran, rulings on with deep exceptions and debate on who is a Muslim and who isn't (which requires an Ulema), rulings on when to fight and when not to, distinctions and Hukm on rebellion, the Hadood, Hukm on slavery that is clear cut and is a political matter, Tahaakum, etc...

Of course it is possible to make more liberal Islam there have been many sects of this but all usually lack Ulema support such as Murjia or Mu'Tazila who both held power and rebelled (or ruled) against the Islamic state during the early days of Islam and the later Middle Ages.

List me Ulema who support the Quranist movement. As well, Liberal Muslims are not close to Quranists because the Quranists reject the Sunnah which is traditionally (and to Liberal Muslims) Kufr Akbar and takes one out of the deen. A liberal Muslim who commits sin and does not accept aspects of the Sunnah or Quran are not Kufr until they say that whatever they are doing is Halal.
 
Early Islam was incredibly 'liberal' (for the times). Some strains of modern Islam (Wahabism, for instance) are incredibly reactionary.

It depends on cultural environment, far, far more than the label on the religion.

Thus, this is a meaningless question, I'm afraid.


Give me evidence....

Further prove to me through your knowledge of Fiqh (which you must possess due to your rashness) that those of the Salafi are Kufr and different than the Salaf of old.
 

scholar

Banned
As far as I recall, Zoroastrianism is in theory extremely conservative, because almost everything you do, don't do or could possibly ever think of doing has significance in the cosmic battle between good and evil. Think Infinitely, Act Locally, sort of.
Not quite as clear cut as that. Zoroastrianism was a religion that did not encourage radical evangelism. You could convert, and sometimes it was encouraged, but it lacked the large scale movement to get others to follow their religion. As a result, elements of Ahura Mazda was combined with local beliefs to form Zoroastrian-ish lower echelons of the populations, while the pure religion was normally only practiced by the upper, literate, classes. People who, especially when ruling over other religious territories, had a loose hand and a tolerant attitude.

Who knows if that would continue, and spin offs like Manichaeism seemed to be gaining traction as a way to evangelize non-noble, priestly classes.
 
As in full quality of Islam I ask you how a Quranist in the 8th century would describe Muhammad without the Sunnah(1) or how he would come to the conclusion that the life of the prophet he is following is not important.(2)
1) Probably through reading the Sunnah, or through conversation with someone who had like the rest of the world? Not accepting a specific thing =/= not reading a text which contains that thing/supporters of that thing use.
2) Why would he have to come to that conclusion? Few Marxists for instance condone everything Marx said/did, but it has no bearing on the message himself. If anything, the prophet not getting everything right compared to the holy text itself is a staple of the Abrahamic tradition, Noah, Abraham and Moses alone had direct revelation just like Muhammad but still messed up on occasion.


Well I agree, Islam is equally conservative in many matters (mainly social) to Christianity, however politically Islam is far more conservative and is quite rigid in this since. Unlike Christianity, there is a definite outline for how a state is to be ran, rulings on with deep exceptions and debate on who is a Muslim and who isn't (which requires an Ulema), rulings on when to fight and when not to, distinctions and Hukm on rebellion, the Hadood, Hukm on slavery that is clear cut and is a political matter, Tahaakum, etc...

Of course it is possible to make more liberal Islam there have been many sects of this but all usually lack Ulema support such as Murjia or Mu'Tazila who both held power and rebelled (or ruled) against the Islamic state during the early days of Islam and the later Middle Ages.
Jews would argue that the old testament is just the same in context. It is for instance reasonable to argue that a king of the line of David has the greatest legitimacy by far, and the examples of Moses in particular establish the "proper" judaic society.

List me Ulema who support the Quranist movement. As well, Liberal Muslims are not close to Quranists because the Quranists reject the Sunnah which is traditionally (and to Liberal Muslims) Kufr Akbar and takes one out of the deen. A liberal Muslim who commits sin and does not accept aspects of the Sunnah or Quran are not Kufr until they say that whatever they are doing is Halal.
Having looked further, I clearly did not understand the Ulema.
My point is you are looking too closely at an orthodox interpretation and not the reality of the situation. People are not always (and indeed rarely) dictating their religious beliefs to an orthodox intepretation of even their own sect. A Muslim is not always going to be a muslim who knows their theology, history, obeys their scripture to the letter etc and indeed rules wouldn't be neccesary if that impossibility were the case.

When I say therefore that Quranism is closer to a "liberal Muslim" than an orthodox interpretation, I am meaning that in their every day practice, behaviour, beliefs and attitudes, they are far closer to Quranist doctrine than Orthodox Sunni Islam.

Lets look for instance at the points I listed above.
Orthodox Islam/Quranism/Liberalism/Conservatism
Homosexuality? Bad/neutral/neutral/Bad
Womens clothing? Restrictions/w.e./w.e./restrictions
Apostasy? Punishable/non-punishable/non-punishable/punishable.

These are merely a few examples, but behaviour that makes one "liberal" is far more compatible with that particular branch of Islam
 
1) Probably through reading the Sunnah, or through conversation with someone who had like the rest of the world? Not accepting a specific thing =/= not reading a text which contains that thing/supporters of that thing use.
2) Why would he have to come to that conclusion? Few Marxists for instance condone everything Marx said/did, but it has no bearing on the message himself. If anything, the prophet not getting everything right compared to the holy text itself is a staple of the Abrahamic tradition, Noah, Abraham and Moses alone had direct revelation just like Muhammad but still messed up on occasion.


Jews would argue that the old testament is just the same in context. It is for instance reasonable to argue that a king of the line of David has the greatest legitimacy by far, and the examples of Moses in particular establish the "proper" judaic society.

Having looked further, I clearly did not understand the Ulema.
My point is you are looking too closely at an orthodox interpretation and not the reality of the situation. People are not always (and indeed rarely) dictating their religious beliefs to an orthodox intepretation of even their own sect. A Muslim is not always going to be a muslim who knows their theology, history, obeys their scripture to the letter etc and indeed rules wouldn't be neccesary if that impossibility were the case.

When I say therefore that Quranism is closer to a "liberal Muslim" than an orthodox interpretation, I am meaning that in their every day practice, behaviour, beliefs and attitudes, they are far closer to Quranist doctrine than Orthodox Sunni Islam.

Lets look for instance at the points I listed above.
Orthodox Islam/Quranism/Liberalism/Conservatism
Homosexuality? Bad/neutral/neutral/Bad
Womens clothing? Restrictions/w.e./w.e./restrictions
Apostasy? Punishable/non-punishable/non-punishable/punishable.

These are merely a few examples, but behaviour that makes one "liberal" is far more compatible with that particular branch of Islam


You don't really learn about Muhammad without reading the Sunnah or listening to one who has. Still, the Sunnah is the life of the prophet of your religion (as a Quranist) thus most of his deeds are to be taken, especially as it is narrated that Muhammad is the ideal man and all the Muslim are to follow his example. Why would an 8th century Muslim just neglect this and say Sunnah is not for me and what was said about my prophet not matter? Marxism to Islam or any religion is a non sequitur, completely different message and in different context.

Either ways on the topic above it doesn't really matter as deviant sects were abundant in Islam, however none completely said the Sunnah is mustahabb (recommended) rather than Fardh (obligatory). In many ways these sects all committed Biddah from mainstream Sunni Islam. The Khawarij said that rebelling required no consensus and that one can make takfir based on sins only and that those who disagree are Kufr and that ruling by other than Allah is Kufr Akbar, the Murjia who said that one can only make takfir based on Aqeedah so a Christian might be a Muslim only Allah knows (according to the Murjia), the Shia (wide variety, I will roll them up in a short statement) who said that the Caliph can only be Ahl ul-Bayt and said that anyone who doesn't curse Aisha, Abu Bakr, Uthman and other Sahaba are Kufr thus making a blanket takfir, the Mu'Tazila who said ones own reason is above the Ulema and that the Quran was not the eternal word of Allah but a creation.


No where in the Torah is the law on rulership so complex. Yes, Judaiism possess it, but be honest that Islam has a more complex version with more debate than the law and politics from the Torah.


That may be true in essence. However from my understanding the posters question was along the lines of: Would Nestrorianism and Zoroastrianism be as conservative as traditional Sunni Islam as practiced by the Umayyad Khilafah or any other firmly Islamic nation who instituted the Sharia on the state level. Not trying to create some sort of alternate Islam to give a non answer.
 
Top