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

[fi11222]

I'm finding this debate fascinating, good work gentlemen.

The debate is indeed interesting and it faitfully reflects the fragmented state of the muslim world. Here we see 3 positions, clearly expressed :

• The "moderate" muslim position (Hamurabi)
• The Salafi Sunni position (John7755)
• The "Quranist" position that I have been representing though it is not my personnal creed.

The Quranists accuse the other two of being idolatrous (the cardinal sin in Islam) because they "worship" Muhammad. The Salafi agree with the Quranists that the moderates are idolizing Muhammad but claim that they themselves do not. Both the moderates and the Salafi accuse each other of being "modern" while considering themselves to be "traditional".

IMHO :

• The moderates are right in considering themselves "traditional" in the sense that, for most of its history, Islam has been a mixture of different things. In particular, since Al-Ghazali, Sufism has been an integral part of what can be considered "mainstream" Islam.
• The Salafi are right that the traditionalists idolize Muhammad. The situation of Muahmmad in traditional Islam is akin to that of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism : a secondary god.
• Both the Salafi and moderates are right in calling each other "modern" but for different reasons. The moderates are modern because they absorb elements of the culture of the times, as Islam has always done. The Salafi are modern because they are an ideological movement in the mid-XXth century mould. In particular, they use modern means of propaganda in a very modern way.
• The Quranists are right when they say that the Salafi are Muhammad-idolizers just as much as the moderates are. The Salafi do make a lot of efforts to hide that fact and indeed condemn the most colorful and egregious displays of idolatrous sentiment that are present in various Islamic traditions (worshipping at saints tombs, entering trance states in the honnor of the "beloved" i.e. Muhammad). Yet, without saying so openly, Salafi do consider Muhammad as a sort of Messiah to the point of making him a kind of demi-god. This status mostly derives from the stories compiled in the "Hadith" collections which the Salafi cannot jettison because they are the basis of the Sunnah.

This last point is, I believe, the key to the whole puzzle. In truth, Islam has been a deeply Messianic religion from the start and all of the above are different consequences of that fact. One way to look at Christianity is to say that it is in fact anti-Messianic. Jesus as a crucified Messiah is in fact an anti-Messiah if we compare it to the glorious conquering Messiah of the pre-existing Jewish tradition. By claiming that Jesus (a total failure according to the standards "of this world") is the Messiah, Christianity consequently affirms that the traditional Jewish Messiah is the anti-Christ. The two views are polar opposites. In the Gospel narrative, Barabbas embodies this rejected view of the Messiah and indeed he is very similar to the actual Messiah-claimant Jewish characters who played prominent roles in the various Jewish rebellions against the Romans during the Ist and IInd century.

The end-result of the Christian doctrine is : "there will be no world-conquering hero Messiah in this world and all those who presume to play such a role are embodiments of the anti-christ". By contrast, because it denies the centrality of Jesus, Islam has been able to reintroduce the archetype of the "world conquering victorious hero backed by God" without calling it by its earlier Jewish name. It is noteworthy that early Islam has been heavily influenced by Judaism in general and probably by heterodox (non Talmudic) Messianic Jewish currents in particular.

As a result, the Messiah-like theme of a "world conquering victorious hero backed by God" keeps re-appearing in Islamic history. The first model of this is of course Muhammad himself but the early Abbassid Caliphs also fit the mould very closely. They all bear titles with strongly Messianic overtones and one is even called "Al-Mahdi" which is the official title of the end-times redeemer-conqueror of official Islamic eschatology. Today, Salafism is the most obvious embodiment of this tendency. And it is quite clear that ISIS is an eschatological movement, with Al-Bagdhadi as its Messiah.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

The houti are native yemenis and have as much right to rule yemen as anyone, just because they are zaydi does not mean they have no rights.
Unlike you there are allot of muslims sunnis even who do not hold Al baz in high esteem, he is just another scholar, so is Albani.
Endorsement of the House of Saud does not add any stature to a scholar.

Allot of Salafis say they are without a madhab and that following a madhab is taqliid.
Salafis also reject the rich tradition of Ihsan / Tassawuf(Sufism).

Salafists have allot of differences with Ahl al sunna wa alsjama3a.
They are not the majority yet, but they are growing at a fast rate,
Secularism is growing at a faster rate , and i believe they are related.

Islamic was growing at a fantastic rate during the colonial period,
in the face of European promotion of Christianity of proliferation of Missions.
The rate of conversion to islam worried the Europeans all over africa.
Suddenly it crawls to snail pace, and even reverses , you have mass conversion to Christianity.
My uncle lived in Uganda and traveled all over east africa from the 50's to 90'. This phenomena coincides with the arrival of saudi trained clerics, and opening of madrasas all over africa in the early 70's.

Today you have sweeping secularism all over the muslim world,
you may not notice this if you live in Saudi arabia, but it is obvious everywhere you look.

The rhetoric of the Houthi is dangerous, they call death to America and cause instability, it is justifiable to remove them, so that their divisive nature doesn't spread.


I do not mean they are Sahaba, I just mean look at the fruits, Baz, Albani, Abdullah Al ash-Shaykh, etc are exceptional scholars regardless of the Saudi regime, and have stood at the forefront against the Takfiri.

Well, there is nothing wrong with not following a madhab and to say it is wrong is causing needless division and fitna. In the case of the Sufi, many of them have gone astray and commited taqlib following a master more so than the Sunnah. The evidence for this with some of these groups is evident, as well Sufi cause fitna by calling to the west saying that traditionalists are Wahabi this that and another to try and discredit the arguments against them. Again, not all Sufi are deviant, but some of them definitely are.

I do not see the correlation, and how is Salafi not with the Al Sunnah wa jama'ah? No Salafi scholar makes takfir on Ahl Sunna nor do they call themselves Salafi but they say I am Sunni or Muslim.

I do not know the personal experiences you have had or your father has had in Africa on this, so can't speak on it.


Sweeping secularism? It was in the 60s and 70s where the secularism was rampant and where the nations prescribed to Marxism and were vastly more nationalist. Now those notions are dying quick, the Takfiri are rampant and so is the discussion of Sharia in every country, where as previously it was only nationalism and Marxism. Look at Palestine, in the 70s it was dominated by clear Marxists and nationalists and you never saw a Niqab, now look at Gaza, it is all you see, it is an overall increase in religion and application of the Sharia, to counter this the regimes of these nations promote secularism to turn the tide but most likely in vain.

 

[ManintheField]

Eh, the whole "Protestants created the modern world" is an outdated idea in history. While Protestant revolutions paved the way for people to be athiest, agnostic, or Deist, it was really those groups and mindset that allowed people to move towards modernity. Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamilton were all deists for example.

This is one of my pet peeves so I feel compelled to jump in on it: Of the four, Washington was definitely not a deist and, while Hamilton had leanings that way at different points in his life, he still was faithful enough to request Communion on his death bed. More broadly, because I suspect you probably believe in the wider myth of 'all' or 'most' of the Founders being deists, the Revolutionary generation in general were Christians of varying devoutness. Deism was represented as a tiny minority even amongst the educated, upper-class individuals we think of as the Founders, with atheism and agnosticism almost non-existent.

I say this as a non-Christian.

 

[Kerney]

Zoroastrianism is one of the fields where I can pretend that I know what I'm talking about!

Someone in an early post mentioned "Khvarenah", which is sometimes translated as "royal glory". Zoroastrians historically believed in the divine right of kings, and this concept can be found in the Avesta scriptures. In Yasht 19, the idea is that Khvarenah cannot be "forcibly seized", even by powerful demons such as Azi Dahaka. Vishtaspa (a legendary patron of Zoroaster) set the precedent for earthly monarchs.

Since royalty was blessed by Ahura Mazda, the Parthian and Sassanid royal families often had incestuous marriages, and were entombed instead of exposed to the vultures on a "tower of silence" (Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs And Practices).

The Sassanids in particular had a powerful and wealthy priesthood, which suppressed any challenges to their rule. Even the monarchy was not as absolute as the Kirdir was known for persecuting most other religions in the empire at the time, and executed Mani when he became too popular with Shapur I. The Mazdakites were a monotheist* reformist sect in the late 5th and early 6th century that supported redistributing the priests' wealth to the poor. It won support from Kavad I, but the magi forced him to abdicate, and crushed the Mazdakites (Ehsan Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran: The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian Periods).

Even with Khvarenah, the monarchy was not absolute, and perhaps a stronger Zoroastrianism might have strong theocratic tendencies. Still, an early socialist movement came out of Zoroastrianism that was a legitimate threat to the traditional order.

Still, the OP didn't say that the Sassanids had to survive, and the empire could be drained by endless wars with the Byzantines.

How would it function in the modern era? Judaism and Christianity are far different than they were at the time their scriptures were written, so anyone wanting to write an alternate Zoroastrian timeline has a lot of leeway. How closely does it follow the purity laws of the Vendidad? Does a Mazdakite like movement become dominant, or do the magi keep their wealth and privilege? Does a powerful empire support Zoroastrianism? (The last one is especially important, because Zoroastrianism was and is not a missionary religion)

*The evidence suggests that Zoroastrianism was not always monotheistic like it is today. Mithra, Anahita, Verethragna, etc. were called "yazatas", which means "worthy of worship". After Alexander's conquest of Persia, yazatas and Ahura Mazda were often identified with the Greek gods within Persia. This continued through the Parthian era. Zoroastrianism and Vedic Hinduism seem to have a common ancestor, given that the Avestan language and poetic style is similar to the Rig-Veda. (William Malandra, An Introduction to Ancient Iranian Religion: Readings From the Avesta and Achaemenid Inscriptions)

I hope this was helpful.

It was. It was on topic.

 

[hasdrubal barca]

Sweeping secularism? It was in the 60s and 70s where the secularism was rampant and where the nations prescribed to Marxism and were vastly more nationalist. Now those notions are dying quick, the Takfiri are rampant and so is the discussion of Sharia in every country, where as previously it was only nationalism and Marxism. Look at Palestine, in the 70s it was dominated by clear Marxists and nationalists and you never saw a Niqab, now look at Gaza, it is all you see, it is an overall increase in religion and application of the Sharia, to counter this the regimes of these nations promote secularism to turn the tide but most likely in vain.

I agree secularism seems to be on the downswing. Nasser era was probably the height but it has been weakening since.

All the popular Arab political movements are Islamist from Morocco to Bahrain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Morocco)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Wefaq

 

[fi11222]

This is one of my pet peeves so I feel compelled to jump in on it: Of the four, Washington was definitely not a deist and, while Hamilton had leanings that way at different points in his life, he still was faithful enough to request Communion on his death bed. More broadly, because I suspect you probably believe in the wider myth of 'all' or 'most' of the Founders being deists, the Revolutionary generation in general were Christians of varying devoutness. Deism was represented as a tiny minority even amongst the educated, upper-class individuals we think of as the Founders, with atheism and agnosticism almost non-existent.

I agree. In any case, the true foundation of the US happened in the 17th century, not in the late 18th. 1776 was just the end result of a process that had started long before.

I say this as a non-Christian.

Same here.

 

[fi11222]

The debate is indeed interesting and it faitfully reflects the fragmented state of the muslim world. Here we see 3 positions, clearly expressed :

• The "moderate" muslim position (Hamurabi)
• The Salafi Sunni position (John7755)
• The "Quranist" position that I have been representing though it is not my personnal creed.

The Quranists accuse the other two of being idolatrous (the cardinal sin in Islam) because they "worship" Muhammad. The Salafi agree with the Quranists that the moderates are idolizing Muhammad but claim that they themselves do not. Both the moderates and the Salafi accuse each other of being "modern" while considering themselves to be "traditional".

IMHO :

• The moderates are right in considering themselves "traditional" in the sense that, for most of its history, Islam has been a mixture of different things. In particular, since Al-Ghazali, Sufism has been an integral part of what can be considered "mainstream" Islam.
• The Salafi are right that the traditionalists idolize Muhammad. The situation of Muahmmad in traditional Islam is akin to that of the Virgin Mary in Catholicism : a secondary god.
• Both the Salafi and moderates are right in calling each other "modern" but for different reasons. The moderates are modern because they absorb elements of the culture of the times, as Islam has always done. The Salafi are modern because they are an ideological movement in the mid-XXth century mould. In particular, they use modern means of propaganda in a very modern way.
• The Quranists are right when they say that the Salafi are Muhammad-idolizers just as much as the moderates are. The Salafi do make a lot of efforts to hide that fact and indeed condemn the most colorful and egregious displays of idolatrous sentiment that are present in various Islamic traditions (worshipping at saints tombs, entering trance states in the honnor of the "beloved" i.e. Muhammad). Yet, without saying so openly, Salafi do consider Muhammad as a sort of Messiah to the point of making him a kind of demi-god. This status mostly derives from the stories compiled in the "Hadith" collections which the Salafi cannot jettison because they are the basis of the Sunnah.

This last point is, I believe, the key to the whole puzzle. In truth, Islam has been a deeply Messianic religion from the start and all of the above are different consequences of that fact. One way to look at Christianity is to say that it is in fact anti-Messianic. Jesus as a crucified Messiah is in fact an anti-Messiah if we compare it to the glorious conquering Messiah of the pre-existing Jewish tradition. By claiming that Jesus (a total failure according to the standards "of this world") is the Messiah, Christianity consequently affirms that the traditional Jewish Messiah is the anti-Christ. The two views are polar opposites. In the Gospel narrative, Barabbas embodies this rejected view of the Messiah and indeed he is very similar to the actual Messiah-claimant Jewish characters who played prominent roles in the various Jewish rebellions against the Romans during the Ist and IInd century.

The end-result of the Christian doctrine is : "there will be no world-conquering hero Messiah in this world and all those who presume to play such a role are embodiments of the anti-christ". By contrast, because it denies the centrality of Jesus, Islam has been able to reintroduce the archetype of the "world conquering victorious hero backed by God" without calling it by its earlier Jewish name. It is noteworthy that early Islam has been heavily influenced by Judaism in general and probably by heterodox (non Talmudic) Messianic Jewish currents in particular.

As a result, the Messiah-like theme of a "world conquering victorious hero backed by God" keeps re-appearing in Islamic history. The first model of this is of course Muhammad himself but the early Abbassid Caliphs also fit the mould very closely. They all bear titles with strongly Messianic overtones and one is even called "Al-Mahdi" which is the official title of the end-times redeemer-conqueror of official Islamic eschatology. Today, Salafism is the most obvious embodiment of this tendency. And it is quite clear that ISIS is an eschatological movement, with Al-Bagdhadi as its Messiah.

No answer ? Does anyone understand what I am trying to say here ?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

No answer ? Does anyone understand what I am trying to say here ?

Yes I understand what you mean. You are comparing Islam to Judaiism around the time of Jesus and the various Jewish revolts.

Which is a fairly valid point. Even groups like the Khawarij, various Shia, Murjia, etc over the years have taken to rebellion the same as Daesh does today.

 

[fi11222]

Yes I understand what you mean. You are comparing Islam to Judaiism around the time of Jesus and the various Jewish revolts.

Which is a fairly valid point. Even groups like the Khawarij, various Shia, Murjia, etc over the years have taken to rebellion the same as Daesh does today.

Yes. Absolutely. The similarity between Daesh and Simon Bar Kokhba or the earlier rebellion of 66-70 is striking, isn't it ?

Now, what was the equivalent of Salafism in the times of Jesus ? I believe it was the pharisee movement. It really seems that the Pharisees of the Ist century AD had exactly the same kind of uneasy relationship with the Zealots (the equivalent of Daesh, in general terms) as the Salafi ulema have with radical Islam. On the one hand, they are affraid of the damage that the radicals can do, but on the other they are in an akward position because the radicals pretend (and often sincerely believe) to be promoting the same doctrine as the scholars. In the case of Judaism, it ended badly for the Pharisee Scholars. Rabi Akiba, for example, eventually ended up associating himself with Bar Kokhba and his revolt. He and his followers paid a dear price for it when the Romans crushed the rebellion.

I believe that this is an inevitable consequence of a Messianic ideology/religion. If a religion promotes, or even merely allows, the idea of a "victorious redeemer-conqueror backed by God", this idea will inevitably be turned into a monstrous caricature like Bar Kokhba or Daesh. As you point out, this kind of thing has already happened many times in the history of Islam.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Yes. Absolutely. The similarity between Daesh and Simon Bar Kokhba or the earlier rebellion of 66-70 is striking, isn't it ?

Now, what was the equivalent of Salafism in the times of Jesus ? I believe it was the pharisee movement. It really seems that the Pharisees of the Ist century AD had exactly the same kind of uneasy relationship with the Zealots (the equivalent of Daesh, in general terms) as the Salafi ulema have with radical Islam. On the one hand, they are affraid of the damage that the radicals can do, but on the other they are in an akward position because the radicals pretend (and often sincerely believe) to be promoting the same doctrine as the scholars. In the case of Judaism, it ended badly for the Pharisee Scholars. Rabi Akiba, for example, eventually ended up associating himself with Bar Kokhba and his revolt. He and his followers paid a dear price for it when the Romans crushed the rebellion.

I believe that this is an inevitable consequence of a Messianic ideology/religion. If a religion promotes, or even merely allows, the idea of a "victorious redeemer-conqueror backed by God", this idea will inevitably be turned into a monstrous caricature like Bar Kokhba or Daesh. As you point out, this kind of thing has already happened many times in the history of Islam.

I tend to agree with this position. As well, the concept of Jihad mixed with the Mahdi makes Islam in a way perfectly fit for falling into this trap.

 

[fi11222]

I tend to agree with this position. As well, the concept of Jihad mixed with the Mahdi makes Islam in a way perfectly fit for falling into this trap.

But isn't all this, especially the Mahdi, comming from the Sunnah and not the Quran? Apparently, there are many references to the Mahdi in the Hadith but none in the Quran.

 

[Socrates]

I hope this was helpful.

It was fascinating.

Could you tell me more about the following:

a) The power of the priesthood - how did it compare to Catholicism and Orthodox?
b) The socialist movement you mentioned in passing?
c) Who the Mazkadites were?
d) Whether there was any scripture that had to be rigorously followed, especially on society/politics as in Islam? It's clear from John's discussions that scripture in Islam is a constraint on embracing change even in the modern world. Was there anything like that in Zoroastrianism?

Thanks!

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

But isn't all this, especially the Mahdi, comming from the Sunnah and not the Quran? Apparently, there are many references to the Mahdi in the Hadith but none in the Quran.

Well direct references to the Mahdi are in the Sunnah were as interpretations are in the Quran, such as he is,according to traditional Islam from all sects, in the Quran. I can quote these Ayat if you like.

 

[fi11222]

Well direct references to the Mahdi are in the Sunnah were as interpretations are in the Quran, such as he is,according to traditional Islam from all sects, in the Quran. I can quote these Ayat if you like.

Sure. I would like to see how one can link the Mahdi to the Quran.

 

[Faeelin]

Here's a question. Would a Zoroastrian (or Manichean) Central Asia have adopted the printing press from Song China?

 

[fi11222]

Here's a question. Would a Zoroastrian (or Manichean) Central Asia have adopted the printing press from Song China?

Most of Central Asia was Zoroastrian IOTL. The Sogdians and neighbouring Iranian peoples were Zoroastrian into the 10th century.

 

[Faeelin]

Most of Central Asia was Zoroastrian IOTL. The Sogdians and neighbouring Iranian peoples were Zoroastrian into the 10th century.

The Song began in 960, so you're cutting this very fine.

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

It was fascinating.

Could you tell me more about the following:

a) The power of the priesthood - how did it compare to Catholicism and Orthodox?
b) The socialist movement you mentioned in passing?
c) Who the Mazkadites were?
d) Whether there was any scripture that had to be rigorously followed, especially on society/politics as in Islam? It's clear from John's discussions that scripture in Islam is a constraint on embracing change even in the modern world. Was there anything like that in Zoroastrianism?

Thanks!

Zoroastrian scripture did not seem to be as rigid as that of Islam. The Pahlavi/Middle Persian texts (Bundahishn, Book of Arda Viraf, etc.) were written long after the Avesta, but still had great religious significance. Even the Avesta itself developed over a very long period of time, since the Vendidad (book of purity laws) was written in "broken" Avestan, unlike the Gathas (hymns of Zoroaster).

I don't remember there being an equivalent of a "pope" or "patriarch" in Zoroastrianism. Priests had rankings, such as Dastur and Mobad, but it seemed more like an oligarchy. It has been four years since I did any major research on Zoroastrianism, so I may have forgotten some things.

Little is known today about Mazdak because of how thoroughly the Sassanid priesthood suppressed his teachings, but he appears to have been a religious figure who supported redistributing wealth from the priesthood to the poor, among other things such as closing down most of the fire temples except for the three main sacred fires Adur Gushnasp, Adur Farnbag, and Adur Burzen-Mihr. This is why he has been called an early socialist.

The Avesta contains many purity laws, and its politics center around a king with Khvarenah, or divine right. The priesthood were able to ignore the "divine right" part and sometimes forced a king to abdicate if he inconvenienced them (see Kavad I for his support of Mazdak).

Zoroastrianism is a frustrating topic to research, given the lack of primary sources available for much of its history. People who study early Christianity have it easy by comparison!

Some good authors to read on the topic are William Malandra, Mary Boyce, Ehsan Yarshater, and Amelie Kuhrt. If you can find books written by Parsis (the Zoroastrian community in India), they may help too.