Would Zoroastrianism or Nestorianism be more or less conservative than Islam?
- Thread starter Socrates
- Start date
Hmm, but making takfir on a Muslim for saying YA Muhammad is extreme and was prescribed to the Muslim in both the Quran and the Sunnah, this is enough to define the Quranist as outside the fold of Islam as the Khawarij, Rafidhi, etc are. As it should be known, that worshipping Allah like Muhammad did is prescribed and definitely Mustahabb or Wajib, in both the Sunnah and Quran.
Either ways, I find this debate to be a circular argument, perhaps we should debate OTL Islam from the Hijra to 1317 AH vs possible forms of Nestorianism or Zoroastrianism.
Of course it is a timeless text in both forms of Islam, however it is not the Salafi who are worshipping Muhammad, rather it is the Shia and the allies of the "liberal Muslims" the Sufi who worship Muhammad or commit Shirk. In fact it is the call of the Salafi to not worship Rasul and turn to Allah alone. The only main difference I see with the Salafi and Quranists is the use of Takfir and the degradation of the Sunnah. The Quranists make blanket takfir where as the Salafi only make Takfir when it is warranted and with great debate and makes clear references in the way in which one makes takfir, the reason for this is that the Hafiz and the ones with knowledge are among the Salafi not the Quranists.
Last edited:
There's a big difference between 'absolute depravity of the human soul and predestination' and 'there is no God, or if there is a God then He is not particularly active in the world'. And that gap is filled with a lot of other things that developed apart from the former.
Do not say Wahabbi, it is highly offensive, it is like calling a twelver from Iran a Majoos. But in my humble opinion, Salafi is the closest to the Islam as practiced by the Salaf during the Rashidun and during the Umayyad Khilafah.
fi11222
Banned
So you think 'there is no God, or if there is a God then He is not particularly active in the world' is the root of modernity ? If your answer is yes, here is some food for thought:
- How come the basis of the modern economy (limited liability companies and deposit banking) were laid in the 17th century, i.e. at a time when the philosophical position outlined above was still held by a very small minority in Europe (Spinoza and very few others). By contrast, the 17th century saw the height of protestant fervor in precisely those countries where the industrial revolution would take place later on.
- Atheism was the spiritual position of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and still is that of Kim Jong Un. Is what modernity stands for ?
I disagree John,
Salafist are modernists , just because they hijacked the name Salaf
does not make them from the Salaf. Salafism as a movement is borne out of modern influences.
Quranists are also modernists but are seen as harmless to me, because every muslim with minimum religous education will recognize them for being outside the fold of islam.
While Salafists wearing respectable clothing can sneak their way into the hearts and minds of everyone, especially with a little lubrication by saudi funds.
As a traditional muslim i am against all forms of modernism,
infact i am against the concept ,
Salafists generally do not have the respect for Fiqh, for the madhabs
for over a 1000 years of work done by the ulema.
They say they do not belong to a madhab but they insist on following their own scholars.
Salafists are literalists and are incapable of truly grasping the full extent of the religion.
Such minimalistic and literal interpretation of the religion opens the door to Secularism.
I see Secularism winning throughout the muslim world and i place the blame squarely on Salafists.
fi11222
Banned
The CIA is onto you. Don't you see the helicopter hovering outside your window ? Just joking ...
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.
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.
I think he would be very upset with the quranist label,
quranists are seen as clearly outside the fold of islam.
It would be like announcing that he is not a muslim.
Hassan al maliki is clearly sunni, he relies strongly on hadith and the sunna
he just gives prevalence to the quran, something thats makes allot of sense to traditionalists i.e the 3 creeds of ahl al sunna (athari, Maturidi and Ash'ari)
and example is in Maliki jurispudence or fiqh(no relation, his name is from his tribes name maliki not the scholar).
in it, the practices of people of medina during the time of the sahaaba
are more powerful than any individual hadith, if a hadith clashes with the tradition of ah al medina, then it is considered weak.
fi11222
Banned
Sure but the label "protestant" was also highly controversial in its day. They were called "heretics" by the established church. And there were a number of people, just like Hassan al maliki, who were trying to sit on the fence without leaning too far in either direction.
Based on this example, it is quite plausible to imagine a situation in which, several centuries from now, the "quranists" would have become a sizeable minority, if not the majority of "muslims", just the same way as protestants are now counted among Christians.
The things is Hassan seems controversial today but 1000 years ago, he would be unremarkable, Islamic thought was allot more intellectually diverse.
The trend towards literal-ism and dogma has moved allot of people towards one end of the spectrum.
I dont think the comparison to protestants is accurate,
Islam has already been through similar circumstances several times.
all the tou would have is a new religion forming,
a new bahaism, or druze or ahmediya
Agreed. As I attempted to put forward, Islam has already been through movements like this.
I of course disagree on how Salafi are modern in any way. The Takfiri associated with the Salafi are not Salafi but deviant, deviant in their use of Takfir. Further, Salafi often prescribe to Hanbali school, so..... I don't know where you find Salafi rejecting the Ulema before them.?
Secularism is losing across the Middle East, further compare the Aqeedah and works of Saudi to that of any other Islamic nation the contribution by the Saudi is phenomenal, who supported the Mujahideen against the USSR (the majority)? Who prints the majority of the Qurans and other Islamic books? Who purged Al Qaeda and other Takfiri from Arabia except in Yemen? Who fights the Houthi, who have stolen Yemen? Who have been so staunch in their strikes on Daesh and capturing their members and making REAL Fatwa against them? What grand mufti wrote extensively against the Takfiri Bin Laden (Ibn Baz of Saudi)?
From my perspective it is the Salafi withholding the Sharia and performing Dawah.
That being said I respect your opinion.
The CIA is onto you. Don't you see the helicopter hovering outside your window ? Just joking ...
Lol, probably already happening! Jk lol
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.