Kurdish disaster

[khushal]

The future belongs to those that can create cooperative unions of many peoples. Nationalist ideologues would be the biggest losers.

[Firdousi]

Kurds are probably more conservative and religious when compared to the Turks, but when compared to the Arabs, especially the Iraqi Arabs, they are quite secular. Turkish govt. is way to paranoid about even the slightest rising autonomy for Kurds in Iraq or Syria. Turkey must be really insecure about its Kurds. As a Muslim I am opposed to all forms of ethnic nationalism, but it seems that forcing these different ethnic groups to live with each other inevitably leads to conflict and therefore greater sharpening of ethnic differences and ethnic based politics. Although a religion-based State is ideal, I guess dividing the Middle East along ethnic lines in correction of Sykes Picot would be preferable to the status quo.

Erdogan has given more rights to the Kurds than any other ruler of the modern Republic of Turkey. Actually Kurds are lucky. If those crazy secular Turkish nationalist were ruling Turkey we should already witnessed mass-crimes against Kurds. Erdogan´s religious values are the only thing that holds him back from butchering his Muslim Kurdish brothers.

400 Bad Request

[UnknownUser]

How can a dead religion be revived?

Sure Zorastrianism was the religion of early Iranian peoples, and it was the oldest monotheistic religion predating the Abrahamic religions, and there is some ethno-cultural connections, but still going from one religion to another, and in the case of Zorastrianism revival of an old and pretty much dead religion, I don't see how it can be done. The belief in the religion will never be strong as it it was in ancient times. Too much time has passed since Zorastrian was the main religion of the region, until Islam replaced it.

[ذو الفقار]

How can a dead religion be revived?

Sure Zorastrianism was the religion of early Iranian peoples, and it was the oldest monotheistic religion predating the Abrahamic religions, and there is some ethno-cultural connections, but still going from one religion to another, and in the case of Zorastrianism revival of an old and pretty much dead religion, I don't see how it can be done. The belief in the religion will never be strong as it it was in ancient times. Too much time has passed since Zorastrian was the main religion of the region, until Islam replaced it.

Zoroastrianism is monotheistic? No, Zoroastrianism is dualist religion. They believe that Ahura Mazda (their name for the Creator-God) has an evil twin Angra Mainyu.

Unlike the concept of Satan in the Abrahamic tradition, Angra Mainyu is independent of Ahura Mazda, and is co-eternal with him.

The dualism of the Zoroastrians/Magians was known to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who predicted a sect would appear from his Umma that would resemble the Magian dualists. Just as the Magians believe in two co-eternal and independent forces (the “good” Ahura Mazda and “bad” Angra Mainyu), the Qadariya sect hold that man himself is the creator of his sinful deeds, thus ascribing to man a portion of ‘Qadar’, whereas orthodox Muslims believe that Allah is the Creator of all deeds, including both good and evil deeds, though man ‘acquires’ those deeds through his free will.

Incidentally, the Mu’tazila inherited the heresy of the Qadariya, believing that man, not God, is the creator of his own deeds. This doctrine penetrated into the Muslim community through the Persian Sinbuya via Ma’bad al-Juhani. So the origin of this semi-dualist belief is from the original dualist source of Zoroastrianism/Magianism.

[maneatinglizard]

Zoroastrianism is monotheistic? No, Zoroastrianism is dualist religion. They believe that Ahura Mazda (their name for the Creator-God) has an evil twin Angra Mainyu.

Unlike the concept of Satan in the Abrahamic tradition, Angra Mainyu is independent of Ahura Mazda, and is co-eternal with him.

The dualism of the Zoroastrians/Magians was known to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who predicted a sect would appear from his Umma that would resemble the Magian dualists. Just as the Magians believe in two co-eternal and independent forces (the “good” Ahura Mazda and “bad” Angra Mainyu), the Qadariya sect hold that man himself is the creator of his sinful deeds, thus ascribing to man a portion of ‘Qadar’, whereas orthodox Muslims believe that Allah is the Creator of all deeds, including both good and evil deeds, though man ‘acquires’ those deeds through his free will.

Incidentally, the Mu’tazila inherited the heresy of the Qadariya, believing that man, not God, is the creator of his own deeds. This doctrine penetrated into the Muslim community through the Persian Sinbuya via Ma’bad al-Juhani. So the origin of this semi-dualist belief is from the original dualist source of Zoroastrianism/Magianism.

No, the original Zoroastrian beliefs were, as far as we can tell, monotheistic. The earliest Zoroastrian texts (that are believed to have come from Zoroaster himself) barely mention Angra Mainyu, and do not associate him as a twin of Ahura Mazda, but rather Spenta Mainyu, and both are creations of Ahura Mazda.

For example, Yasna 44:5 implies that Ahura Mazda is creator of both light and darkness:

This do I ask Thee, O Ahura and wish you to tell me truly. Who is the Creator of light and darkness? What architect has fashioned sleep and awakening, rest and activity? Who has created the dawn, the day and the night, teaching the wise man to fulfill his daily duties properly.

Yasna 44

Dualism was a later development of Zoroastrianism, and eventually came to the point where one heretical group believed that Ohrmazd and Ahriman were themselves creations of a third, Zurvan, that was believed to be the supreme creator (but unlike our belief in Allah, they believed Zurvan was merely the initial creator, and didn't care about what happened after the creation).

While the Zoroastrians of the time of Rasulullah (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam) definitely had many beliefs totally incompatible with Islam and the Abrahamic traditions, the original beliefs do seem very close to our concept of monotheism.

[maneatinglizard]

How can a dead religion be revived?

Sure Zorastrianism was the religion of early Iranian peoples, and it was the oldest monotheistic religion predating the Abrahamic religions, and there is some ethno-cultural connections, but still going from one religion to another, and in the case of Zorastrianism revival of an old and pretty much dead religion, I don't see how it can be done. The belief in the religion will never be strong as it it was in ancient times. Too much time has passed since Zorastrian was the main religion of the region, until Islam replaced it.

Zoroastrianism will never become the dominant religion of the region again. The religion had already massively deviated away from its original teachings at the time of Rasulullah (salla Allahu alayhi wa salam), becoming some weird elitist cult that promoted incest as the greatest deed a man could commit.

It's funny that anyone would convert to Zoroastrianism as a way of "returning to the ways of their ancestors" when by most accounts the Zoroastrian elite had become oppressive tyrants by the end of the Sassanid era. Their ancestors were probably ecstatic to be able to leave Zoroastrianism.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

ll.

Incidentally, the Mu’tazila inherited the heresy of the Qadariya, believing that man, not God, is the creator of his own deeds. This doctrine penetrated into the Muslim community through the Persian Sinbuya via Ma’bad al-Juhani. So the origin of this semi-dualist belief is from the original dualist source of Zoroastrianism/Magianism.[/FONT][/SIZE]

if there's any group that abides by the idea of co-eternality it's the Orthodox, they believe the Qur'an was co-eternal with Allah(swt) thus believing an entity other than Allah(swt) can exist eternally. ...which is pretty much the fringes of shirk. Violating the essential attribute of Allah(swt).

Mu'tazilah believe man creates his own deeds, as in deciding how to act, man does not create the ability to act and the spatial or temporal framework of acting, . This has nothing to do with co-creation; you are simply making things up now.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The future belongs to those that can create cooperative unions of many peoples. Nationalist ideologues would be the biggest losers.

This is why we need to shut down people like Azmal, they'll keep us in the divide and rule scheme of the colonialists forever with their nationalist bullcrap.

[ذو الفقار]

if there's any group that abides by the idea of co-eternality it's the Orthodox, they believe the Qur'an was co-eternal with Allah(swt) thus believing an entity other than Allah(swt) can exist eternally. ...which is pretty much the fringes of shirk. Violating the essential attribute of Allah(swt).

Mu'tazilah believe man creates his own deeds, as in deciding how to act, man does not create the ability to act and the spatial or temporal framework of acting, . This has nothing to do with co-creation; you are simply making things up now.

And you are also making up stuff about the Orthodox belief. We don't believe the Quraan is co-eternal with Allah. We believe the Quraan is Muhdath (originating in time) but not Makhlooq (created).

What is your source on alleging that the Orthodox believe the Quraan is Azli (eternal without beginning)?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

And you are also making up stuff about the Orthodox belief. We don't believe the Quraan is co-eternal with Allah. We believe the Quraan is Muhdath (originating in time) but not Makhlooq (created).

What is your source on alleging that the Orthodox believe the Quraan is Azli (eternal without beginning)?

Muhdath implies Makhlouq lol so if you don't believe Qur'an is created, then you believe it's eternal., If you believe it's muhdath then it's makhlouq. which is it?

[ذو الفقار]

Muhdath implies Makhlouq lol so if you don't believe Qur'an is created, then you believe it's eternal., If you believe it's muhdath then it's makhlouq. which is it?

False dichotomy. Muhdath doesn't necessarily imply creation. Muhdath, Hawadith simply mean occurrence or event. We believe Allah spoke the Quran, His speaking of it was an event/occurrence. Do you presume to explain our own creed to us?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

False dichotomy. Muhdath doesn't necessarily imply creation. Muhdath, Hawadith simply mean occurrence or event. We believe Allah spoke the Quran, His speaking of it was an event/occurrence. Do you presume to explain our own creed to us?

Yes it does because time is a parameter of created things. Uncreated do not rely on time. only Allah(swt) can be uncreated. Also you're using false dichotomy wrong ...that actually made me chuckle. A false dichotomy is to state there are only two options when, there are actually more than two. Here it's a correct dichotomy, because something to be created means it is causal , causal events are denoted in time, something that is denoted in time was caused, thus created.

Allah(swt) making something happen means he created it, it's created. It's pretty simple. So much for straight forward Orthodoxy lol

[ذو الفقار]

Yes it does because time is a parameter of created things. Uncreated do not rely on time. only Allah(swt) can be uncreated.

"Time is a parameter of created things" < False premise

You have to define what exactly time is to begin with.

Also you're using false dichotomy wrong ...that actually made me chuckle. A false dichotomy is to state there are only two options when, there are actually more than two. Here it's a correct dichotomy, because something to be created means it is causal , causal events are denoted in time, something that is denoted in time was caused, thus created.

I used false dichotomy correctly. You are simply claiming it is a correct dichotomy, but we both agree it is a dichotomy.

"Something to be created means it is causal" <<another false premise

You have to prove all these premises first, don't expect me just to swallow them and take your good word for it.

Now my intention isn't really to argue these things with you, only to state our beliefs which you have misrepresented based on your own standards of logic. You should at least have the courtesy to admit that we the Orthodox do not say the Quraan is co-eternal with Allah.

Yes, we do say that Allah is Eternal in both His Essence and His Names and Attributes. Meaning, Allah was not only always existent, He was always Merciful from eternity. His attribute of Mercy is an Eternal attribute.

You as a Mu'tazilite reject this. So does it mean you believe God became Merciful? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Allah(swt) making something happen means he created it, it's created. It's pretty simple. So much for straight forward Orthodoxy lol

"Allah making something happen means he created it" <<false premise, I reject this premise.

I will even show you the technical difference between جَعَلَ "make" and خَلَقَ "create", they are not necessarily synonymous.

[ذو الفقار]

"Something to be created means it is causal" <<another false premise

*Edit: Correction

I meant to say that if something is causal it is created is a false premise

Obviously, everything that is created is causal (having a cause), but the opposite is not true from our orthodox perspective, i.e., that everything which is causal is necessarily created.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

"Time is a parameter of created things" < False premise

You have to define what exactly time is to begin with.

false premise? Temporal events are created by God, something originating in time is created

Makhlouq just means created, pretty straight forward. Man, so many holes in orthodoxy, you could make Swiss Cheese.



I used false dichotomy correctly. You are simply claiming it is a correct dichotomy, but we both agree it is a dichotomy.

"Something to be created means it is causal" <<another false premise

Lol dude what? Causal means it's created, created means caused by creation. Oh my gosh ...you're just obfuscating.

You have to prove all these premises first, don't expect me just to swallow them and take your good word for it.

Alright , hence Orthodoxy is not straight forward, it requires validation of their logical foundations. Welcome to the Mu'tazilah bro.

You should at least have the courtesy to admit that we the Orthodox do not say the Quraan is co-eternal with Allah.

You're dancing around it, but that's basically what your statement amounts to.

Yes, we do say that Allah is Eternal in both His Essence and His Names and Attributes. Meaning, Allah was not only always existent, He was always Merciful from eternity. His attribute of Mercy is an Eternal attribute.

And that's wrong because those attributes relate to his treatment of the makhlouq, they're practical attributes or relational attributes. This would also imply co-eternality of created beings.

You as a Mu'tazilite reject this. So does it mean you believe God became Merciful? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that.

I'm not a Mu'tazilah, but someone inspired and draws heavily upon them. I am a heterodox Muslim that practices syncretism. if I was Mu'tazilah I'd reject Mysticism but I value Mysticism. the best you can say about me is that I am not orthodox. This is true.

"Allah making something happen means he created it" <<false premise, I reject this premise.

So you think things can happen without Allah(swt) causing it?

I will even show you the technical difference between جَعَلَ "make" and خَلَقَ "create", they are not necessarily synonymous.

[/QUOTE]

Sure but we're talking about divine providence here, in this case they are basically tantamount.