Kurdish disaster

[Firdousi]

I just noticed that Dhul-Fiqar has made 11.2 posts a day here since joining. His posts are often long rants too, not short one or two liners.

It's pretty clear that wasting time on forums is some kind of addiction for him, just like it was for Karachi before him. For his own sake, I think it's time to let him go. He'll probably end up spamming some other forum that's vaguely associated with Islam, but maybe he'll eventually get banned from enough Muslim forums that he'll finally realize how much time he's wasting.

Why do you guys hate him so much? Zulfikar is a good member. He makes plenty of good points and his comments are very well reasoned and he is very cerebral. Honestly speaking he is also good mannered. He is always under a lot of pressure but never uses abusive language.

[maneatinglizard]

[MENTION=19985]maneatinglizard[/MENTION] he;'s not even a Qadiani, but a corporealist Pagan.

He's clearly a deeply disturbed, confused person. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a pagan, but he speaks about Allah (subhana wa taala) with a very loose tongue, even looser than the Wahabis do.

This is what happens when you spend all your time reading things on the internet, until you come to consider yourself an expert. Based on his posts, it seems like he's a Qadiani in nubuwwah, an extreme Wahabi in sifaat, and a Shia in imamah. It's like he managed to adopt every single deviant position he could find, even when they conflict lol.

Add to that the obvious self-loathing and wanting to be an Arab, and you've got one strange individual. The sad thing is he's too delusionally arrogant he can't even bring himself to ever admit he's wrong.

[maneatinglizard]

Why do you guys hate him so much? Zulfikar is a good member. He makes plenty of good points and his comments are very well reasoned and he is very cerebral. Honestly speaking he is also good mannered. He is always under a lot of pressure but never uses abusive language.

He's an ignorant liar. From the beginning, his intention was to spread Qadianism, but he's not man enough to admit that he is one. But that's not enough, he attempts to speak for Muslims and Islam while clearly having a poor understanding of the issues he talks about. And when someone disagrees with him, he tries to make passive-aggressive comments on how they must actually be a murtad or fasiq. Even when he's arguing a point I agree with (like democracy), many of his arguments are weak, and open to easy rebuttals. Weak arguments make a position look weak, and when someone's arguments consist of things like "northern Europe is cold, so the people there must have cold hearts," it's extremely easy for the opposition to look stronger than they should.

[ذو الفقار]

he speaks about Allah (subhana wa taala) with a very loose tongue

False accusation, I have never done so.

he's a Qadiani in nubuwwah,

Not so. I firmly believe in finality of Prophethood.

an extreme Wahabi in sifaat

My beliefs regarding the Siffaat are orthodox/mainstream Sunni beliefs

, and a Shia in imamah

Wrong again. I dont believe in the Shiite concept of Imamah that the Imams are Ma'soom, infallible guides or even that the 12 Imams were divinely appointed. I subscribe to the mainstream Sunni concept of Khilafa that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم did not designate a successor.

I, and many other Sunnis, believe that it is ideal that the Muslim community be led by the Ahlul Bait, that sayyidina Ali (r.a) is superior in excellence and virtues to sayyidina Uthman (r.a).

Add to that the obvious self-loathing and wanting to be an Arab

Baseless

[UnknownUser]

The obvious pitfall with this is that religion is simply being reduced to its civilizational utility and stripped of its purpose of bringing people to the objective truth. This reminds me of Dr. Ambedkar’s movement to encourage the Dalits to embrace Buddhism which, unlike Hinduism, rejects the caste system. He was previously considering a conversion movement to either Christianity or Islam, but decided on Buddhism ultimately for the reason that the former two are “foreign religions”, whereas Buddhism is indigenous to India, and shares a lot in common with Hinduism, so would be easier to facilitate a Hindu to Buddhist conversion among people who were previously steeped in Hinduism and Hindu culture. Then of course Ambedkar had to invent his own form of Buddhism distinct from the traditional schools of Therevada and Mahayana in order to jive with his other modern, political thoughts. Here is the description of this ‘neo-Buddhism’ called ‘Navayana’:
“According to Ambedkar, several of the core beliefs and doctrines of traditional Buddhist traditions such as Four Noble Truths and Anatta were flawed and pessimistic, may have been inserted into the Buddhist scriptures by wrong headed Buddhist monks of a later era. These should not be considered as Buddha's teachings in Ambedkar's view. Other foundational concepts of Buddhism such as Karma and Rebirth were considered by Ambedkar as superstitions. Navayana as formulated by Ambedkar and at the root of Dalit Buddhist movement abandons mainstream traditional Buddhist practices and precepts such as the institution of monk after renunciation, ideas such as karma, rebirth in afterlife, samsara, meditation, nirvana and Four Noble Truths. Ambedkar’s new sect of Buddhism rejected these ideas and re-interpreted the Buddha’s religion in terms of class struggle and social equality.”

It is so transparent when people decide to re-interpret a Religion so fundamentally different from its universally acknowledged original precepts. Reshaping and remolding Religion because you recognize its utility in organizing and controlling society and don’t want to dispense with it altogether. But then you end up stripping Religion of its dynamism and substance so that it ultimately becomes meaningless. If there is a similar movement to return to Zoroastrianism out of a feeling of reinvigorating ethnic identity and self-respect, it too will fail.

All religions have a utilitarian aspect beside sprituality. It's an undeniable Islam organized, and strenghtened Arabs and their culture, language, identity, etc.. Religions organize and strengthen cultures, nations, societies. That's the utilitarian aspect of religion. It doesn't deminish the spritiual aspects of religion. The spiritual aspect of religion is personal (Khud = self, Khuda = God).

Zorastrianism was probably similar to the Abrahmic faiths in original times. There are too many similar ideas and rituals. A transition from Islam to Zorastrianism could in theory be possible, since they both believe in the one omnipotent God, so there is little change in the main fundamental pillar. Except that most pepple have little idea what it is, and a re-introduction would likely be considered alien (at least in the begining phase/first few generations). Some of its original ideas have probably been lost or diluted as time has passed as well.

[ذو الفقار]

All religions have a utilitarian aspect beside sprituality. It's an undeniable Islam organized, and strenghtened Arabs and their culture, language, identity, etc.. Religions organize and strengthen cultures, nations, societies. That's the utilitarian aspect of religion. It doesn't deminish the spritiual aspects of religion. The spiritual aspect of religion is personal (Khud = self, Khuda = God).

Zorastrianism was probably similar to the Abrahmic faiths in original times. There are too many similar ideas and rituals. A transition from Islam to Zorastrianism could in theory be possible, since they both believe in the one omnipotent God, so there is little change in the main fundamental pillar. Except that most pepple have little idea what it is, and a re-introduction would likely be considered alien (at least in the begining phase/first few generations). Some of its original ideas have probably been lost or diluted as time has passed as well.

Zoroastrianism is not that similar to Abrahamic faiths. If its original ideas are lost or diluted we can't even be sure what Zoroastrianism is about. An attempt to "reconstruct" it would certainly not reflect original Zoroastrianism, but would merely be creating a new religion.

The truth of Religion is the most important factor, not its utility. If Zoroastrianism is the true Religion, it would have been dynamic and active, protected by God, and not allowed to crumble into obscurity. Do you practice a religion merely because its part of your cultural heritage and makes you feel good about your civilization? Or do you practice religion with the aim of personal salvation and actually having a relationship with God.

You think millions of Muslims who have made this relationship with God through Namaz, Du'a, reading the Qur'an, and going to the Mosque, are suddenly going to start going to fire temples praying before a flame and start reading from the Avesta?

It would certainly be a superficial and hollow pursuit to adapt a Religion to make a political statement about "de-Arabization" and wanting to go back to Iranian roots. It reveals that the mind of such a person is not at all connected to God but connected more to this world, very un-spiritual.

Btw, I sometimes talk to Hindus on social media, and from time to time they bring up the idea of "Ghar wapsi", that us Indian Muslims should return to Hinduism. I tell them once we have drank from the water of Monotheism, its hard to go back to the bitter taste of idol worship. An aspect of becoming a Muslim is to get circumcised. Circumcision is a one way street, can't be reversed. This actually symbolizes the difference between Hinduism (and Zoroastrianism) from Islam. You can either stay a Hindu or Zoroastrian, or you can transition into Islam. But once you're a Muslim there's no going back.

So even if a Muslim were to go back to his Hindu or Zoroastrian roots, he has been too effected psychologically and mentally by having been a Muslim. Its too difficult to "deprogram" oneself of that Islamic influence which is not just on the heart and mind, but literally marked on your genitals. Its like a way of branding someone "you belong to us now there's no going back"

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

First of all, the the relationship of Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic Faiths has been very well established by scholarship. Secondly, there are many overlaps between Zoroastrian teachings and practices and Islam. Namely the use of obligatory prayer at specific times of day.

Thirdly, religion may have the ultimate goal to guide the human soul to awakening to Higher Truths, but it is couched in the practical/pragmatic and management principles that govern our lives. Muslims are not all philosophers; paradoxically from our exchanges, the idea of Muslims becoming awakened to the truth has been demonstrated to be of little signifiance to you since you want Muslims to accept a narrative regarding truth extrapolated from the source texts by other people. However, that's neither no there. If Muslims are not all philosophically inclined, this path to awakening is not going to appeal to all Muslims , so the practical, pragmatic and perhaps a more digestable superficial construct of what "truth" will have more precedence.

Fourthly, since the core of all religious paths is to use the pragmatic/practical as a vehicle for truth, it doesn't seem unbefitting that we can't at least philosophically speaking draw key parallels and syncretism and relationships between their prescribed methods to awaken to truth and find their connection to ours. In fact, that is something Sufis, Mu'tazilites and other groups have done throughout the ages within the philosophical circles of Muslims. Therefore there's no reason why we should eschew Zoroastrianism and not find pertinent concepts in our journey for truth that are pertinent to Afghans. Since Muslim practice is often reflective of cultural flavor. Our philosophy could also take on a similar shape.

[ذو الفقار]

I’m simply amazed at maneatinglizard’s hypocrisy. He accuses me of being a “dirty” Qadiani because of some minor disagreement over points of theology where my view happens to concur with the Qadianis, and launches all sorts of personal attacks against me.

But he doesn’t say a word against Iblis here, who is literally advocating the destruction of Islam and ‘syncretism’, not to mention open defiance of the statutory laws of Islam.

Maneatinglizard has exposed himself as a hypocrite who will respect any kind of heretic as long as he is a fellow Afghan, but a non-Afghan like me who is disagreeing with his rigid Ashari orthodoxy am a ‘filthy’ Qadiani who should be banned from this forum. Talk about double standards.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

But the difference is, I'm not trying to convert people to what I subscribe to or persuade people to abandon what they subscribe to. I want people to have a stable/prosperous society, but it need not be that they go into some philosophical polemics. My worldview can accommodate Orthodoxy, but I prefer to let the societal ruling to qualified people who understand the nuances of statecraft and approach things from a fair/unbiased position. or in the very least, minimally biased and supporting the well being of all of its members but maintaining the core/universal principles of Islamic values.

you here are doing preaching and trying to prosyletize. You may not be a Qadiani and I have come to learn you're not Orthodox either. You're heterodox but more of a Regressive variety. I'm progressive heterodox. I want people to be able to have enough leg room to experience their own journey to truth and enrich their lives through cultural, artistic and intellectual expression in the process, while also supporting a prosperous society. If someone wants to wear a Kufi and thawb, that's fine, there's room for them, if they're trying to push others to wear kufis and thawbs, then that's another story.

You on the other hand hand have made it all too clear , that you don't care what happens to society, if people aren't wearing Kufis and thawbs, that communicates a lot about how warped you are.

While Maneatinglizard and I may disagree, I'm not trying in anyway trying to infringe on maneatinglizard and his right to follow his conscience. You on the other hand are here for that purpose.

[ذو الفقار]

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

“The context of the Yasna 44:5 suggests that it is Ahura Mazda’s lordship over his good creation and over the whole round of man’s earthly life, from morning through night, that is being emphasized, not his creation of darkness as the province of evil. And as for Yasna 44:7, the phrase ‘maker of all’ can in context imply ‘creator of all good things.’ In short, these texts give only meager and slippery support to the version of monotheism which these three scholars [Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox] attribute to Zoroaster.”

Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic of Monotheistic?
Author(s): James W. Boyd and Donald A. Crosby
Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 557-588
Published by: Oxford University Press

Interestingly, this same paper states:

“To say that Ahura Mazda is omnipotent cannot mean that he controls everything in the universe in the mechanical or coercive manner of a puppeteer, possessing all the power there is to have. For this would be inconsistent with such fundamental Zoroastrian beliefs as the belief that what transpires in finite time makes a decisive difference, so far as Ahura Mazda’s claim to supremacy is concerned; or the belief that human beings are genuinely free; or the belief that the battle against evil is no mere play-acting but a struggle which is dead serious and all-consuming, both for Ahura Mazda and for his creatures. And this is to say nothing of the fact that such a view would attribute evil directly to Ahura Mazda, the most heinous of all sins for the Zoroastrian. Accordingly, Ahura Mazda’s omnipotence must be interpreted differently. It must be taken to mean that he has the greatest amount of effective power in the universe, but not all the power.”

[ذو الفقار]

First of all, the the relationship of Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic Faiths has been very well established by scholarship.

The jury's still out on that one.

Secondly, there are many overlaps between Zoroastrian teachings and practices and Islam. Namely the use of obligatory prayer at specific times of day.

But we are debating the proposal of some people that Zoroastrianism should replace Islam.

Fourthly, since the core of all religious paths is to use the pragmatic/practical as a vehicle for truth

Another false premise

it doesn't seem unbefitting that we can't at least philosophically speaking draw key parallels and syncretism and relationships between their prescribed methods to awaken to truth and find their connection to ours. In fact, that is something Sufis, Mu'tazilites and other groups have done throughout the ages within the philosophical circles of Muslims. Therefore there's no reason why we should eschew Zoroastrianism and not find pertinent concepts in our journey for truth that are pertinent to Afghans. Since Muslim practice is often reflective of cultural flavor. Our philosophy could also take on a similar shape.

Be clear about what you are proposing. If you are talking about syncretism of thought and ideas, that is the kind of syncretism that may be associated with the Sufis. But definitely not the syncretism of practice. The formal structure of Islam in terms of its rituals, practices and laws are immutable even to the Sufis.

Once you start going to the fire temple and worship before a flame in the manner of the Zoroastrians, that is no longer Islam even remotely. Such syncretism means the creation of a new religion altogether that is separate and distinct from Islam. Even your Mu'tazilite forebears would have no choice but to admit so.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The jury's still out on that one.

Not as much as you'd like to believe.


The New Encyclopedia of Islam - Cyril Glasse, Huston Smith - Google Books

But we are debating the proposal of some people that Zoroastrianism should replace Islam.

I haven't seen a proposal for that, but if the Brand of Islam you keep trying to push on everyone here. Then yes reverting to Zoroastrianism would be preferable to THAT. It's better to be a Majus on the right path than a Muslim on the wrong one. Read that in context though. I'm by no means saying we should be Majus. But individuals like you try to portray Islam as a useless and vacant set of mindless customs with no direction, that it's void of spiritual merit.

Be clear about what you are proposing. If you are talking about syncretism of thought and ideas, that is the kind of syncretism that may be associated with the Sufis. But definitely not the syncretism of practice. The formal structure of Islam in terms of its rituals, practices and laws are immutable even to the Sufis.

Syncretism of ideas, although customs which are mubah of course shouldn't be a problem. Folk stories, music, dance, art, relics, celebrating ancient lore, falls under mubah.

Another false premise

Obviously you don't really spiritually invest in the Qur'an outside of looking for verses that you can exploit for your agenda.

“We will show them Our Signs in the universe, and in their own selves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Quran) is the truth” [Fussilat 41:53]


Ponder that awhile.

Once you start going to the fire temple and worship before a flame in the manner of the Zoroastrians, that is no longer Islam even remotely. Such syncretism means the creation of a new religion altogether that is separate and distinct from Islam. Even your Mu'tazilite forebears would have no choice but to admit so.[/FONT][/SIZE]

Yeah not what anyone argued here.

[ذو الفقار]

The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam
Author(s): Marietta Stepaniants
Source: Philosophy of East and West, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 159-172
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press

“Yet, there might also be factors of an ideological nature that might have tended to favor the success of Islam. I would suggest that in at least four ways the teachings of Muhammad would have looked more attractive than those of Zoroaster. First, the former was addressed to all peoples regardless of such factors as race, ethnicity, and language. Zoroastrianism, on the other hand, was a ‘provincially confined truth.’ Similar to Judaism, all Iranians were supposed to follow the teachings of Zoroaster, but no foreigners were allowed into the faith community (although on occasion, for example, at the time of Kartir at the end of the third century, certain groups of non-Zoroastrians were converted by force). Even in modern times, when the prominent Iranian scholar Poure Davoud desired to become a convert, Zoroastrian communities in both Iran and India rejected his request despite his contributions to the study of Zoroastrianism. Furthermore, after Zoroastrianism had become the state religion of Iran it demonstrated its intolerance of the followers of other religious beliefs by persecuting Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Nestoreans, Christians, Manichaeans, and Mazdean heretics.

Second, Islam preached brotherhood and, at least in its early period, disapproved of social discrimination, whereas Zoroastrianism, particularly during the Sassanid period, differentiated its community into four groups (very much like the four varnas or castes in Hinduism). In the Dadestan i menog i xrad (Judgments of the spirit of wisdom), a Pahlavi text probably composed in the sixth century, the Spirit of Wisdom (or Goodness), in response to questions about these four social groups, describes in detail the duties of their members (XXVII.33-34). It is well known that in India many among the lower castes and outcastes (untouchables) freely and willingly converted to Islam, hoping in this way to overcome caste discrimination. The same motivation might conceivably have been behind the mass conversions in Iran.

Third, Islam attracted people through the simplicity of its rituals. In the Sassanid period, the faith of Zoroaster “had become so overlaid with outward ceremonial and mere bodily purifications and baths and penances for all occasions, possible and impossible, that people ceased to care for such mere outer forms of purity, which neither inspired them nor satisfied spiritual thirst.”

Fourth, early Islam demonstrated a great capacity for cultural assimilation by incorporating into its teachings and practices ideas, values, and institutions borrowed from others. Such a policy was justified by the most important doctrine of Islam, which affirms: ‘There is no god but God [Allah], and Muhammad is His Prophet.’ According to Islam, Muhammad is the ‘seal of prophecy,’ meaning that he is the last among the prophets to be sent to the people. This notion has different connotations, and it can be used to justify and promote both tolerance and fanaticism. The latter may occur when the claim is made that since Muhammad is the last of the prophets, then his message is the most perfect. However, the very fact that prior professions of faith were recognized by the Muslim authorities indicates a degree of respect toward other sacred literatures and teachings. This could have served to justify the borrowing of ideas, values, and customs of other cultures on the one hand, and, on the other, it could have allowed the adherents of other religious beliefs to adopt Islam, seeing it as a continuation of the prophetic tradition.”

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

[SIZE="3"][FONT="HardTimesW01-Roman"]The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam
Author(s): Marietta Stepaniants
Source: Philosophy of East and West, Vol. 52, No. 2 (Apr., 2002), pp. 159-172
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
]

Actually one could argue some of these might actually be strengths of Zoroastrianism.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

“The context of the Yasna 44:5 suggests that it is Ahura Mazda’s lordship over his good creation and over the whole round of man’s earthly life, from morning through night, that is being emphasized, not his creation of darkness as the province of evil. And as for Yasna 44:7, the phrase ‘maker of all’ can in context imply ‘creator of all good things.’ In short, these texts give only meager and slippery support to the version of monotheism which these three scholars [Zaehner, Gershevitch, and Fox] attribute to Zoroaster.”

Is Zoroastrianism Dualistic of Monotheistic?
Author(s): James W. Boyd and Donald A. Crosby
Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 557-588
Published by: Oxford University Press

Interestingly, this same paper states:

“To say that Ahura Mazda is omnipotent cannot mean that he controls everything in the universe in the mechanical or coercive manner of a puppeteer, possessing all the power there is to have. For this would be inconsistent with such fundamental Zoroastrian beliefs as the belief that what transpires in finite time makes a decisive difference, so far as Ahura Mazda’s claim to supremacy is concerned; or the belief that human beings are genuinely free; or the belief that the battle against evil is no mere play-acting but a struggle which is dead serious and all-consuming, both for Ahura Mazda and for his creatures. And this is to say nothing of the fact that such a view would attribute evil directly to Ahura Mazda, the most heinous of all sins for the Zoroastrian. Accordingly, Ahura Mazda’s omnipotence must be interpreted differently. It must be taken to mean that he has the greatest amount of effective power in the universe, but not all the power.”

This is more commentary than text though by a third party, than actually how the Zoroastrians understood the text to mean.