Zoroastrianism

[Badlun]

Policy or not, human nature will always remain the same; the powerful will trample the weak.What you describe isn't Islamism; it's just plain Islam as usual. This attempt at manufacturing the term "Islamism" to make it seem like it is just a few radicalized Muslims with a political agenda is a historical lie.

Islam has always been known from every historical representation as having latent or overt political element. However, so did Zoroastrianism; Zoroastrianism was completely intertwined within the Sassanid, Parthian and Archameanid government. Modern day Islam inherited this from Zoroastrianism. Even the concept of "Jihad" originates from
Zoroastrianism

You r right. Religion including Christianity was used for power. But today almost all religions are pure religions not political tools except Islam. And this Islam with politics is called Islamism as many Muslims do exist which resort to Islam only for spiritual reasons not political and these are called Muslims not islamists.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

If you ever have a chance to study about the Anthropology of Religion, we find that Religion was actually founded to be in connection to the pervading power structure of the society. That is why Priests were a prominent social class in most societies who yielded great power and authority.

Even Greek Philosophers like Socrates said that the best Government would be one ruled by Priestly-Kings. So there is no such thing as a "Pure Religion" because that IS religion.

This Islamism term is redundant; Islam already Has Politics. So saying Islamism is like saying Medicinal Medical Doctor or A 90 degree right triangleslamism is a manufactured word really What you describe is just Islam as it is.

If there are apolitical Muslims this only means that they are not into Politics; not that Islam is apolitcal. Just like Islam is against fornication but there are Muslims who fornicate.

[IcancryifIwantto]

It wasn't until the 10th century when the majority of the region became Muslim; which means there was no policy to wipe out Zoroastrianism. When the former Zoroastrians became Muslim they simply discarded many of their old relics themselves unfortunately. Just like all things people eventually change into/become whatever the main power structure upholds.

There is nothing in this world that is purely good or purely bad, this includes Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was not any more or less peaceful than any other religion or more or less warlike. Good & evil are just human inventions.

When you're big and powerful; you can afford to show your aggressive side, and Zoroastrians certainly did that, when you're small and meek you try to make yourself seem more gentle. This pattern is seen everywhere in any group or ideology.

Socrates said priestly kings?

can I see your source?

You like to pull **** out of your ass and I like how you state it like you have legit knowledge.

Your statement that because Islam did not become a religion of majority by 10th century does not prove anything bout the policy of implementing Islam. There are historical artifacts all over Afghanistan in particular Kabul that show a strong resistance to Islam. People of Nuristan were last to convert and they resisted, there was resistance even after it became a religion of majority Afghanistan only became an official Islamic state in the 1990s. We are currently undergoing "Islamization" as we speak. Islam is not a historical past for Afghanistan, it is a present, we are not Islamic enough...Becoming muslim is very much a living process for an Afghan.

[Brown Skinned Savage]

Socrates said priestly kings?

can I see your source?

You like to pull **** out of your ass and I like how you state it like you have legit knowledge.

Your statement that because Islam did not become a religion of majority by 10th century does not prove anything bout the policy of implementing Islam. There are historical artifacts all over Afghanistan in particular Kabul that show a strong resistance to Islam. People of Nuristan were last to convert and they resisted, there was resistance even after it became a religion of majority Afghanistan only became an official Islamic state in the 1990s. We are currently undergoing "Islamization" as we speak. Islam is not a historical past for Afghanistan, it is a present, we are not Islamic enough...Becoming muslim is very much a living process for an Afghan.

The people in Nuristan didn't resist Islam, they were largely isolated until recent centuries. It was under Pashtun kings that Nuristanis became Muslim. in The 18th century most Nuristanis were Pagans, By the 20th century most were Muslims; that's how we know a systematic policy did not exist in the 10th century.

If there was systematic policy to make everyone Muslim, then it would have happened.

As for your claim that Afghanistan "Only became an official Islamic State in 1990" ..I say to you a " a rose by any other name ....". It's known that Hotaki went to Makkah to consult on fighting Persians from Muslim scholars, Theocracy. That Ahmad Shah Abdali used Sabir Shah, a Sufi Pir for guidance, Theocracy. Maybe it wasn't Taliban style, but it was Islamic and thus theocratic. Perhaps to a more fractured degree but it was there.


As for Socrates' theocratic leanings ....you can start here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=2Rd5BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=socrates+theocracy&source=bl&ots=MXfUDNrevD&sig=hsadUjFqSTileMQf-g5tE0H8ZFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VJInVY39MbDnsASZ-oCIDA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=socrates%20theocracy&f=false

[Kushan Prince]

Socrates said priestly kings?

can I see your source?

You like to pull **** out of your ass and I like how you state it like you have legit knowledge.

Your statement that because Islam did not become a religion of majority by 10th century does not prove anything bout the policy of implementing Islam. There are historical artifacts all over Afghanistan in particular Kabul that show a strong resistance to Islam. People of Nuristan were last to convert and they resisted, there was resistance even after it became a religion of majority Afghanistan only became an official Islamic state in the 1990s. We are currently undergoing "Islamization" as we speak. Islam is not a historical past for Afghanistan, it is a present, we are not Islamic enough...Becoming muslim is very much a living process for an Afghan.

Of course the people of Afghanistan have always resisted invasions and forced conversions to any religion. Even the Arabs had a hard time converting Pashtuns to Islam due to their stubbornness that the Abassid calif ruler (name escapes me) had to hire a turkish slave (who was then Mahmud of Ghazni's father) to get the job done and convert Pashtuns to Islam. Yet even then, many Pashtun hill tribes remained pagan for a good century. Afghanistan's history is basically resisting occupation on their own soil and implementing their own rules. If a Christian missionary from the vatican was sent down to Afghanistan to convert Afghans, resistant force would be used to stop that from ever happening. Nuristani's have lived side by side with Pashtuns as kaffirs for century yet there were no problems, only Abudr Rahman's policy forcefully converted the Nuristani's to Islam or they would be punished with by death.

The Yemeni dog barks random verbatim most of the time on this forum about 99%. Taking history lesson from a yuckmouth like him is like learning english from a 5 year old.