The world of the Wise Lord

Re: # 61

Feroz,

There is no such thing as Hindu text :-) Hindi, modern Sanskrit, Gujarati and Marathi are written in Devanagari script. Try this link for more details: http://www.ancientscripts.com/

has anyone asked if the minorities in the islamic republic of pakistan pay jaziya today?

and if they do, how much?

and if they don`t, why not?

same queires for iran, saudi arabia, and any other muslim country

Urstruly # 78

Is it possible to envision a realistic scenario in which Muslims, even as a minority, will feel themselves justly treated if exactly the same social contract was applied against them?

What is this Islamic social contract?

In India and the West,

1. Muslims will not be taken into the military.
2. Muslims will be permitted to read their holy book and pray as they wish, so long as they do not cause public demonstration, or inconvenience the majority.
3. For the advantage of escaping military service, Muslims will be required to pay a special monetary tax that others will not pay.

It does not sound fair. But one can argue that fairness too is in the eyes of the beholder. Do you consider such a system to be just and compassionate?

``Similarly, another unresolved dilemma remains. Why did the Persians opt for the Shia sect. It is just a coincidence or has some other historical, religious or cultural explanation?``

The persians were overwhelmingly Sunni at one point, untill Shiaism was declared the state religion. I am told that this coincided with a period of a reassertion of a Persian identity which was surpressed under an Imperial Arab yoke.

Why Shiaism? The Persians aren`t too fond of Hazrat Omar as it was under him the Arabs originally invaded (and rightfully so, imho) . They had no problems with Hazrat Ali since he was apparently ``nice`` to the Persians.

---

From the sources I read, the Arabs had a serious hate on for the Byzantians and the Persians, who themselves were often at war. The Arabs would often get squashed between these two powers, and so any vestige of Arab independence required the elimination of these two empires who had no interest in seeing yet another rival between them. So yes, in this sense it was an ideological thrust...but yet it took centuries for Islam to actually spread in the conqured regions.

The spread of Islam in the initial thrust was limited to Byzantium and Persia. Given positive statements of other Empires, China in particular, I don`t think the intent was to move beyond that. However, success breeds ambition.

ahhhh, and so echoboomblast IS among those who sings, ``mera des ka hero number 1, mera sher osama bin laden. . `` and he does use his beard for chaDDis.

small wonders.

Ref Urstruly #78

[It (the jiziya) is not only more than just, but it is compassionate as well.

Islam promotes a just social contract that goes to an extent of internal autonomy in exchange for a small affordable price. Only air is free in life; but not for long, it seems like it.]

Hey, I really like your idea that the Muslim Sultans were fair to their Hindu subjects.

I presume you would like to extend this definition of fairness to other actions beyond the jiziya.

Since what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander as well, by logical extension, you guys shouldn`t have anything except appreciation for the demolition of the Babri Masjid which is just one mosque that was destroyed as against hundreds of thousands of Hindu temples.

Similarly, you should all be out cheering for the Hindus during the Gujarat riots as opposed to the Islamic mob that set fire to the train at Godhra.

As to the jiziya being equivalent to the money to supply food for a man for 10 days, I have read that the jiziya ranged from from 1/16th of annual income to 1/6th of annual income. At 1/16th of annual income, the Hindus then had only money for eating 160 days out of you guys took out 10 days of food money. You know, that is quite reasonable considering the number of days Hindus were supposed to fast, like Ekadashi days (24 in a year), Shivratri, etc. You would next be claiming that the jiziya actually was used to make the Hindus follow their religious edicts more closely!

Best thing is to treat you guys like you guys treated the Hindus during your heyday. I would love to have India declared a Hindu state for just one year and impose the jiziya on Muslims to see how hard you folks scream.

So long as you continue to justify the thuggery of Muslims, there is a need for Gitmo Bay.

Just to express some simple facts, which might help an honest reader and that is,

According to modern research, based on authentic historical material, done by prestigious European universities, Muslims were still minority within Muslim governed areas, even 300 years after Umar. Even Haroon-ur-rashid has passed away a long time before Muslims became majority in these areas.

So it must be the powerfull pull of Islam and its closeness to original Zoroastrianism which attracted large majority of Persians.

Incidentally, it should also be mentioned here that all Zoroastrians do not subscribe to this so-called Zoroastrian doctrine of duality. There are those, though small in number today, who strongly defend the cause of Unity within Zoroastrianism. Most of these unitarians must have been powerfully pulled towards Islam as it entered Persia. It should be remembered that apart from duality and the consequent fire worship, the rest of the Zoroastrian faith is much closer to Islam than to any other faith.

In Zoroastrianism, God—referred to as Ahura Mazda—is described exactly in the same terms and with the same attributes as in all other major religions. Thus by blaming all the evil and suffering upon the scapegoat Ahraman, the Zoroastrian thinkers thought they had ultimately resolved the dilemma. But it was not to be so. Socrates, also a contemporary of theirs, might have heard of it or thought of it himself, yet he rejected it and faithfully adhered to the Unity of God. This Zoroastrian excuse, though it seems to solve one problem, creates an even more defiant one. It must be remembered that evil in itself has no independent existence which needs to be created.

In reality however, evil is only another name for the absence of goodness. Its absence only becomes conspicuous when light and shade play hide and seek. Yet shade is not a substantial thing. It is only light that matters and seems to create shadows. Shadows however are not created by light but are the name for its absence. They are born whenever light is obstructed. There was no need therefore for the Zoroastrians of later ages to create a devil of their own by the name of Ahraman. Likewise it is goodness alone which needs to be created, sin will by itself appear whenever goodness is eschewed. Thus if Ahraman is the god of darkness, he himself is the outcome of the negation of light and virtue, and not a creator of them.

In the light of what has passed, we can safely conclude that Zoroasteras believed in the God of goodness and in Him alone. He was a recipient of revelation from Him. For him knowledge and eternal truth were directly bestowed by revelation, not merely deduced through logic or inspiration.

Ahraman, the `God of Evil`, is portrayed as sharing eternity with the One and Only Supreme Creator.

It is hard to identify the age when this erroneous belief crept into Zoroastrian doctrines but one thing is certain that Cyrus (c. 590–529 BC), an exemplary pupil of Zoroasteras, was far from being a dualist. The lofty position he held in Zoroastrianism was even higher than that held by Ashoka in Buddhism.

To judge Zoroastrianism through the mirror of Cyrus, therefore, would be no less reliable than judging Buddhism through the mirror of Ashoka. The monotheism of Cyrus can be proved from the tribute paid to him in the Old Testament (Isaiah 45:1–5). It is impossible to conceive ``the God of Israel`` to have praised Cyrus in such high terms if he were a dualist. Thus spoke prophet Isaiahas:

``Thus says the LORD to His anointed,
To Cyrus, whose right hand I have held—
To subdue nations before him
And loose the armor of kings,
To open before him the double doors,
So that the gates will not be shut:
`I will go before you
And make the crooked places straight;
I will break in pieces the gates of bronze
And cut the bars of iron.
I will give you the treasures of darkness
And hidden riches of secret places,
That you may know that I, the LORD,
Who call you by your name,
Am the God of Israel.
For Jacob My servant`s sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me...`` 1

Cyrus the great is also remembered in the Cyrus legend as a tolerant and ideal monarch who was called `father of his people` by the ancient Persians. In the Bible an outstanding homage is paid to him as the liberator of the Jews captive in Babylonia.

In short, the figure of Cyrus has survived throughout history as a man of exceptional qualities. He built a vast empire the like of which was seldom created by other warriors of heroic fame. Among the emperors, he is the only one who escaped censure by all the historians who ever wrote about great men of history. None could ever find a speck of a blemish in his character as a man or in his conduct as a monarch. He became the epitome of the greatest qualities expected of a ruler. In wars he was bold and dauntless, in conquest magnanimous. His unshakeable belief in the Unity of God must have sprung from Zoroasteras himself.

Zoroastrianism in all its features is closest to Judaism and Islam. Hence its precept of goodness and evil, light and darkness had to be the same as it was in Judaism and Islam. `Ahraman` is very likely therefore, another name for Satan and no more.

According to Zoroaster, the powers of the god of goodness are constantly endeavouring to dominate those of the god of evil. Like a see-saw, the outcome of this struggle is always changing sides sometimes in favour of goodness and sometimes in favour of evil. Thus Zoroastrian philosophy presents a simple explanation for the coexistence of evil and suffering, goodness and happiness, by attributing their origin to two different sources. All the ills in the world—pain, grief, distress, ignorance and suffering—are believed to ensue when the god of evil gains the upper hand.

One can safely deduce from an in-depth study of Zoroastrianism that what was later referred to as an independent God of darkness, was only identical to the concept of a devil found in traditional religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It seems that at some stage the followers of Zoroasteras began to misunderstand his philosophy of good and evil, and took them to be the manifestation of two independent, conscious supreme beings who coexisted eternally. This is the essence of the Zoroastrian concept of dualism. A second glance at Zoroastrian philosophy can lead a careful observer to the conclusion that it is only a matter of different terminology which creates a false parallax between them.

The role ascribed to Satan in other religions is ascribed to Ahraman in Zoroastrianism. Most likely the adherents of Zoroastrians of later ages got the concept of Satan mixed up with the idea of an independent god of evil, believed to be the supreme master of the forces of darkness. This one blunder on their part led to yet another blunder. Ahraman, the `God of Evil`, is portrayed as sharing eternity with the One and Only Supreme Creator.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Re: # 77 Kal

It is not only more than just, but it is compassionate as well.

Islam promotes a just social contract that goes to an extent of internal autonomy in exchange for a small affordable price. Only air is free in life; but not for long, it seems like it.

Urstruly

Look at Jizya from the position of a non Muslim. Would it still be non-punitive, fair and just?

Always works!
#73
``The rest was NOT for you. Whoever is a mushrik, mulla, fundamentalist, moderate or `modern` will understand``.

This time bold & underlined so that the D-day reality is shone right in their faces.They will always request for a mulla,because they themselves never learned that every muslim should be his own mulla. Instead, they ended up Ba Ba Blacksheep.

---

Again from:63

[Read it, could be quite an eye-opener for the condemned & wretched nay-sayers and ill-wishers of Islam and muslims. Quite an intellectual arsenal here to confront the westoxicated bums & punks--the munaafiques, the marginalised, and the margarines.
All of them will revert before their own D-day. They all do. We all witness how their family-folk invite that very mullah who these godforsaken ones so despised on their Keyboards.

They need the mullah, the mullah does not need them. ]

Re: # 74
Thank you for pointing it out ot me. I will ignore him from now on.
Such uncohesive spewing forth of garbage.
Astaghfir-ul-allah is right on the money!

SS#72:

you are new here...allow me to explain

anyone who does not subscribe to this abdul hate`s interpretation and version of islam is not a muslim...who gave him this right? astagfirullah!...how dare you question His Hateness