KHAYZURAN: Zoroastrianism and Islam in Relation to Ritual Prayer (Salat/Namaz)!

[hicham9]

Salam brother and sisters,

I've come across some claims online (by Dr Shabbir Ahmed, and others) that in the year 773 AD, Al-Khayzuran bint Atta الخيزران بنت عطاء‎ the zoroastrian mother of both Caliphs Al-Hadi, and Harun al-Rashid هارون الرشيد‎ (the most famous of the Abbasids) blended 5 Zoroastrian Namaz rituals in Islam and validated that forgery by forging hadith of Mi'raaj and the 50 rituals/per day absurdity! It is said that the Persian Imams of the time got strong support from Khaizraan who was, in turn, vehemently helped by Harun's Zoroastrian viziers, the BARAMIKA. So, she's believed to be the one who "canonized" NAMAZ according to the desires of the Criminal Imams in 153 A.H. (773 CE). Her main philosopher was Imam Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad Tabrezi, the first ever writer of Arabic to Persian dictionary, AL-'AIN.


1- Dawn prayer: Havaan = Fajr
2- Noon prayer: Rapithwan = Dhuhr
3- Afternoon prayer: Uziren = A'ssr
4- Evening prayer: Aiwisuthrem = Maghrib
5- Night prayer: Ushaen = Ishae

The 5 daily rituals (contact prayers) have abviously been taken from Zoroastrianism and incorporated into Islam by the Persian Parsi Imams. Heck! They even kept the same timings for all 5 Namaz/Salawat!

Al-Khayzuran bint Atta (died 789 CE) is described as a woman of strong personality. She persuaded her husband (Abbasid Caliph Al-Mahdi) to appoint her sons as the next caliphs over his sons from his other wives. At the court, she was an ally of the Barmakids. She greatly influenced both her sons and the affairs of the empire to the extent that her son Al-Hadi tried to kill her by poisoning her. She was suspected of involvement in his death. Al-Khayzuran is believed by many literary historians to be a key influence on Scheherazade, the main character in 1001 Nights.


Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal is reported to have been flogged by Harun and later by his son Mamun; for he supposedly insisted that the Qur'an was GHAIR MAKHLOO9 (non-creation). However, it was too trivial a debate. Hanbal got flogged because he saw and opposed the Persian NAMAZ (GEH) being incorporated into Islam. Another point of interest would be: KHAIZRAAN spent a fortune on her project and distributed one million gold coins and 165 million coins of pure silver among her subjects to propagate the 'canonized' NAMAZ.


Some of the relevant references about "Khaizran", the "Baramikah", the "Imams" and the contriving of today's NAMAZ:

- "Haroon wa Baramikatil Faras" (Arabic) by Sheikhul Ifta Salman bin Abu Qasim Baghdadi. Vol 1 pg 31-55
- "Meezan-il-Faris" (Persian) by Hujjatullah Abdul Qadir Ali Al-Moosvi pg 249-261
- "Takmilatil Lughatal 'Ain" 'Urfa (Arabic) by Al-Ustaz Jalaluddin Al-Ash'ari on Imam Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad Tabrezi vol 2 pg 3-5
- "Mujahid Al-Munafiq Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal" (Arabic) by Mullah Ali Al-Qari, pg 67-135

It would be interesting to know your positions on this theory.

SLM

[GODsubmitter]

Thank you for this post!

I came across this information somewhat a year ago, and it is still "frightening" to me even to think it might be true!

Since the very beginning I ever started "performing" namaz, I somehow felt it doesn't fit the overall message of the Qur'an, and that it might be man (woman!)-made ritual... 

I am stupefied to even think this info you sent might be true!

I made some research afterwards, and found many more evidences, but I am still 

May God save us from this "conspiracy" ...

Peace

[357]

Thank you for this post!

I came across this information somewhat a year ago, and it is still "frightening" to me even to think it might be true!

Since the very beginning I ever started "performing" namaz, I somehow felt it doesn't fit the overall message of the Qur'an, and that it might be man (woman!)-made ritual... 

I am stupefied to even think this info you sent might be true!

I made some research afterwards, and found many more evidences, but I am still 

May God save us from this "conspiracy" ...

Peace

when part of our world view is about to crash to bits with new information , we are made scared by our own subcincious  , its natural.

But of course we need to overcome our fears, and see the world with real light.

[Man of Faith]

Peace,

And why do you feel Zoroastrianism is not part of islam?

And the people of the book also prayed somewhat like muslims do today.

There are some differences between a Zoroastrian namaz and Muslims which they forgot to copy and which is important and is the stretched up hands while praying. The shia muslims kept this remainder only in the end of rakah 2.

And Zoroastrians pray to God like anyone else and they are monotheists no matter what people attribute to them. Their practices predate Muhammad and even Jesus and are perhaps on par with Moses.

They have had their polytheistic corruption like every other religion, but in the bottom it is a monotheistic religion.

Despite this I have been wondering about the prayer pattern 24434 for quite some time. But I am not uncertain about the bodily movement as a whole.

But we should remember that there is only one religion, islam.
God bless you

[noshirk]

And why do you feel Zoroastrianism is not part of islam?
And the people of the book also prayed somewhat like muslims do today.

salam man of faith.
dou you realize what you are saying ?
Deen of Allah is in words of Allah and nowhere else

i thank brother hichem9 for his post.
but also bukhari, muslim, tabari, ibn daoud, tirmidhi and so on are Persians.

In quran , Allah don't ask for stupid things such as prosternating towards a cubic stone  in a desert 5 times a day.

Peace

[Earthdom]

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal is reported to have been flogged by Harun and later by his son Mamun[/b]; for he supposedly insisted that the Qur'an was GHAIR MAKHLOO9 (non-creation). However, it was too trivial a debate. Hanbal got flogged because he saw and opposed the Persian NAMAZ (GEH) being incorporated into Islam.

Quran is Makhluq, as I know, it's one of Mu'tazila teaching.I don't know how can someone like Ibn Hanbal involved in Mu'tazile, as we know that he is hadith author.What I know is Ibn Hanbal ever arrested during Mihnah operation.

But thank for the evidence brother @hicham9

[Man of Faith]

Peace,

Not prostration towards a cubic stone no. I did not mention that. I am not validating modern paganism.

I was saying that islam is an old practice. There has been monotheists all the way.

I am sure Zoroastrians have had monotheists too and are not only a bunch of polytheists / pagans.

When I think of a bodily movement I mean something in devotion to God. It does not have to be stupid.

So God is not asking people to do stupid things, but there are things you can do to show your worship of God. Combining meditation with prayers is an example.

Bukhari and company are frauds but that does not mean everyone ever practiced something are that.

Hope you understand my point.

God bless you

[noshirk]

I am sure Zoroastrians have had monotheists too and are not only a bunch of polytheists / pagans.

Salaam Man Of Faith
i am sure that Zoroastrians have had also priest, cheikhs, false arbabs, hadiths and liers about Allah
Peace

[Man of Faith]

Peace noshirk,

Yep, you are right about that. I think Zoroastrianism went wrong some time in history, I have been checking here in Iran for the Truth and I am still searching. Went to Persepolis among other places.

Also, reading OT in the Bible you can clearly see that Zoroastrianism affected the religion presented there. The Persian empires over the history is the reason for that. You can also see when the Persians started to lose their grip of the region around Jerusalem that then the talk about fires on the high hills started to be presented negatively, like burning sacrifices.

But I think that during King Cyrus and Darius and some successors to them, Persia had decent monotheistic rulers. However, that changed.

The Persian rulers even contributed for the reconstruction of the destroyed temple in Jerusalem. But I am sure it is only the first famous rulers that were any good according to what I have understood.

But I think Persia became blasphemous and lost God's favor. Old Persepolis is filled with polytheistic statues, but I think they were added in the latter part of construction.

God bless you

[Scribbler]

Peace be upon everyone.


Here is an article that everyone may want to read regarding this subject:

WAS RITUAL PRAYER A PRACTICE INVENTED LATER?

There exists quite a fantastic assertion amongst some that claim a Quran-centric approach that a ritual prayer was never prescribed by the Quran in any form whatsoever nor did the Prophet ever teach such a prayer.

     
Some others ascribe the ritual prayer as prayed today as a later invented practice with Persian Zoroastrian influence which did not take canon until 787 CE. (approximately 150 years after the death of the Prophet).

     
"The later Persian Imams built upon this tale and formulated the current Namaaz. They received strong support from the Persian Zoroastrian mother of Khalifa Haroon Rasheed, Khaizran (d. 789 CE). Haroon's Zoroastrian viziers, the Baramika, were only too happy to join hands with the royal mother, Khaizran. So, it was she in concert with others who "canonized" Namaaz according to the desires of the Criminal Imams in (787 CE). Her main philosopher was Imam Al-Khalil bin Ahmad Shikoh, the first ever compiler of Arabic to Persian dictionary, Al-'Ain"    [1]

         
The term 'salat' is henceforth variously rendered in a manner which completely departs from any reference to ritual prayer and new meanings are pinned to well established Arabic words and phrases of the Quran which deal with verses which are traditionally understood as referring to prayer.

 
AN ASSERTION WITHOUT WARRANT:

     
Despite there being no Quranic support for such claims, there is also absolutely no historical proof that a mass invention of ritual prayer ever took place which introduced this practice into Muslim thought. The latter claim will remain the focus of the remainder of the article.

Such an assertion would require one to accept that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) never offered such a ritual prayer as part of God's ordained religion nor did the earliest Muslims to whom the Prophet preached the Quran. Furthermore, for one to accept the assertion, one would need to concede the possibility of a mass conspiracy which introduced this practice en masse from the late 8th century onwards which subsequently erased any record of the invention from all recorded history.

     

HISTORICAL PROOF:


It is well appreciated by academic scholarship, that there exists a dearth of Muslim sources in the first centuries of Islam. To make use of later Muslim sources to challenge the assertion above would easily be dismissible on the grounds that the late Muslim sources only reflected the later change.

     
However, what is less well known and seldom appreciated is the existence of relevant earlier Non-Muslim sources which exist within decades of the end of the Prophet's ministry which would strongly refute any assertions of a late invented practice. These Non-Muslim sources are much earlier than the Muslim sources and were not always complimentary to the conquering Arabs who were oft seen as aggressors, oppressors, marred with vice and referred to as 'Saracens'.      [2]


In fact, the criticism against 'Muhammad's' conquerors at times was so intense in some early writings within Non-Muslim sources, that there would be no perceivable reason or interest for them to have attributed any Godly ritual to their aggressors whom they called the 'Saracens' (the Arab Muslims).

However, despite such a vitriolic portrayal of the conquering Muslims, an early polemic Christian source in the form of a Coptic homily written within approximately a decade of the Prophet's death (640s CE) whilst strongly remaining critical of both the Jews and the 'Saracens' (Arab Muslims), confirms that they both fasted and prayed. This is despite the fact that the homily deemed other acts of the Saracens as 'ungodly'.  This source is much earlier than the Muslim sources and the unfounded assertions which place the 'alleged' invented practice of prayer as canonised around 787 CE.

     
The date of the Non-Muslim source (c. 640s CE) is within the time period after the Prophet's death where arguably many of the Prophet's closest contemporaries would still have been alive.

     

"As for us, my loved ones, let us fast and pray without cease, and observe the commandments of the Lord so that the blessing of all our Fathers who have pleased Him may come down upon us. Let us not fast like the God-killing Jews, nor fast like the Saracens who are oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying: "We both fast and pray."     [3]
         

Given that both fasting and praying was a revered act of worship for the Christians, there would have been no credible interest to invent such a claim on behalf of the 'Saracens' if it was not in fact an assertion made by the earliest Muslims and a practice they engaged in.

     

FINAL THOUGHTS:


There is clear evidence in the earliest Non-Muslim sources within approximately a decade of the Prophetic ministry which confirms that the earliest Muslims both prayed and fasted. There would be absolutely no perceivable interest for aggressed Christians to invent such Godly rituals and attribute them to the 'Saracens' (Arab Muslims) who they saw as oppressors.


There is absolutely no credible academic warrant or historical proof for the belief that ritual prayer was invented by later generations of Muslims in the late 8th century.


Furthermore, given the strong controversy amongst the earliest Muslims on many political and theological matters which has even given rise to much sectarian bloodshed, the requirement to fast and pray has always remained a bedrock belief amongst all practicing Muslims.





REFERENCES:



[1] AHMED, SHABBIR, Islam: The True History and False Beliefs, The Imamist Conspiracy of Namaaz, Page 146

Highlights marked in bold black are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.

With a view not to misrepresent Dr. Shabbir Ahmed's view on ritual prayers in any way whatsoever and who is not the primary focus of this article, please see his views in his own words in the link provided here [Accessed 29th July 2012] or in the PDF provided here.



[2] Whilst mainly carrying a negative nuance, the meaning of the term 'Saracens' has changed over a period of time. However, in the context of 7-8th century, it most likely referred to the new Muslims of Arabia. An 8th century polemical work by St. John Damascene, a Syrian monk and priest (born 600's CE) is known to criticise the 'Saracens' as following a false Prophet named Muhammad.

"...They are also called Saracens, which is derived from the destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ?Sara hath sent me away destitute.? These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khab?r, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy..."

     

DAMASCENE. ST. JOHN, Derived from a Translation by Rev. G.N. Warwick of the The Patristic Society, The Fount of Knowledge, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Page 40.

Highlights marked in bold black are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.


[3] HOYLAND. R. G, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam), Homily on the Child Saints of Babylon (640s)

Highlights marked in red are my own insertions. They have no bearing on the original text other than they emphasise relevance to the topic at hand. These are merely illustrations and have solely been utilised for educational and explanatory purposes.