Since the period when Islam began to spread in the Iranian geography, polemics have been experienced between Zoroastrians and Muslims around the beliefs of creation, destiny, doomsday and the hereafter, and even polemical works have been written in this manner. Šāyest Nē Šāyest, Zand ī Wahman Yasn, Škand Gumānīg Wizār and ʿOlamā-ye Eslām texts, and the epistles of Zādspram and Manušcihr are the main polemical works written by Zoroastrian religious men. It is seen that different subjects in these works are handled in the Muslim theology/Kalam. However, Muslim theology/Kalam is rather weak on destiny/qadar which is one of the main themes that connects the topics discussed, because the mutakallims could not find almost any common ground on the issue of God-human relationship. Since “evil” is associated with Ahriman in Zoroastrian classics, it is not very common to find a narrative that directly emphasizes the belief in destiny; the idea of destiny is mostly seen in anecdotes. However, it is an important problem that the “good” God prevents everyone from being well by not destroying Ahriman. Probably as a solution to this problem, the theories of universal destiny and prophethood were defended. There is no Ahura Mazda against Ahriman, but reason and faith. Therefore, it gives some room for human freedom. When we examine the concept of destiny in Muslim theology by focusing on the concepts of goodness and evil and the source of evil, we see a polemic between the Mu’tazila and the Ahl al-sunna. The parties of this polemic accused each other of being “Majūs/Magūs”. However, Ahl al-sunna mutakallims, who likened Mu’tazila to Magus because they thought that the source of evil could not be God, stand closer to Zoroastrian doctrine with the arguments they developed to defend their fatalistic attitudes. In order to follow the scientific development of Muslim culture with the Zoroastrian doctrine of destiny, it is necessary to examine the ʿOlamā-ye Eslām texts. There are two versions of the text called ʿOlamā-ye Eslām, which is a response to Muslim scholars. In both versions, the main theme is creation, Ahriman (good-evil) and resurrection; but only the first 18 paragraphs are parallel to each other. In one version of the text, “the creator of good does not destroy the creator of evil”, and in the other version, the reason for Ahura Mazda’s creation of Ahriman is briefly discussed. These sections form the basis of our research. This paper deals with the ʿOlamā-ye Eslām epistles and polemics in the context of the issue of destiny. In addition, the closeness and connection of the polemic among the mutakallims with the Zoroastrian texts is discussed over these epistles.
Bir yanıt yazın