Rishsafide Baba

The kamarkassa may (or, indeed, may NOT) have been adopted by a 17th century Indian warlord for himself and his followers, but it's wrong to revise history through the lens of his beliefs.

The kamarband is and was a fundamental of Zoroastrianism and was also a basic item of clothing (a belt worn outside the clothes) in Islamic Iran. The Sikh tradition, after adopting this item very recently, is no authority on the origins of this item of clothing.

I have the wax cylinder

Bahadur, the Shia clerics that opposed Khomieni's theocratic state are very similar to these Jews who oppose the Zionists.

Think about it for a minute.

These Jews (who although are against the Zionists) are not against the concept of an Israeli nation for the Jews. They just beleive that the Jewish nation will have to be established by the future Jewish Massiah who will also build they 3rd temple of Jerusalam and the state will be run according to the Jewish Law and traditions. They are opposed to these moderate clean shaven type Jewish zionists which is why you can see him repeatedly telling the zionist in that video of why he doesn't have his head covered, as a practicing Jew should.

Similarly the Mullahs who opposed Khomeini were not against a Shia theocratic nation. They just beleived that Imam Mahdi will come and establish it and rule it according to the "divine" Islamic Sharia law. While Khomeini and his supporters like the Zionists oppose their co religionists who do not support their man made states.

The situations are not the same and you have not correctly identified the crux of the disagreement of the jurists regarding V-e-F. Only the Imam can be the ruler, under Velayat-e-Faqih. The Supreme Leader is the caretaker/guardian jurist who prepares the State for the reappearance of the Imam, who will take it over. Furthermore the reappearance of Imam is different to the Jews' Messiah, because in Shia doctrine the Imam is already here whereas the Jews believe their Messiah is not yet here.

Read the article again:

According to the new analysis, published in today's issue of the journal Nature, the two skeletons are around the same age: about 40,000 years old. E.g the cremated one and the buried one.

If the new theory is correct, that would mean that one group practised ritual burial and the other group cremated their dead. So it follows that according to their respective belief systems, they each considered the other group to be dealing with their dead the wrong way.

What's relevant for us here is that there was a group practising ritual burial at least 40000 years ago - ritual burial implies a host of accompanying beliefs including a belief in the afterlife. If they did not have a writing system, their belief system must have originated out of the utterances of an orator they considered authoritative i.e. a prophet.

Whether people bury, burn, etc. All of it ends up as dust.

If you consider that the dead body will not be raised again but that something coming out of it at the moment of death will be incarnated again into some other creature, then the corpse has much less importance for you and you are not likely to go to the trouble of a ritual burial. You are more likely to cremate the corpse.

The Quran claims that each and every people throughout time had a prophet to bring them to Islam. This raises the question then where are these proto-Islams amongst all the peoples of the world? There are none. Few belief systems outside the Middle East before Mohammed shared perhaps 10-20% of what Islam teaches and some even had less than 5% of Islam's teachings. So the question arises then that Allah is clearly not telling the truth to Mohammed in the Quran. Quite apart from the fact that before the semitic religions started about 6,000 years ago there is over 200,000 years of Homo Sapien existence as well as over 3 million of Humanoid existence, where there is no trace of a prophet preaching this proto-Islam.

Preliterate humanity practised ritual burial, reflecting a belief in the afterlife:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s788032.htm

This implies an oral tradition carrying the shared beliefs of a community. Where there is an oral tradition there must have been an original utterance, meaning that there had to have been a prophet (at least 40000 years ago) who the people considered authoritative.