India’s vanishing Parsis

[INDIC]

Nope you are new here.

They were never Indian.

Harappan. Then they went under for a few millenia with the Saraswati.

Then came back from the cryogenic freeze. As Muslims.

The other day I was talking to Iranians, they never demonized their last Zoroastrian king and never labeled Arabs as liberator unlike Pakistanis version of demonizing Raja Dahir and glorifying Muhammad Bin Qasim.

 

[vsdoc]

Their (and our) last Zoroastrian king was not the brightest or the bravest.

There is no way a Persian army could otherwise have fallen to bedouin hordes.

 

[livingdead]

I dont necessarily think converting to zorastrianism will make iranians any better, there will be a new clergy class which will persecute the muslims and bahais left.
A secular modern democracy is the only way forward in Iran.
Ontopic: Parsis should accept those who want to convert on their own will especially after marriage. They might not give them the benefits (so as to deter opportunists) for the same generation.
Such a small community with limited gene pool is inviting trouble if it does not allow marrying outsiders. (for both men and women)

 

[funtoosh]

Their (and our) last Zoroastrian king was not the brightest or the bravest.

There is no way a Persian army could otherwise have fallen to bedouin hordes.

well the shelf life of empires is usually for a few centuries. the persians had their day in the sun, and were already waning when overrun by muslim barbarians. same with india. the muslims had their day in the sun, turkey and india, until the white man conquered them.
now the white man has been ruling roost for a few hundred years and will continue to do so for a couple of more hundred. but i feel they will soon be outbred and will fall behind. let s see

 

[angeldust]

well the shelf life of empires is usually for a few centuries. the persians had their day in the sun, and were already waning when overrun by muslim barbarians. same with india. the muslims had their day in the sun, turkey and india, until the white man conquered them.
now the white man has been ruling roost for a few hundred years and will continue to do so for a couple of more hundred. but i feel they will soon be outbred and will fall behind. let s see

The Zoroastrians or the Hindus did not have a "shelf life" of a few centuries. Try millenia.

 

[funtoosh]

The Zoroastrians or the Hindus did not have a "shelf life" of a few centuries. Try millenia.

no but their empires never existed in the name of religion. they were more tied to ethnicity/linguism. right?

 

[angeldust]

I dont necessarily think converting to zorastrianism will make iranians any better, there will be a new clergy class which will persecute the muslims and bahais left.

You are welcome to your opinion. The Iranians deserve to worship who they believe in. Not who they are forced to. For a millenium.

They gave the world the oldest monotheistic faith. Yet today they worship a faith of the invader. En masse.

A faith which took from the Christians. Who in turn took from the Jews. Who in turn took from the Zoroastrians, the Mazdayasnis, and the Mithraists.

Can you appreciate the irony?

Ontopic: Parsis should accept those who want to convert on their own will especially after marriage. They might not give them the benefits (so as to deter opportunists) for the same generation.
Such a small community with limited gene pool is inviting trouble if it does not allow marrying outsiders. (for both men and women)

If the Parsis inter-marry and accept converts, then within a few generations they do not remain Parsi. They die as a people anyways. So that is not a solution. Not even for the liberals.

no but their empires never existed in the name of religion. they were more tied to ethnicity/linguism. right?

Not at all. King Vishtasp was the first Persian Emperor to accept Zoroastrianism as the state religion during the life of Zarathushtra. And every Persian from then onward.

That is also how the Greater Persian Empire spread way beyond what is today's Iran, as a Zoroastrian empire.

You cannot split Zoroastrianism from Persians anymore than you can split Hindusim from Indians.

 

[funtoosh]

You are welcome to your opinion. The Iranians deserve to worship who they believe in. Not who they are forced to. For a millenium.

They gave the world the oldest monotheistic faith. Yet today they worship a faith of the invader. En masse.

A faith which took from the Christians. Who in turn took from the Jews. Who in turn took from the Zoroastrians, the Mazdayasnis, and the Mithraists.

Can you appreciate the irony?



If the Parsis inter-marry and accept converts, then within a few generations they do not remain Parsi. They die as a people anyways. So that is not a solution. Not even for the liberals.



Not at all. King Vishtasp was the first Persian Emperor to accept Zoroastrianism as the state religion during the life of Zarathushtra. And every Persian from then onward.

That is also how the Greater Persian Empire spread way beyond what is today's Iran, as a Zoroastrian empire.

You cannot split Zoroastrianism from Persians anymore than you can split Hindusim from Indians.

i see.. thanks

 

[Armstrong]

Their (and our) last Zoroastrian king was not the brightest or the bravest.

There is no way a Persian army could otherwise have fallen to bedouin hordes.

Yaaar rulllai ga kiyaaa ?

P.S the Caliph in Baghdad (that old sob) thought the same...guess what Genghis didn't agree !

 

[livingdead]

You are welcome to your opinion. The Iranians deserve to worship who they believe in. Not who they are forced to. For a millenium.

They gave the world the oldest monotheistic faith. Yet today they worship a faith of the invader. En masse.

A faith which took from the Christians. Who in turn took from the Jews. Who in turn took from the Zoroastrians, the Mazdayasnis, and the Mithraists.

Can you appreciate the irony?



If the Parsis inter-marry and accept converts, then within a few generations they do not remain Parsi. They die as a people anyways. So that is not a solution. Not even for the liberals.



Not at all. King Vishtasp was the first Persian Emperor to accept Zoroastrianism as the state religion during the life of Zarathushtra. And every Persian from then onward.

That is also how the Greater Persian Empire spread way beyond what is today's Iran, as a Zoroastrian empire.

You cannot split Zoroastrianism from Persians anymore than you can split Hindusim from Indians.

I will leave it on individual iranian to decide which is better for them. The invasion happened long time ago. I was just pointing to wishful thinking that sudden conversion of masses of iranians to zorastrianism will change anything for better unless the political structure is changed. I dont consider shia islam as inherently evil.
Even zorastianism started by converting some people from some primitive religion.( I guess?). Why the fact that it was not done by force be deciding factor while selecting the merits of having a specific religion. (in today's iran)

 

[vsdoc]

Yaaar rulllai ga kiyaaa ?

P.S the Caliph in Baghdad (that old sob) thought the same...guess what Genghis didn't agree !

Agree. Not everything that happened was down to just one man.

 

[Armstrong]

If the Parsis inter-marry and accept converts, then within a few generations they do not remain Parsi. They die as a people anyways. So that is not a solution. Not even for the liberals.

So its a racial thing entwined with religion ? Call me meddlesome but I do have a vivid recollection of reading an excerpt from the Avestas (was it ?) in which the Prophet Zoroaster said (and I'm paraphrasing of course for it was a long time ago !) : What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal is true law. - Shouldn't that in a way imply that conversions should be encouraged for the 'truth' or that which is 'good' - the message, should be given to all !

P.S Many Muslims consider Zoroaster a Prophet of the One God that you call Ahura Mazda and we Allah - the One !

 

[vsdoc]

I will leave it on individual iranian to decide which is better for them. The invasion happened long time ago. I was just pointing to wishful thinking that sudden conversion of masses of iranians to zorastrianism will change anything for better unless the political structure is changed. I dont consider shia islam as inherently evil.
Even zorastianism started by converting some people from some primitive religion.( I guess?). Why the fact that it was not done by force has any deciding factor while selecting the merits of having a specific religion. (in today's iran)

You need to read up on the history of Zoroastrianism and ancient Persian theology before commenting. Zoroastrianism grew and evolved out of ancient Persian faiths as Hinduism did out of ancient Vedic faiths.

Islam is as foreign to Iran as it is to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

[Armstrong]

You need to read up on the history of Zoroastrianism and ancient Persian theology before commenting. Zoroastrianism grew and evolved out of ancient Persian faiths as Hinduism did out of ancient Vedic faiths.

Islam is as foreign to Iran as it is to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Islam in its present form - Yes ! But Islam maintains that it is a continuation of the same message that was given by the One God to all Nations and Tribes before the message got corrupted by the People themselves. *dunno whether this from a scholarly point of view can be substantiated*

 

[vsdoc]

So its a racial thing entwined with religion ? Call me meddlesome but I do have a vivid recollection of reading an excerpt from the Avestas (was it ?) in which the Prophet Zoroaster said (and I'm paraphrasing of course for it was a long time ago !) : What I hold good for self, I should for all. Only Law Universal is true law. - Shouldn't that in a way imply that conversions should be encouraged for the 'truth' or that which is 'good' - the message, should be given to all !

P.S Many Muslims consider Zoroaster a Prophet of the One God that you call Ahura Mazda and we Allah - the One !

Armstrong, the Parsis are a community, not a religion per se. We are Zoroastrian, but not all Zoroastrians are Parsis.

I guess what angeldust is saying is that the Parsis do not worry about the survival of the faith any longer. We weathered that storm and helped Iranian Zoroastrians emerge and regain some sort of footing in Islamic Iran.

But if we convert, if we inter-marry, then we dilute our bloodlines, and very quickly, because of the impossibly small denominator base, we get engulfed by the dominant bloodlines and then what do we have?

We loose what we are in trying to save what we are.