What's new

Jashn-e-Sadeh - Long separated, Indian and Iranian Zartoshtis celebrate together - in Poona, India.

From Wiki .... as good or bad as PDF Iranians or Parsis I guess.

De-Iranianization

De-Iranianization is the process of removing the Persian identity of Iran. It started in earnest after the Islamic conquest of Persia. It got a re-invigorating jolt with the re-introduction of Islamic laws in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution.

According to one journalist who spent several years in Iran, "The Islamic system of government has deliberately erased much of what was Persian culture and it is only by looking hard that you can catch glimpses of the past."[1]

Amil Imani has asserted that the Islamic clergy of Iran are not Iranian[2] and are Islamofascists.

20th Century

Since the establishment of Islamic Republic, fundamentalists have initiated the policy of de-Iranianization of the Iran, by replacing the notion of Iranian Identity and Nationality with Islamic Identity, both inside and outside Iran. Imam Khomeini has emphasized this goal in several of his speeches, for example, on Dec 1980 (as published in Kayhan):

"Those who say that we want nationality, they are standing against Islam....We have no use for the nationalists. Moslems are useful for us. Islam is against nationality...."[3]
"These issues that exist among people that we are Iranian and what we need to do for Iran are not correct; these issues are not correct. This issue, which is perhaps being discussed everywhere, regarding paying attention to nation and nationality is nonsense in Islam and is against Islam. One of the things that the designers of Imperialism and their agents have promoted is the idea of nation and nationality."[4]
Mehdi Bazargan, the first Prime minister of Islamic Republic, once said: "Imam [Khomeini] wants Iran for Islam and we want Islam for Iran." Due to the commitment to Pan-Islamism inherent in Iranian Islamic revolutionary ideology, the Islamic Republic's attitude toward Sunni Islam is positive.[5]

In the outset of the Islamic Revolution, one of the most-notorious clerics in Iran, Sadeq Khalkhali known as the hanging judge,[6] who was renowned for his brutality and mass executions in post-revolutionary Iran, tried to destroy 2500-year-old Persepolis, and after that the mausoleum of Ferdowsi. He was stopped by the efforts of the locals.[7]

Defaming Cyrus the Great, Islamic fundlamentalist Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali wrote an article entitled "Kourosh-e Doroughin" (Impostor Cyrus) shortly after the revolution. In 2001, Nasser Pourpirar wrote two books entitled "Twelve centuries of silence" and "A bridge to past", claiming that the Sassanid empire and Parthian Empires never existed, and are the fabrications of Jewish and American orientalists.[8][17]

Arabic language
The Arabic language has been held in high esteem by the Islamic Republic from the beginning. Since early days of the Islamic Revolution, there has been an Arabic resurgence by the Islamic Regime in Iran. Most of the prominent members of the Islamic regime and clerics have caused a considerable number of new Arabic entering Persian.[9] Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the regime, made no secret of his contempt for Iranian culture and values, including the Persian language. From the early days of the revolution, he injected Persian with so many Arabic words that it confounded the ordinary listener, something for which he compensated by repetitiveness. But as popular as he was in those early days of the revolution, the public's backlash against his stance on pre-Islamic Iranian heritage.[10] Since then, the most detailed and explicit statement about Arabic was made by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani in 1981 in an important Sermon linking the fate of Persian language directly to that of Persian nationality: "both shall vanish as soon as Islamic unity is attained".[11]

Apart from high-ranking authorities of the regime, many minor agents of the Islamic Republic used any opportunities to attack Persian language and replace it with Arabic. According to one of these muslim extremists, Poorpirar: "It is very unfortunate that we can not put the Persian language aside and replace it with the language of Koran. However the future of Iran is at the hand of Islamic Unity. Spreading Arabic language among Iranian youths and incorporating it more seriously into the education system [...] can make a foundation for such Islamic Unity."[12] As an Islamic fundamentalist and a neoconservative political analyst who is infamous for his anti-Semitic, anti-Iranian and anti-Western rhetorical slogans, Pourpirar has praised Saddam Hussein and refered to him as the "Great Arab hero" and the "symbol of resistance."[13][14]According to some sources, Pourpirar is of Arab origin, whose parents were [raqi-Libiyan refugees who migrated to Iran. [15] In his earlier life, Pourpirar was closely involved with the Iranian Communist Party, which had close relations with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. After the Islamic Revolution, he joined with the revolutionaries. According to Alireza Nurizadeh, a renowned Iranian journalist based in the UK, Naser Pourpirar was an interrogator with the Islamic Revolutionary Courts before proclaiming himself as a scholar and historian. [16]


The tradition of banning names dates to the beginning of the Islamic Revolution in the early 1980s, when Iran's conservative leaders sought to purge the country of both Western culture and its own Persian, pre-Islamic past. Fundamentalists consider it unfortunate that Iranians used to be Zoroastrians, or that the ancient Persian empire achieved its greatest triumphs before Islam's arrival. To that end, they compiled a long list of forbidden names that included Zoroastrians gods and goddesses, commanders of ancient Persian armies, and other such tainted, best-forgotten figures. Indeed, Arabic names, except for a handful of Sunni villains, were fine. Persian ones, despite originating from the language actually spoken in Iran, had to be checked against the official list. Along the way, other politically inconvenient realities were fought on the baby name terrain. Wishing to quell an uprising by ethnically Kurdish Iranians in the north, the government banned Kurdish names. [17] Street names had changed from old Persian names to Arabic and Muslim names .This whole shift of the Iranian identity toward a more Islamic one created a kind of crisis.[18]


Iranian society on the other hand, identify itself as Iranian. In Iran-Iraq war for example, all Iranians irrespective of their religions and ethnic groups defended the country. Also in occasions where a conflict between nationality and religion occurs, Iranian will not put their nationality aside. For instance when Norouz and Ashura conincide, Shia Iranians celebrate the ancient Iranian celebration with other Iranians. Abdolkarim Soroush, foremost Iranian religious intellectual, once suggested to adapt the religion to Iranian culture by organizing Ashura and other Islamic festivals according to Iranian calendar instead of Islamic calendar to avoid conflicts between Iranian identity and religion. [19][20]


As the result of Islamic Regime's "de-Iranianization policy", the Iranian patriotism to the point of chauvinism has been on the rise. Pre-Islamic holidays are being celebrated with unprecedented fanfare. The Persian lexicon has turned into a bastion of nationalism. Numerous Persian synonyms have been invented (originated from the Old and the middle-Persian Pahlavi) to replace the most commonly used foreign words, primarily Arabic/Islamic ones; -To everyone's wonder, the new words have caught on.[21]


21st century
Following an order by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the fire festival has been banned by the regime since it is of Zoroastrian origins and is not Islamic. However, due to internal opposition, the government had to step back.[22]

Post-script: Incidentally this is the same Jashn-e-Sadeh that this thread is about.

Cheers, Doc
 
Last edited:
.
As usual most of us 'real Iranians' here are shaking our heads at the level of the shahi propaganda being pumped here online....... Lol........
 
. .
Does Zoroastrianism not accept converts? Or do they only accept them from "Iranic" peoples? Is it like a Jewish thing where it's considered an extension of national identity?
 
.
Does Zoroastrianism not accept converts? Or do they only accept them from "Iranic" peoples? Is it like a Jewish thing where it's considered an extension of national identity?

No converts.

Only Zoroastrian people. Which is a pretty big swathe, just Persians and Kurds.

Cheers, Doc
 
. . .
This is not an Iran or an Iranian thread.

This is a Zoroastrian thread.

Centered in India.

Iranians (real or false) trying to appropriate Sadeh as an Iranian festival is akin to Indian Muslims claiming Diwali is an Indian festival.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
Old Persian (sister of Sanskrit) and Middle Persian (Pahlavi) are considered the classical languages, along with Latin and Sanskrit.

Middle Persian officially died and was replaced by New Persian (Farsi) about 1200 years ago. Around 850 AD is the transition date generally agreed upon.

Pahlavi was the language of the last Persian empire.

Farsi originated not from Middle Persian but from Khorasan in the north east, much closer to Dari (Afghan Persian ... and the Persian Zoroastrian Iroons in India speak today).

Middle Persian was systematically killed by the Arabs for obvious reasons. There is terabytes of stuff on the net about how they went about doing it.

Farsi is what they propagated by state control. Think the Brits and what they did to India.

Tons of grammatical and syntax changes to mirror Arabic yet still be considered "Persian". And the injection of a huge number of Arabic words is what followed. And thus was born the Persian that is spoken by modern Iranians.

The recent Islamic Revolution was even more interesting as Khomeini went about and Arabized the language still more.

Overnight many words got added and internalized and mainstreamed. Amd many original ones were officially frowned upon, even banned.

Iran now has many generations of young kids who are carrying Arabic names. Many Persian names having been officially banned. Forgotten. Disappeared. Wiped out.

To the extent that hundreds of thousands of Iranian expats change their first names the moment they leave Iran. Taking on a Persian name as their first act of defiance in freedom.

This is the truth.

And this is not what Parsis are going to go back to after a thousand years of sacrifice.

Cheers, Doc

I say start middle persian renewal then? At least a healthy scholarly interest will go long way on both sides.

Or what do you think should be done to build these language bridges? After all people do not abandon/replace what they have learned as mother tongue so readily...whatever its context in history.
 
.
I say start middle persian renewal then? At least a healthy scholarly interest will go long way on both sides.

Or what do you think should be done to build these language bridges? After all people do not abandon/replace what they have learned as mother tongue so readily...whatever its context in history.

Its already happening around the world in mixed Parsi-Iroon families.

They speak a hodge podge of Dari and Gujarati.

Think Urdu.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
Does Zoroastrianism not accept converts? Or do they only accept them from "Iranic" peoples? Is it like a Jewish thing where it's considered an extension of national identity?

@Sher Shah Awan I tried to dig up some pieces that would give you in brief a more nuanced perspective on this hugely controversial subject for Parsis and Zoroastrians the world over. And help you better understand the subject beyond my very short earlier reply ... which was because I did not want to derail my own thread. However, in retrospect considering that these ceremonies are ow increasingly bringing Parsis, Iroons, Iranians and Kurds together over the past 5 plus years in various parts of the world, mainly by design, I thought that such might actually be pertinent to the thread. Both pieces will give you the views of both camps. However, as with most organized religions, it is the conservative and orthodox camp that controls things and makes the decisions that set the tone for the followers worldwide. And this camp is based in Bombay and Udvada in India.

CONVERSION TO ZOROASTRIANISM

The question of whether Zoroastrianism should allow converts is one of the most divisive and bitter issues facing the whole community. While other religions, such as Christianity and Islam, depend on converts to increase their numbers, Zoroastrianism has been, at least in recent centuries, strictly based on ethnicity. You have to be born a Zoroastrian in order to be one; you cannot enter into the faith from outside. But the question is continually asked: why must this be true? Can this policy be changed? And has this always been true in the long history of the faith? In this essay I will try to describe the many problems, arguments, and reasons on both sides of the question.

Can you convert to Zoroastrianism? The official answer, which is given by the Parsi priestly hierarchy in Bombay, and supported by a large number of traditional Zoroastrians, is NO. In order to be a Zoroastrian, you must be born of two Zoroastrian parents. One is not enough! No children of mixed marriages are officially Zoroastrian. In practice, however, the children of Zoroastrian fathers and non-Z. mothers are sometimes given admission to the faith - but not the children of Zoroastrian mothers and non-Z. fathers. Zoroastrian identity descends through the father's line, unlike Jewish identity, which is defined by the mother being Jewish.

Why has this rule against conversions come about? There are many levels of reasoning behind it. Conservatives who support the ban on conversions will cite philosophical, religious, political, social, and emotional reasons for it. Here are some of the arguments against conversion, which are commonly used by Zoroastrian traditionalists to justify their belief in the ethnic exclusivity of their faith.

The philosophical and religious reasons are represented by educated Zoroastrian conservatives. They say that all great religions are equally true, and that no one faith is better or more desirable than any other. All religions that lead to righteous and constructive actions are inspired by God, and will lead their good believers to a heavenly reward. Therefore there is no reason to choose one religion over another. These conservatives recommend that a spiritual searcher should seek within his/her own faith, without trying to adopt other religions. In this view, not only should there be no conversion to Zoroastrianism, but the need should not even arise. Christians should be good Christians, Muslims good Muslims, and Jews good Jews - without coveting the illusory benefits of someone else's faith.

A religious version of this argument claims that God Himself has placed everyone in his/her faith in a kind of religious destiny, and thus conversion is a disobedience against the God who has given you your specific religion. Many Zoroastrian traditionalists, especially Parsis, believe that the soul, which pre-exists birth into a material body, has chosen, in union with the will of God, to enter a specific religion. Attempting to convert is going against the true nature of one's own Soul. For traditionalists, conversion to Zoroastrianism is just short of blasphemy - an act of contempt for the God who has given you birth in a specific tradition. It is true, the traditionalists admit, that many of the great faiths were originally built on conversions from other religions, but these early, founding conversions are justified because they were done under the inspiration of a true Prophet - such as Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed. Once the era of the Prophet is gone, then conversions again become invalid, for only a divine Prophet has the authority to convert people.

This leads to the conclusion that hundreds of millions of people are worshiping invalidly, because their ancestors, without the benefit of a Prophet, chose an alien faith - whether willingly or because of coercion. This includes numerous Iranians, who were originally Zoroastrian but were converted to Islam. The conservatives, though they are aware of this, still maintain that even an Iranian Muslim whose Zoroastrian ancestors were forcibly converted to Islam cannot return to the faith of his/her fathers. God, and those individual souls, chose that particular birth, no matter what went on historically. History cannot be reversed. Only a divine Prophet can convert people back to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian traditionalists rely on their religious beliefs about a coming Savior - the _saoshyant_- as a final answer to the problem of conversion. When the Savior arrives (a Zoroastrian idea that pre-dated Jewish Messianism and may have inspired the Jewish idea of the Messiah) this divine man will have the authority to convert people. Zoroastrians then hope that all people will be converted to Zoroastrianism through the power of the Savior, who will appear at the End of Time.

Meanwhile, traditionalist Zoroastrians wait patiently and continue to oppose conversion to their ancient faith. The next reason they use to justify their opposition is political and cultural. When groups of Iranian pilgrims fled an oppressive Muslim regime in Iran in the 10th century AD, they came to Gujarat, a kingdom on the west coast of India. The Kisseh-i-Sanjan, an epic poem written by a 16th-century Parsi priest, documents the history of his people in India. According to the poem, the pilgrims negotiated with the rulers of Gujarat for safe haven there, and they worked out an agreement. The pilgrims were required to explain the tenets of their religion to the ruler; they were also to learn the local language and speak it rather than Persian. They were also required to adopt the dress of the area rather than wear Iranian garb, they were to celebrate their weddings in the evening rather than in the morning, and they were to put aside their weapons and not wear them at any time. Other traditions say that the Zoroastrian pilgrims were never to convert their Hindu or Muslim neighbors. This promise of non- conversion may not be documented in the poem or other surviving texts, but it is oral tradition, handed down in Zoroastrian culture for a thousand years and more. And the Parsis, as these pilgrims to India were called, have kept their promises. Thus the prohibition against conversion has a longstanding political background.

The social argument against conversion relies on the idea that Zoroastrianism is a strictly ethnic religion. In the traditionalists' historical view, Zarathushtra was not an innovator, but a reformer who practiced the priestly traditions of his ancient Indo-Iranian people. Zoroastrianism, then, does not break traditions, but continues them - reformed from polytheism to monotheism by the divinely inspired Prophet. And these traditions are from time immemorial the exclusive possession of a people known as Aryans. In the West, the term "Aryan" has been permanently discredited by its misuse by the Nazis, and the more neutral "Indo-Iranian" is preferred. For a conservative Zoroastrian, especially those with a more extreme outlook, only those who are Indo-Iranian Zoroastrian, with an unbroken lineage unmixed with any non-Zoroastrian heritage, can be true Zoroastrians.

Traditionalists regard Zoroastrianism as more than just a religion. It is an integral culture, which comprises not only faith and practice but an entire lifestyle: language, symbolism, law, clothing, calendar, festivals, food, family life, songs and literature, humor, history, etiquette, gestures, even interior decoration. This integral culture is learned from the earliest moments of life - transmitted from parents to children in an education that no school or sociological study could ever provide. In the traditionalist view, it is impossible to enter into this culture if you have not been born into it - you cannot learn as an adult things you should have learned along with your first steps and words. This culture, and the religion that goes with it, thus cannot be transferred. A non-Zoroastrian married to a Zoroastrian will always be at a loss to understand things his/her spouse takes for granted. And the non-Zoroastrian spouse will bring elements from his/her own culture that are alien to the Z. culture. It is better never to marry outside the culture, as conflict will always follow. The religion is a precious heirloom, which will only be misunderstood and adulterated by outsiders. In this view, intermarriage can only be seen as a threat, which will result in the dilution or even the extinction of the precious culture. And as Zoroastrians, both Iranian and Parsi, migrate away from their native countries, the immigrants are terrified, with good reason, that this heirloom culture will be swept away by the polluted ocean of "Western" culture which surrounds them. Modern culture is a deeply fearsome thing to many traditionalist Zoroastrians.

The third set of reasons that Zoroastrian traditionalists give for their opposition to conversion is emotional and psychological. Zoroastrianism, ever since the Muslim conquest of Iran, has been a minority religion. It has been persecuted in Iran for centuries. Even in India, where the Parsis lived more or less undisturbed by their hosts, the Zoroastrians have always remained separate from the majority. The main reason why these minorities have been able to survive through the centuries is because their religion gives them strength. Zoroastrianism has been the coherent core of the people, the rallying point that keeps them going through hard times, poverty, and persecution. Why, then, should it be given away to those who have not earned it, not suffered through the long years of trial? It would mean nothing to an outsider. And so conversion becomes meaningless, or even an insult.

There seems to be a series of good arguments for banning conversion to Zoroastrianism. The trouble is that the number of "true" Zoroastrians continues to decrease. There are many reasons for this: a low birth rate, economic problems, the difficulty of finding qualified mates and raising families with a high standard of living, emigration, intermarriage, and simple apathy or ignorance of the faith. The resistance to any religious change has alienated many Zoroastrians, who question ancient laws and practices that they say were appropriate for the agrarian society of the past but have no relevance in a modern, technological world. If Zoroastrianism does not accept converts, say these questioners, it risks going the way of near-extinct sects such as the Shakers, whose inflexible practices (in the case of the Shakers, maintenance of celibacy and thus non- procreation) made it impossible to continue as a group.

It must be added that most of the anti-conversion sentiment in the Zoroastrian world comes from the Indian Parsis. Iranian Zoroastrians are much more likely to accept converts, marriages to non-Zoroastrians (who are then welcomed into the community) and people of mixed ancestry. The problems with conversion in Iran are mainly political: converting someone away from Islam is an offense against the Islamic Republic and may be seriously penalized. Therefore, conversions in Iran are done very quietly.

What arguments do the "liberal" Zoroastrians use to counter the conservatives? The liberal reformists claim documented history as their strongest argument in favor of conversion. According to the scriptures of Zoroastrianism, which range from the original Gathas of Zarathushtra to doctrinal works written in medieval times, conversion has not only been mentioned but accepted as a practice throughout the long history of the religion.

There are many passages in the original hymns of Zarathushtra, the Gathas, where the Prophet explicitly claims a mission to convert all people - not just Indo-Iranians. References to conversion occur throughout the Avesta and even in the latest book of the Avesta, written about 200-400 AD, the Vendidad. Scholars both Western and Zoroastrian have written extensively on the spread of Zoroastrianism to Armenia, Central Asia, and as far east as China; other historical texts and archaeological studies prove that Zoroastrianism had spread, through Persian traders, as far west as Asia Minor, Syria, and possibly even Eastern Europe. In lands bordering Iran, many people became Zoroastrians who were not of Indo-Iranian ethnicity. Even after the Islamic conquest, Zoroastrianism was still open to converts, especially servants in Zoroastrian homes who were adopted into the faith by their employers. The strict ban on conversion only dates from the nineteenth century AD.

The textual and historical evidence provide a strong and convincing argument for conversion to Zoroastrianism. The traditionalists, faced with Zarathushtra's clear references to converting all people, including non-Indo-Iranians, can only respond with the counter-argument that it is the TEACHINGS and IDEASof the Prophet that are intended for the whole world, while the RELIGION and its rituals belong only to the Indo-Iranian people. In other words, everyone can be inspired by Zarathushtra's holy words, but only pure-bred Indo-Iranians can practice the actual religion of Zarathushtra. Another variant of this argument is that Zarathushtra's references to a "universal" conversion only refer to a MORAL conversion from wrong-doing to right action, rather than a RELIGIOUS conversion from one faith to another. The more extreme traditionalists discount any conclusions or evidence provided by Western scholarship, regarding all Western interpretations of the Avesta scriptures as misguided, irreligious, and devoid of spiritual insight. Thus the Gathas, when considered as a separate text, are regarded by these traditionalists as a scholarly reconstruction, imposed by Western colonialists. For these extreme traditionalists, the entire Avesta, not just the Gathas, are the words of the Prophet, given by God, and its interpretation must be done in a spiritual and sometimes mystical fashion.

The "liberal" Zoroastrians are inspired by the text of the Gathas, which they regard as the only surviving words of the Prophet, and the primary text of the faith. They view Zarathushtra as a great innovator, rather than a reformer of a previous tradition. In the Gathas there is no mention of elaborate mythology, sacred time-schedules, coming Messiahs, Indo-Iranian exclusivity, priestly laws, or strict religious and ritual practices. The tone of the Gathas is philosophical, abstract, and ethical. The rituals, myths, and practices that the traditionalists are so intent on keeping, say the liberals, were DISCONTINUED by Zarathushtra, who never wanted them. It was only later that these religious and social elements were re-introduced into the religion. Therefore, say the reformers, there should be no objection to converting to Zoroastrianism, because the exclusive religious privileges of the Indo-Iranian people were never intended by Zarathushtra.

Source: http://www.pyracantha.com/Z/convertz.html

Hope this helps. Do feel free to ask me anything else you want to know.

Cheers, Doc
 
Last edited:
.
@padamchen fascinating read, thanks for posting that.

I am wondering, going by the strict conservative rules....would people in Iran have to take DNA test or something like that before conversion/reversion to zoroastrian faith?

Given the stuff like if non-Z father (say arab or turkic/azeri etc) has kids with Z-woman...all the children are basically non-Z (and I would assume that continues down the family tree as default from then on...to all descendants today etc). Basically how would all that work out today? Or in greater interests... as long as the person is some majority percentage Persian ethnicity....count as blank slate regarding his/her exact lineage (i.e assumed pure/true persian capable of having the zoroastrian soul etc?)
 
.
@padamchen fascinating read, thanks for posting that.

I am wondering, going by the strict conservative rules....would people in Iran have to take DNA test or something like that before conversion/reversion to zoroastrian faith?

Given the stuff like if non-Z father (say arab or turkic/azeri etc) has kids with Z-woman...all the children are basically non-Z (and I would assume that continues down the family tree as default from then on...to all descendants today etc). Basically how would all that work out today? Or in greater interests... as long as the person is some majority percentage Persian ethnicity....count as blank slate regarding his/her exact lineage (i.e assumed pure/true persian capable of having the zoroastrian soul etc?)

You make a good point, and of course there will be no genetic tests. There are none today as well. Zoroastrianism is a religion that has been ravaged thrice (Greeks, Arabs, Mongols). And has its roots systematically destroyed. Burned. Killed. Smashed. Driven out. Yet it survived. From father to son. Mother to daughter. By word of mouth. By traditions. By rituals. By strict laws.

It would have been the easiest thing in the world to get assimilated into a continent sized populace and internalized into the parent resudent theology like the Jats. 4-5 generations and we would have been Hindu.

Its not the same for our brothers in Iran. And why they are more open to inter-marrying and converting. Because even with the alien genetic onslaught and inter-marrying, the bulk of that populace has always been Persian. Watered down some over the past millennium.

Think India and how we laugh at Indian and Pakistani Muslims when every second one claims Arab or Persian or Turk ancestry.

This is in reverse in the other side.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
You make a good point, and of course there will be no genetic tests. There are none today as well. Zoroastrianism is a religion that has been ravaged thrice (Greeks, Arabs, Mongols). And has its roots systematically destroyed. Burned. Killed. Smashed. Driven out. Yet it survived. From father to son. Mother to daughter. By word of mouth. By traditions. By rituals. By strict laws.

It would have been the easiest thing in the world to get assimilated into a continent sized populace and internalized into the parent resudent theology like the Jats. 4-5 generations and we would have been Hindu.

Its not the same for our brothers in Iran. And why they are more open to inter-marrying and converting. Because even with the alien genetic onslaught and inter-marrying, the bulk of that populace has always been Persian. Watered down some over the past millennium.

Think India and how we laugh at Indian and Pakistani Muslims when every second one claims Arab or Persian or Turk ancestry.

This is in reverse in the other side.

Cheers, Doc

Yeah I get all of that. Just wondering what specific reversion norms (if any) are in play for conservative zoros (organising, officiating, sanctifying etc) when it comes to Iranians (for conservative zoros to recognise them as such). Like I guess you would say no to Azeris right off the bat (and I guess for any other minorities that live inside Iran but do not identify as Persian etc).

But for rest of Iranians (and I think you mention Kurds too) be they located inside Iran physically or outside of it....would conservative zoros be fine with them identifying to their original Persian heritage...rather than go through the genetic argument/litmus test?

Or is there some consensus with the more liberal zoros who go through the Gatha-interpretation argument etc?

What presence do the conservative zoros have vis-a-vis the liberal zoros in the clergy?...and is any clergy institution seen as final word on the issue by most Zoros?
 
.
Yeah I get all of that. Just wondering what specific reversion norms (if any) are in play for conservative zoros (organising, officiating, sanctifying etc) when it comes to Iranians (for conservative zoros to recognise them as such). Like I guess you would say no to Azeris right off the bat (and I guess for any other minorities that live inside Iran but do not identify as Persian etc).

But for rest of Iranians (and I think you mention Kurds too) be they located inside Iran physically or outside of it....would conservative zoros be fine with them identifying to their original Persian heritage...rather than go through the genetic argument/litmus test?

Or is there some consensus with the more liberal zoros who go through the Gatha-interpretation argument etc?

What presence do the conservative zoros have vis-a-vis the liberal zoros in the clergy?...and is any clergy institution seen as final word on the issue by most Zoros?

There are many shades between the two extremes of conservative orthodox birthers and liberal flower child neo-zoroastrians.

The clergy is very very orthodox. Within it are some liberal mavericks. Who go forth and do Navjotes if those of mixed blood based on pressure, affluence, personal requests, etc. Think the sagas of the Tatas, the Wadias, the Petits. These are a tiny minority. Both the renegade priests and controversial Navjotes.

Next, Azeris. They are as Zoroastrian as us. Or the Kurds. Azerbaijan is the Land of Fire!

Left to the high priests, no non birthers can be a Zoroastrian.

But the rest of us, even those leaning more to conservative than liberal, like me, recognize that we will go extinct on that path.

I have always believed that Iranian Persians can be reverted no question. Over the past decade, and increasingly over the past 5 years, we have expanded that and started allowing back people who come from traditionally Zoroastrian populations. What started in pockets of the Central Asian states, soon grew into a flood with the Yazidis and the Kurds with the ISIS.

A large part of world Zoroastrians would be comfortable accepting into the faith kids born of one birthers and one traditional Zoroastrian non-birther. These would be by individual vcase by case Navjotes.

But in the end, the final decision at a large population scale doctrinal shift will have to come from Bombay and Udvada.

Who even the Iranian priests come under.

Essentially, our Vatican.

Cheers, Doc
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom