Why did Zoroastrianism die out?

[Strategos' Risk]

As I understood it, the religion was quite influential on many Middle Eastern faiths. Its stronghold (in the sense that India is the stronghold of Hinduism) was conquered by the Muslims, who brought Islam, and so it fell to the wayside.

But why was that the end of it? Yes, dualism is present in all of the Abrahamic faiths, but why did the Abrahamic faiths triumph whilst Zoroastrianism disappeared, only to surface in some pseudo-Gnostic sects such as the Cathars, the Druze, and so on?

[Thermopylae]

Actually, it has continued to exist since its foundation. Repressed, but never dead.

[Max Sinister]

It's not dead, yes, but if you asked me why they declined: Probably because the idea "The good is stronger than the evil and will win at the end" appeals more to people than "good and evil are equally strong, and equilibrium is best".

[Ran Exilis]

Well, in my opinion, Zoroastrianism went in decline because of several factors: 1) its heartland was conquered by the Muslims at a time that the Sassanid Empire was in chaos and exceptionally weak.

2) IIRC there were quite a lot of Zoroastrian sects that challenged the authority of the Magi and the doctrines of the official version of Zoroastrianism when the Muslims conquered Persia, making it harder for the Zoroastrians to stand united againest the new influence of Islam.

3) it was too much of an ethnic religion; IIRC being of Iranian stock is considered to be just as important as living a virtuous life.

...but when it comes to those doctrinal issues, Leo knows and can explain these things far better than I can.

..
However, it is noteworthy that Zoroastrianism remained the religion of the majority of the Iranian people for at least 2 centuries after the Muslim conquest, and that some areas of Iran (like Tabarestan in northwestern Iran) retained a Zoroastrian majority until propably the 12th century, along with propably large numbers of Zoroastrians existing in Central Asia prior to Timur Lenk, and there is some evidence for a Zoroastrian revival during Mongol times.

...and things may have turned out different if the Zoroastrians would have had some independant nation or empire where the religion could survive and thrive, but the Zoroastrians had nobody to fight for them after the fall of the Sassanid Empire, and in my opinion that is the main reason why they are so few in numbers these days.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

It's not dead, yes, but if you asked me why they declined: Probably because the idea "The good is stronger than the evil and will win at the end" appeals more to people than "good and evil are equally strong, and equilibrium is best".

That's not exactly the case - Good (Ahura Mazda) will eventually triumph and time will end.

I think it may not have triumphed because AM is has no gender. People like gods with gender.

[Calgacus]

I thought I read a while back that Zoroastrians don't accept converts to their religion - is that the case? Is it even that kind of religion (where one is officially a member)?

[Strategos' Risk]

3) it was too much of an ethnic religion; IIRC being of Iranian stock is considered to be just as important as living a virtuous life.

Really? If that's the case, then I can easily see why it eventually declined and all but died out. Ethnic-based religions are no match for more universal ones. Even if you consider Islam a very culturally Arabic religion, Christianity a very culturally European religion, and Hinduism a very culturally Indian religion, none of these are exclusively based on being of a certain ethnicity, race, or culture.

Judaism doesn't count. Judaism will live forever.

However, I guess Zoroastrianism could have been expanded and lived on should it had been adapted to be more universal (which it was much already, since its core idea was dualism). And it did, in that it spawned movements like Catharism. I'm trying to figure out if Manicheanism could be considered a heresy or a subset of the dualistic faith.

I suppose if the Albigensian Crusade had lost, Zoroastrianism could have survived and flourished (albeit in a Christianized form) in France or Spain. Just get the Muslims to protect the Cathars.

[Ran Exilis]

I found a thread in which Leo carefully explained the whole issue of Zoroastrianism and converts, etc.

http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=900862&#post900862

[ninebucks]

That's not exactly the case - Good (Ahura Mazda) will eventually triumph and time will end.

I think it may not have triumphed because AM is has no gender. People like gods with gender.

Neither does Allah. Islamic credance insists that Allah should not ever be anthropomorphicised in any way whatsoever.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Neither does Allah. Islamic credance insists that Allah should not ever be anthropomorphicised in any way whatsoever.

Hmm. Turkish doesn't have either grammatical gender or gender pronouns, so Allah is just Allah, but Arabic does, so Leo would be best to answer this - I'm pretty sure he's a he.

[Leo Caesius]

Hmm. Turkish doesn't have either grammatical gender or gender pronouns, so Allah is just Allah, but Arabic does, so Leo would be best to answer this - I'm pretty sure he's a he.Well, Allah happens to be one of those funny words that looks feminine but is actually masculine. All of his referents are clearly masculine (the 99 names are all masculine rather than feminine forms, for example). But it is indeed the case that you're not supposed to anthropomorphize him.

Manichaeism was designed to appear to be a heretical form of whichever religion was predominant in the lands where it spread. At first glance, this sounds like a bad idea, but in Mani's day the term haeresis (the origin of our word "heresy") merely meant a school of thought, and such schools of thought were rather plentiful. A Manichaean in Iran would appear to be a heterodox Zoroastrian, whereas a Manichaean in North Africa would appear to be some kind of heretical Christian. For this reason, I don't think that you can legitimately consider it to be a heretical form of anything. If anything, Manichaeism had its origins among the Gnostic baptizing sects in the marshes of what is today southern Iraq, where Mani was raised, and is therefore a Mandaean heresy.

Another problem with Zoroastrianism is that it was an extremely hierarchical religion, with priesthood restricted to certain families, and so forth. If you get rid of the state that supports this hierarchy, the religion is plunged into chaos. Furthermore, Islam incorporated many facets of Zoroastrianism - praying five times a day, unimpeachable standards of purity (particularly for rituals), theological facets such as eschatology - and to the average Zoroastrian in the 7th century, Islam must have appeared to be a kind of Arabized "Protestant" version of their own religion. Ironically, however, today's Iranians appear to be in the process of reestablishing the religious hierarchy of their Sasanian forebears.

There's a guy here in New York who converted to Zoroastrianism - he runs the website avesta.org - and, as I understand it, the Zoroastrians of Iran are willing to countenance conversion, whereas those in India are not.

[Strategos' Risk]

Hm. I'm trying to figure out which of the dualist, pseudo-Gnostic, or Western polytheistic religions could have survived.

The last one I'm ignoring for this thread, and since Sol Invictus and Mithraism were both elitist mystery religions, they probably couldn't have survived by much

Zoroastrianism is what we're dealing with in this thread, specifically. It's the biggest of the non-Abrahamic dualist religions, after all.

As far as pseudo-Gnostic religions go, I figure that most of them were too incoherent, fraught with internal divisions, or simply too Gnostic (and thus secretive) to be popular, aside from popular movements such as the Bogomils.

I'm still interested in the idea of the Cathars managing to carve out their own zone in Europe. But they'd have to get protection, probably from the Muslims.

[Fabilius]

I'm still interested in the idea of the Cathars managing to carve out their own zone in Europe. But they'd have to get protection, probably from the Muslims.

Cathar Spain?

[trajen777]

Zorasterism is the major $$ people of India – when the Muslims begin to prosecute / exterminate the Persian Zorasterians many fled to India where they became very influential in Banking and Industry. The largest company in India is Tata which is a Zoroastrian family business...

I believe you need to be born into the religion and cannot become a convert. On a plane I sat next to a VP from Tata who explained the entire expulsion from Persia and the rules of Zorasterism. This is what I remember from the conversation