WI: Mohammed converts to Zoroastrianism

I PMed Leo about an idea that crossed my mind, a WI involving the conversion of Mohammed to Zoroastrianism. Being aware of the non-proselyte character of orthodox Zoroastrianism, I asked for suggestions on how to bypass the problem. Here's his answer:

It would probably be something like Manichaeism, steeped as Muhammad was in Judeo-Christian culture. His wetnurse was an Ethiopian, his wife flirted with Christianity, his business partners were Jews... but only after he has his vision does he associate directly with Zoroastrians. The problem with Zoroastrianism at this point in time is that it has a hereditary priesthood (I suppose that's the problem with Judaism as well, come to think of it), the Magians, and they zealously guard their power... so the result would have to be a completely reformed form of Zoroastrianism with marked Christian and Jewish elements - very similar, indeed, to Islam today. The major difference, I think, would be more of a dependence upon Zoroastrian scriptures like the Avesta and so on, and the express recognition of Zardosht as a divinely-inspired prophet of God (who would no doubt be called Ohrmazd or Hermiz).

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. So, in this TL Mohammed doesn't invent a religion from the ground up but instead starts spreading a modified, syncretic version of Persian Zoroastrianism. Where do we go from here?

Take a timeline of OTL and replace all references to islam and replace it with zoroastrianism.

No, Straha, I don't think it's that easy.

Hm, maybe the new religion would be to Zoroastrianism what Christianity is to Judaism: Less laws, priesthood not heriditary, some cosmetic changes, some things simplified, and so on.

Straha said:

Take a timeline of OTL and replace all references to islam and replace it with zoroastrianism.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily…(in fact, probably not)
I imagine that this would have quite an effect on the Caliphate when it gets formed (if it gets formed, might just end up with A Greater Persian Empire with an Arab Dynasty and Reformed religion)

Max Sinister said:

Hm, maybe the new religion would be to Zoroastrianism what Christianity is to Judaism: Less laws, priesthood not heriditary, some cosmetic changes, some things simplified, and so on.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean that it would have this relation initially; given Christianity's performance OTL, if it continues the parallel it will end up with a much larger and less consistent body of law, a much less accessible clergy, and a variety of complicating dogmatic schisms.

Forum Lurker said:

I assume you mean that it would have this relation initially; given Christianity's performance OTL, if it continues the parallel it will end up with a much larger and less consistent body of law, a much less accessible clergy, and a variety of complicating dogmatic schisms.

Click to expand...

That's essentially Zoroastrianism already, in a nutshell.

As some of you may know, today is Aid-el-Kebir, the Muslim holy day honoring Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God (incidentally, this probably means half of my sister's students are skipping class). This leads me to wonder what kind of celebrations this neo-Zoroastrianism would have. Also, what kind of culinary taboos? And what attitude towards figurative art?

Hendryk said:

As some of you may know, today is Aid-el-Kebir, the Muslim holy day honoring Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God (incidentally, this probably means half of my sister's students are skipping class). This leads me to wonder what kind of celebrations this neo-Zoroastrianism would have. Also, what kind of culinary taboos? And what attitude towards figurative art?

Click to expand...

Your sisters' students must be from Pakistan. They celebrate it on the 11th this year, whereas most other Muslims celebrated it yesterday.

Mmm... goat...

Zoroastrians are fine with figurative art. They generally represent God with the farohar, that winged sun disc thingy with Ohrmazd perched in the cockpit. As for culinary taboos, xrafstar (insects and other noxious creatures) are right out; as far as I know, everything else is permitted.

Leo Caesius said:

Zoroastrians are fine with figurative art. They generally represent God with the farohar, that winged sun disc thingy with Ohrmazd perched in the cockpit.

Click to expand...

In the autobiographic graphic novel series "Persepolis" by Marjan Satrapi, she explains how, as a college student in Tehran, she submitted to her arts professor a project for a Zoroastrian mythology theme park, and it belatedly dawned on her that none of the figures were "Islamically correct". I'd quite like to see how neo-Zoroastrians would handle popular religious art, and whether it would be as lush as the Hindu variety.
Which brings to mind another question: how would orthodox Zoroastrianism coexist with the neo version, and vice versa? Would they spend a few centuries trying to wipe each other out like Catholicism and Protestantism, or would they settle for a (generally) more peaceful coexistence like Shia and Sunni Islam? Or would they eventually blend?

Leo Caesius said:

As for culinary taboos, xrafstar (insects and other noxious creatures) are right out; as far as I know, everything else is permitted.

Click to expand...

So in this TL we could have pork couscous?

Hendryk said:

In the autobiographic graphic novel series "Persepolis" by Marjan Satrapi, she explains how, as a college student in Tehran, she submitted to her arts professor a project for a Zoroastrian mythology theme park, and it belatedly dawned on her that none of the figures were "Islamically correct". I'd quite like to see how neo-Zoroastrians would handle popular religious art, and whether it would be as lush as the Hindu variety.
Which brings to mind another question: how would orthodox Zoroastrianism coexist with the neo version, and vice versa? Would they spend a few centuries trying to wipe each other out like Catholicism and Protestantism, or would they settle for a (generally) more peaceful coexistence like Shia and Sunni Islam? Or would they eventually blend?


So in this TL we could have pork couscous?

Click to expand...

Hum... Pork couscous... ^^

Hendryk said:

Which brings to mind another question: how would orthodox Zoroastrianism coexist with the neo version, and vice versa? Would they spend a few centuries trying to wipe each other out like Catholicism and Protestantism, or would they settle for a (generally) more peaceful coexistence like Shia and Sunni Islam? Or would they eventually blend?

Click to expand...

They'd have to coexist, unless orthodox Zoroastrianism ever got the upper hand, in which case it would try to exterminate this new heresy in time-honored fashion. I doubt very much that the neo-Zoroastrians would be so picky, although there will undeniably be strife between the two factions.

I would imagine that the original Zoroastrians would tend to segregate themselves within society and become more orthodox, if you know what I mean.

Leo Caesius said:

They'd have to coexist, unless orthodox Zoroastrianism ever got the upper hand, in which case it would try to exterminate this new heresy in time-honored fashion. I doubt very much that the neo-Zoroastrians would be so picky, although there will undeniably be strife between the two factions.

I would imagine that the original Zoroastrians would tend to segregate themselves within society and become more orthodox, if you know what I mean.

Click to expand...

If this new brand of Zoroastrianism had the same zeal for expansion as Islam of the same time period, then it is quite likely that they would take over Persia, and the older version would be essentially replaced, though we might see a small group persist in the hinterlands.

However, we might see more conflict with Christians and Jews, as in this religion, they wouldn't likely have a special status as 'People of the Book'.

Glen Finney said:

If this new brand of Zoroastrianism had the same zeal for expansion as Islam of the same time period, then it is quite likely that they would take over Persia, and the older version would be essentially replaced, though we might see a small group persist in the hinterlands.

Click to expand...

That's essentially the OTL situation. I believe that the original Zoroastrians would fare better in this timeline than they did under Islam. For starters, while they'd have to worry about losing adherents to neo-Zoroastrianism, they wouldn't have to worry about other schisms; this was their main problem under Islam, namely the fact that the Muslims allowed Zoroastrian (and Christian) heresy to flourish, for the sake of dividing and conquering the subject populations; these rulers actually have a stake in seeing that other Zoroastrian heresies don't pop up.

One thing; the Zoroastrians refered to the Arabs as tazig (pl. tazigan) which literally means "fresh ones" or upstarts (and is the origin of the word Tajik, as in Tajikistan). I see no reason why they wouldn't call these neo-Zoroastrians the same thing.

As for Christianity and Judaism, I suspect that the neo-Zoroastrians, recognizing good policy when they see it, would merely maintain late Sassanian policies towards these faith communities, namely permitting freedom of religion to those who are faithful to the empire, and viciously exterminating all those who aren't. The Sassanians, towards the end of their dynasty, made no effort to convert other peoples, being too caught up in persecuting their own heresies.

Right, heresies...that is why I can see the neo-Zorastrianists being just as hard on the old-time Zorastrianists in Persia. They would EXPECT them to conform to the new standards, and I think with a lot of success. It should be more palatable to the masses than just converting to Islam was, and that happened OTL a lot.

I can see Mohammed as the Great Equalizer, the one who overthrew the heirarchy of the Magi and brought the word of Zoraster (or whatever version you think appropriate) to the people directly.

As for the Christians and Jews...maybe they would continue tolerance, but it wouldn't be integral to the religion. Which means different regimes over time might feel less inclined towards that tolerance, with no religious prescription against it.

Here, Syria and Egypt might fall more easily back into the hands of Christendom, being that the Neo Zoroastrians might expect less converts then the Muslims did

Hermanubis said:

Here, Syria and Egypt might fall more easily back into the hands of Christendom, being that the Neo Zoroastrians might expect less converts then the Muslims did

Click to expand...

I don't know that that necessarily follows, though it is certainly one possibility.

One thing...Jerusalem presumably is now only important for Jews and Christians.

An idle side thought, which came up reading this thread: anyone knows why Sh'ia have an organised priesthood structure, while Sunni don't?
Might have anything to do with Zoroastrians hereditary priesthood?

Coming back to the thread: "old" Zoroastrians might really play the role that Jews played OTL vis-a-vis Christians. What abt Muhammad making a pilgrimage to Pasargada, and being stoned to death for heresy? The difficulty I see is that Christianity did not make a lot of converts among Jews; OTOH, gentiles were converted, and they were a huge number compared to Jews.

In TTL, "old" Zoroastrians would be in the same position as Jews (i.e., belonging to a non-proselytizing religion, with an hereditary priesthood and so on): accordingly, conversions would be limited, and the numbers would be much more balanced.

Dietary prescriptions: Christians discarded all dietary prescriptions set up in the Bible because they did not make sense in a different, cooler climate (and if you live in Europe, pigs are quite valuable domestic or semi-domestic animals). While Zoroastrians do not have a lot of dietary prescriptions (and again it makes sense: the area around the Caspian sea is very good pigs land), the "new" Zoroastrians [which would be Mohameddans, btw , by the same token for which Christians are not named "reformed Jews"] would be coming from Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Mesopotamia. These are lands where the prohibitions against eating pork, and the kosher rules for slaughtering animals make eminent sense: in this TL, the Mohammedans would complete the Zoroastrian rules with some dietary prescriptions, and pork couscous would be butterflied away

LordKalvan said:

Dietary prescriptions: Christians discarded all dietary prescriptions set up in the Bible because they did not make sense in a different, cooler climate (and if you live in Europe, pigs are quite valuable domestic or semi-domestic animals).

Click to expand...

Hmm. Doesn't the abolishment of the dietary prescriptions date back to the 1st century?

Hendryk said:

I PMed Leo about an idea that crossed my mind, a WI involving the conversion of Mohammed to Zoroastrianism. Being aware of the non-proselyte character of orthodox Zoroastrianism, I asked for suggestions on how to bypass the problem. Here's his answer:


Sounds good to me. So, in this TL Mohammed doesn't invent a religion from the ground up but instead starts spreading a modified, syncretic version of Persian Zoroastrianism. Where do we go from here?

Click to expand...

I think that the non-Levantine parts of the Middle East would be Zoroastrian, as well as much of South and Southeast Asia, where Christianity might win over North Africa and the Levant...

Here's a religious map of the Old World circa 1450 CE:
Fuschia is Zoroastrianism;
Khaki is Christianity;
Orange is Hinduism;
Green is Theravada/Lama Buddhism;
Yellow is Confucianism/Taoism/Mahayana Buddhism;
The rest is animism/shamanism/polytheism/whatever.

Anyone who feels like fleshing out this TL, or ripping it off, is welcome to it.