AHC: Have eastern europe, siberia and pakistan to be zoroastrian.

Spoken like a true Christian fanatic with no knowledge of the creed or it's history and nuances.
Agreed. They do put it rather offensively. Zoroastrianism is a living religion with many thousands of adherants. It is no more obsolete than Judaism. If a religion even can be obsolete, which is a notion I reject.
 
Agreed. They do put it rather offensively. Zoroastrianism is a living religion with many thousands of adherants. It is no more obsolete than Judaism. If a religion even can be obsolete, which is a notion I reject.
Whilst normally I would agree, I think there are circumstances in which a religion could be considered obsolete to some extent.

So for example, classical Egyptian religion in which the pharoah is worshipped is obsolete to the extent that there are no more pharoahs.

To a similar extent, Zoroastrianism was uniquely tied to the Sassanid state. Its modern day adherants have enough textual differences that "Zoroastrianism" might be an obsolete term just as it would be weird to call Christianity or Islam "Judaism".
 
Iraq: Never truly completed in a satisfactory way. Ghulatti Shi'i were predominant in southern Iraq fro centuries, with the centers of the Shi'i Imamiyyah centered within Iraqi ctiies of Najaf-Karabala-Kufa, that was reported to be the land in which arose the Shi'i

Why do you call Shia Islam unsatisfactory? The Twelvers are Muslims, just like the other branches of Shia or Sunna. Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I suspect that you don't like the Shia and therefore depict it as a heresy in your posts.
 
Why do you call Shia Islam unsatisfactory? The Twelvers are Muslims, just like the other branches of Shia or Sunna. Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I suspect that you don't like the Shia and therefore depict it as a heresy in your posts.

No, this is a historical reality. One in which Shi’i scholars themselves accept. I can present a multitude of sources for this. To the view that Shi’i Ulema themselves have specific traits and the Takfir that their Ulema make on others. Not to mention, the vast number of rebellions which various Shi’i waged against the Khilafah.

Regardless, Islam is irrelevant, religion does not work like you believe it does. The similarity of names does not mean a similarity in beliefs or a similar root does not mean a similar religion. If one was to say this, it would become extremely worrisome the Manichaean question in regards to Christianity.

Also, instead of assuming a dislike of Shi’i from myself, study deeply from its Ulema and read the history of its existence to find my assertions proven generally. Though, in the west, it is common for you to gloss over Islamic history and compare it simply to the religions you are familiar with, unfortunately this is becoming more and more common on this site.

As a disclaimer, there are 3-4 types of Shi’i generally, so not all fall under the category I am discussing. Heresy,,,, I am discussing history not whether I believe Shi’i are kafr or murtadeen (apostates). Simply the vast number of Shi’i revolts proves my point of deep distinction historically.

Also, where did I claim Shi’i to be unsatisfactory? I simply am making a distinction. Would it be me saying Christians are unsatisfactory if I made them distinct as a group against Manichaeans or Jews? In the religion of Islam, this distinction is essentially not needed.
 
Shia rebellions against Sunni rulers does not prove that the Shia are not Muslim. A person making such claims is in danger of committing unjustified takfir, which as you know backfires because it means what you said applies to yourself.

Anyway this isn't a thread about who is a Muslim or not, it's a thread about Zoroastrianism. If you want to get yourself banned for flaming a thread with anti Shia rhetoric, I don't think it's a good idea.

Returning to Zoroastrianism, I think the concept of Zoroastrians successfully converting eastern Europe and Siberia and Pakistan is unlikely. It would require a point of difference probably long before the emergence of Islam. I'd say if the Sassanids successfully conquer the Byzantine Empire, then that opens a window of opportunity - but the Arab conquest would have to not occur for it to really stand any chance. One way to make this timeline possible is to imagine that Islam never exists - but for historical reasons, I think that is unlikely too because it was virtually an inevitable product of the situation in Arabia at that period. Another possibility is that the Islamic conquests don't happen, but again this is unlikely because it requires the Persian and Byzantine Empires to prevent it - something they were unable to do for solid historical reasons, including the desire of the local populace for freedom from the rule of these states (especially in the Byzantine territories) as well as no war between the two powers, which again is going against the history of centuries of conflict between the two.

Nevertheless if we suspend reality and take a total Persia fantasy, in which the Sassanids somehow conquer the Byzantines and avoid being conquered by the Arabs, then your scenario is just about possible. Pakistan is easy to reach from the Sassanid territory, and Siberia is harder but not impossible via central Asia. Eastern Europe is also reachable but only if the Eastern Roman Empire collapses completely. Perhaps Khusrau's invasion is more successful? It still requires a realignment of several disparate and unrelated factors to work, but it is just about conceivable, at a stretch.
 
Last edited:
Also, where did I claim Shi’i to be unsatisfactory?

You said that Iraq was never satisfactory/truly converted to Islam. That's why I asked you about your opinion on Shia. No offense intended.

Iraq: Never truly completed in a satisfactory way. Ghulatti Shi'i were predominant in southern Iraq fro centuries, with the centers of the Shi'i Imamiyyah centered within Iraqi ctiies of Najaf-Karabala-Kufa, that was reported to be the land in which arose the Shi'i. Further, the northern sections of Iraq for the majority of the Islamic period, remained Christian and in many areas, Yazidi or traditional faiths

We should return to the actual topic of the thread.
 
Last edited:
One slight possibility would be either having the Umayyads stay in power or have the Abbasids inherit their desires for domination of the west, which would probably entail continued control of North Africa. If the Caliphates forces are focused on expanding in Iberia and Aquitaine then maybe there's a possible opening for a successful Zoroastrian rebellion, which could then spread the faith to these regions. It's still a long shot though, Persia was one of the biggest jewels in the Caliphate's crown so to speak, and losing it would be pretty bad for their image.
 
Top