Could Zoroastrian Persia have survived the Islamic conquest similarly to Hindu India?

[Malone]

Could the Muslim invasion of Persia have played out more like that the invasion of the Indian subcontinent where the Muslims became the rulers of the land but the majority of the population still kept their indigenous religion, as in India and staying majority Hindu?

So an Iran/Persia with a continued Zoroastrian majority but allowing for a significant Muslim minority.

 

[Sevarics]

Could the Muslim invasion of Persia have played out more like that the invasion of the Indian subcontinent where the Muslims became the rulers of the land but the majority of the population still kept their indigenous religion, as in India and staying majority Hindu?

So an Iran/Persia with a continued Zoroastrian majority but allowing for a significant Muslim minority.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t large parts of India not falling to Muslim invaders a large part of why Hinduism was able to remain so strong a force?

 

[Sarthak]

Could the Muslim invasion of Persia have played out more like that the invasion of the Indian subcontinent where the Muslims became the rulers of the land but the majority of the population still kept their indigenous religion, as in India and staying majority Hindu?

So an Iran/Persia with a continued Zoroastrian majority but allowing for a significant Muslim minority.

Well since Persia was a huge powerhouse in the middle east at the time, however the Arabs took advantage of the massive internal conflicts Persia was going through back then. So...if you get rid of the internal conflicts, you can get rid of the muslim expansion into Persia.

 

[Sarufiyyun]

Have the Umayyad Caliphate implode. Or as an alternative, prevent the Abbasids from seizing power. No Abbasid revolution means that Islam remains associated as the religion associated with Arabs and local mawalis who were initially seen as non-Iranian. Animosity between Iranian and Arabs grows to the point that the Dabuyids or ironically enough, the Samanids to restore Zoroastrianism's status as the dominant faith in Persia.

 

[Nivek]

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t large parts of India not falling to Muslim invaders a large part of why Hinduism was able to remain so strong a force?

Yeah people forget this, plus besides the conquered areas(who count as india is always a debated) was not the old Hindi heartland, plus unlike in Persia plateau, Islam preaching was more via trade and contact, unlike the direct conversion and colonization in Persia/Iran.

So nope is hard, unless the Rashidun/Ummayads decided Iran is not worth conquering...like the greco-romans become a more tempting target

No Abbasid revolution means that Islam remains associated as the religion associated with Arabs and local mawalis who were initially seen as non-Iranian.

This is a myth, Ummayad did pushed for conversion and tolerance of dhimmi, the thing is than fire worshipers always have a shaky dhimmi status

 

[bpbruce]

Armies moved towards loot and Persia was wildly richer than Arabia. Given a much wealthier Mecca, I could see some Persian cavalry unit riding over to loot the place before Islam got going, then settling down to steady slave trade. But as long as Persia had vast wealth and Arabia didn't, some Muslims were going to raise armies by preaching against the evil fire-worshippers.

 

[Brahman]

In India, Due to High Population and Caste Loyalty, no empire could really conquer all of India without significant support of Locals, as such no Indian Empire will be as centralised as any Persian Empire, Mauryan Empire and Modern Country of India are the two most centralized Indian States of all time, the rest all were significantly decentralized, such Delhi Sultanate or Mughals, who had to rely on Rajputs, Bengalis, Deccan etc, as such it would be much more difficult to spread the faith

Another thing was that Iran was conquered by Arabs, while India except Sindh was conquered by Turks, the former was more zealous in spreading the religion, whereas the Later, though still wanted to spread the religion, was more than willing to tax Non Muslims for their own treasury, as such again, Muslims could not completely Islamise India

Also remember, Zoroastrianism was similiar to Islam, Islam was definitely influenced by Zoroastrianism, whereas Hinduism or Indian Faiths were completely alien to Islam, leading to much harder time in Converting

The only way Zoroastrianism could remain would be if Sassanians beat the Rashiduns

 

[bpbruce]

In India, Due to High Population and Caste Loyalty, no empire could really conquer all of India without significant support of Locals, as such no Indian Empire will be as centralised as any Persian Empire, Mauryan Empire and Modern Country of India are the two most centralized Indian States of all time, the rest all were significantly decentralized, such Delhi Sultanate or Mughals, who had to rely on Rajputs, Bengalis, Deccan etc, as such it would be much more difficult to spread the faith

Another thing was that Iran was conquered by Arabs, while India except Sindh was conquered by Turks, the former was more zealous in spreading the religion, whereas the Later, though still wanted to spread the religion, was more than willing to tax Non Muslims for their own treasury, as such again, Muslims could not completely Islamise India

Also remember, Zoroastrianism was similiar to Islam, Islam was definitely influenced by Zoroastrianism, whereas Hinduism or Indian Faiths were completely alien to Islam, leading to much harder time in Converting

The only way Zoroastrianism could remain would be if Sassanians beat the Rashiduns

'Zoroastrianism was similar to Islam'- Huh. I'd have said Islam was closest to Monophysite Christians annoyed with Byzantine Christianity's byzantine complexity and focus on what people in Byzantium wanted. What's close with Zoroastrians?

 

[Brahman]

'Zoroastrianism was similar to Islam'- Huh. I'd have said Islam was closest to Monophysite Christians annoyed with Byzantine Christianity's byzantine complexity and focus on what people in Byzantium wanted. What's close with Zoroastrians?

These are a few things Zoroastrianism has most likely influenced Islam In -

• Monotheism
• One main prophet
• 5 prayers of a day
• Narrow bridge between worlds
• Heavenly ascent of prophet
• Incorruptible nature of holy figures

 

[Tarabas]

These are a few things Zoroastrianism has most likely influenced Islam In -

• Monotheism
• One main prophet
• 5 prayers of a day
• Narrow bridge between worlds
• Heavenly ascent of prophet
• Incorruptible nature of holy figures

I would argue that the first two are more due to the influence of Judaism and Christianity. Early muslims prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, after all. Islam recognizes even Jesus as a prophet, and many of the Old Testament as well. I am not sure Zoroaster is counted. The dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism if also a great divide. AFAIK Christians and Jews were immediately recognized as People of the Book, while it took some debate to recognize Zoroastrian as such.

 

[Brahman]

I would argue that the first two are more due to the influence of Judaism and Christianity. Early muslims prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, after all. Islam recognizes even Jesus as a prophet, and many of the Old Testament as well. I am not sure Zoroaster is counted. The dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism if also a great divide. AFAIK Christians and Jews were immediately recognized as People of the Book, while it took some debate to recognize Zoroastrian as such.

Zoroastrians were never unfortunately recognized as people of the Book to the same degree as Christians or Jews, which is why there are almost no Zoroastrians left in Iran compared to Egypt which has a Huge Christian population

and Yes, Zoroastrianism and Judaism definitively influenced each other, I Personally see Zoroastrianism as a link between Indian and Abrahamic Religion, as it shared similarities with both

 

[Tarabas]

Zoroastrians were never unfortunately recognized as people of the Book to the same degree as Christians or Jews, which is why there are almost no Zoroastrians left in Iran compared to Egypt which has a Huge Christian population

and Yes, Zoroastrianism and Judaism definitively influenced each other, I Personally see Zoroastrianism as a link between Indian and Abrahamic Religion, as it shared similarities with both

I tend to agree with you on Zoroastrianism as a link. I have read that is thought by many modern historians to have been a reformer of the polytheistic Iranian religion, whence the similarities with Indian Religion. It would be interesting to know which one of the the two influenced the other in becoming Monotheistic ( I am not an expert on the subject, so I may ignore some relevant literature here). However, I would say that besides the 5 prayers of a day, any other influence of Zoroastrianism en Islam is more likely to have been indirect, i.e. through Judaism/Christianity, rather than direct.

 

[Brahman]

I tend to agree with you on Zoroastrianism as a link. I have read that is thought by many modern historians to have been a reformer of the polytheistic Iranian religion, whence the similarities with Indian Religion. It would be interesting to know which one of the the two influenced the other in becoming Monotheistic ( I am not an expert on the subject, so I may ignore some relevant literature here). However, I would say that besides the 5 prayers of a day, any other influence of Zoroastrianism en Islam is more likely to have been indirect, i.e. through Judaism/Christianity, rather than direct.

yes, however, Pre Islamic Arabs would have defiantly known about about Zoroastrianism through Sassanian conquest in the regions as well as through trade, and remember, Muhammad was also a merchant, he definitely knew about Zoroastrianism , here are a few more things that are Similiar in Zoroastrianism and Islam such as many names for god, Zoroaster was also a prophet and spiritual leader like Muhammad, and many people say that Purdah system, where female seclusion is there might be from Zoroastrian practices, as such Islam definitely had both direct and indirect influence of Zoroastrianism

 

[Tarabas]

yes, however, Pre Islamic Arabs would have defiantly known about about Zoroastrianism through Sassanian conquest in the regions as well as through trade, and remember, Muhammad was also a merchant, he definitely knew about Zoroastrianism , here are a few more things that are Similiar in Zoroastrianism and Islam such as many names for god, Zoroaster was also a prophet and spiritual leader like Muhammad, and many people say that Purdah system, where female seclusion is there might be from Zoroastrian practices, as such Islam definitely had both direct and indirect influence of Zoroastrianism

I see. Certainly a lot more similarities than I thought. Do you know which were the causes that made Zoroastrians be never recognized as people of the Book to the same degree as Christians or Jews, then?

 

[Brahman]

I see. Certainly a lot more similarities than I thought. Do you know which were the causes that made Zoroastrians be never recognized as people of the Book to the same degree as Christians or Jews, then?

Because Islam can be essentially considered Judaism 3.0, Judaism 2.0 was Christianity and it borrowed heavily from it, where as Islam Borrowed Mostly everything from Judaism, from Prophets, to Holy places etc, as such Jews and Christians were seen as Muslims, but following the wrong or incomplete way, where as Zoroaster is completely absent from Islam despite is direct and indirect influence, as such they were seen as people who were following a competently false religion, not equal Christians or Jews

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I would say no. Zoroastrianism seems to have been all too minor without Sassanid authority. Muslim scholars seem fairly ill informed on Zoroastrianism even after conquest of Iran, and this is due to, as al-Tabari mentions, there being only a small percentage of 'true Zoroastrians' the majority of Iran were termed simply 'Majoos' or worshipers of flames or fire. This implies a more archaic Iranian polytheistic tradition, separate from the Sassanid royal dogma of Zoroastrianism, as informed by priest Kartir in the III century CE. Likewise, Mithraism was common and a stronger force in the region after the Arab conquest than Zoroastrianism.

Regarding the Dhimmi question, Zoroastrians were tolerated as in they were not killed immediately. however, depending on the circumstances, they could be forcibly converted and likewise, there was a law that permitted the destruction of any and all sites of worship in Iran that were not Jewish, Christian or Muslim. This was also free for anyone to do, that is, a private person had an Islamic right to destroy any item of worship of Zoroastrian or Iranic origin. This was not too difficult, considering the deep rot at the center of the Sassanid system and its Zoroastrian faith, which had by my opinion, already been decayed beyond and ability to resist Islam.

The religions prevalent in Hindustan were much less reliant upon governmental protection. Zoroastrianism was the royal cult of the Sassanid royalty and a tolerated faith by the Great Houses, if a bit hated. Hinduism of its many types, was a decentralized collection of religious traditions, not tied to the royal elite and self sustaining due to the power of both the local varieties, its immense age, the cultural continuity in the region and the caste system/jaati/varna. The caste system for instance, was so strong that Muslim elites were forced to adopt it and fit within the structure, controlling masses of the populaces with only a slight pivot. Hindustan is also far greater in population than Iran, which is much more sparse, even Mesopotamia is very light in population compared to earlier epochs.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

I would say no. Zoroastrianism seems to have been all too minor without Sassanid authority. Muslim scholars seem fairly ill informed on Zoroastrianism even after conquest of Iran, and this is due to, as al-Tabari mentions, there being only a small percentage of 'true Zoroastrians' the majority of Iran were termed simply 'Majoos' or worshipers of flames or fire. This implies a more archaic Iranian polytheistic tradition, separate from the Sassanid royal dogma of Zoroastrianism, as informed by priest Kartir in the III century CE. Likewise, Mithraism was common and a stronger force in the region after the Arab conquest than Zoroastrianism.

Regarding the Dhimmi question, Zoroastrians were tolerated as in they were not killed immediately. however, depending on the circumstances, they could be forcibly converted and likewise, there was a law that permitted the destruction of any and all sites of worship in Iran that were not Jewish, Christian or Muslim. This was also free for anyone to do, that is, a private person had an Islamic right to destroy any item of worship of Zoroastrian or Iranic origin. This was not too difficult, considering the deep rot at the center of the Sassanid system and its Zoroastrian faith, which had by my opinion, already been decayed beyond and ability to resist Islam.

The religions prevalent in Hindustan were much less reliant upon governmental protection. Zoroastrianism was the royal cult of the Sassanid royalty and a tolerated faith by the Great Houses, if a bit hated. Hinduism of its many types, was a decentralized collection of religious traditions, not tied to the royal elite and self sustaining due to the power of both the local varieties, its immense age, the cultural continuity in the region and the caste system/jaati/varna. The caste system for instance, was so strong that Muslim elites were forced to adopt it and fit within the structure, controlling masses of the populaces with only a slight pivot. Hindustan is also far greater in population than Iran, which is much more sparse, even Mesopotamia is very light in population compared to earlier epochs.

Good post- from my (limited) understanding this sounds about right.

 

[Brahman]

Best way for Zoroastrianism to survive is to have Zoroaster be recognized as a prophet of Islam just like Jesus, Moses and Muhammad, as such Zoroastrianism would be seen as people of book and will be somewhat protected

 

[3t_sloth]

Even then there is a chance it might diminish heavily over time, as the Zoroastrian faith seems to repeatedly suffered disaster after disaster at the time. From the instability and then collapse of the house of Sasan (from my limited understanding the Zoroastrian faith seems to heavily tied to the power of the Iranshahr), the lose of much of the Zoroastrian sacred teachings. the extinguishing of the sacred fire of stallion, the large scale conversion of the mowbed (priests) of Zoroastrianism to both Islam and eastern Christianity,

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Even then there is a chance it might diminish heavily over time, as the Zoroastrian faith seems to repeatedly suffered disaster after disaster at the time. From the instability and then collapse of the house of Sasan (from my limited understanding the Zoroastrian faith seems to heavily tied to the power of the Iranshahr), the lose of much of the Zoroastrian sacred teachings. the extinguishing of the sacred fire of stallion, the large scale conversion of the mowbed (priests) of Zoroastrianism to both Islam and eastern Christianity,

Important^ Zoroastrianism has shown very little staying power. Manichaeism showed a greater staying power frankly for the amount of attacks dealt it. Zoroastrianism is essentially defunct without the Sassanid royal house or a royal house that will agree to the same religious tenants of Zoroastrianism.