How come Zoroastrianism Survived and Greco-Roman Paganism Didn't?

Zoroastrianism was (and is) extremely different from Greco-Roman religion. Such a parallel doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

For one, Zoroastrianism is a prophetic religion, focused on Ahura Mazda. While there were shrine cults, they were relatively minor and so easily purged by the Sassanids. On the other hand, there is no singular Greco-Roman god in the same way. Another reason is that it was quite a bit more centralized than Greco-Roman religion, with the Magi being a more centralized body with the ear of the Shahanshah.

There was also the fact that Zoroastrianism was the ethnic religion of Persia, unlike Mesopotamian Christianity. The Sassanids were the first culturally Persian empire, sponsoring a dialect of Persian over Aramaic, unlike the more Mesopotamian-minded previous states.
 
Zoroastrianism was (and is) extremely different from Greco-Roman religion. Such a parallel doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

For one, Zoroastrianism is a prophetic religion, focused on Ahura Mazda. While there were shrine cults, they were relatively minor and so easily purged by the Sassanids. On the other hand, there is no singular Greco-Roman god in the same way. Another reason is that it was quite a bit more centralized than Greco-Roman religion, with the Magi being a more centralized body with the ear of the Shahanshah.

That being said, once the Islamic conquest set in, Zoroastrianism was made very frail without the state. Zoroastrianism in the form you present, that of monotheistic and prophetic worship of Ahura Mazda and rejection of Angra Maynu is that Zoroastrianism of the Moabads and the ruling state of Eranshahr, not necessarily that of the peasantry. Within a few decades, Zoroastrianism went from a powerfully enforced abd state mandated religion to a faith of peasants and primarily practiced at folk levels.

To make matters worse, unlike Christians, Jews, Manichaeans, Paulicians, etc... Zoroastrian communities had little to no power in the courts of the Arab/Muslim rulers. No Zoroastrian governor existed except a few who were as I would term crypto Zoroastrian and these were either one who rose to power by the sword and the other two “converted” to Islam and joined the Khilfah for protection against the threats from roaming nomadic hordes.

To make matters worse, Zoroastrianism from an early point, was assaulted not just from the top by mainstream Islam, but at the lower levels in the peasantry by the Is’maili Shi’i sect and other Ghulat Shi’i. In the Far East of Iran, Kharijism became popular and likely replaced Zoroastrian presence to a large degree in the Baloch lands. As well as the forced Islamization of the Zabul lands of the Zun, who were the last non Islamic entity west of Hindustan and south of Ferghana.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's false. If you go by this or perhaps by this was 10~% as a floor in 300 AD after having grown roughly 40% per decade starting from 250 AD (when it was 2%). By the time it was legalized it was a rapidly growing religion that had ingratiated itself in both the commons and the Roman aristocracy, particularly the women. Christianity was a rising tide that demanded the Empire's attention, and Constantine went full bore in giving it.

I would agree with Intransigent Southerner's assertion that for most people, following that point, it was more or less top-down, though I'm not convinced it was for a majority considering the overt efforts of the state didn't begin until Constantius when state-and-popular persecutions began. Cultural incentives and legalized, state-supported missionary efforts are powerful things themselves without the threat of coercion, after all.



The big problem from the period immediately after Christianization up until the 1200s (when the "great Catholic spiritual awakening" more or less took place) was general non-compliance, although it took the form of a kind of nearly-rabid superstition. Some of the old gods were in the mix but was moreso a kind of naturalistic suspicion of things. This kind of peasant superstition also, unfortunately, played some semblance of a role of the popular uprisings against the Jews.



This functionally is the answer - Greco-Roman paganism wasn't extremely well organized with a canon and orthodoxy and was already in popular decline what with the various eastern mystery cults, mithraism, gnosticism, Sol Invictus, etc.

I haven't read that Cambridge book but I would be wary of relying on Rodney Stark. He's been criticized heavily for problems in his book by some other academics. For example, see Thomas Robinsons book Who Were the First Christians?: Dismantling the Urban Thesis for an especially cutting critique. That's not to say that Starks book is completely worthless but I see people citing it all the time as fact (it doesn't help that his other books on topics like the "rise of the west" are flaming racialist garbage). In general, there just isn't enough data from the period for us to be really confident about growth rates.

Not sure what you mean by "naturalistic" peasant superstition playing a role in uprisings against jews?

Your point about Greco-Roman "paganism" being in "decline" doesn't make much sense to me. Eastern mystery cults-which included Mithraism-were a part of paganism, not separated from it. Soldiers that joined a Mithraic cell didn't join a new "religion". They were simply putting more focus on a particular tradition with particular knowledge. They still participated just fine in normal "pagan religion". Gnosticism is also a very vague term that applied to a bunch of different groups. Is there evidence that they were especially popular compared to traditional Greco-Roman religion? Sol Invictus is perhaps the most baffling thing you list as he's just a Roman sun god. See the article Temples and Priests of Sol in the City of Rome by Steven Hijmans:

Over the past decade or so, scholars have convincingly challenged the long popular notion that Sol Invictus was a distinct, late imperial sun god whose cult was imported from Syria. It has become quite clear that Romans themselves venerated the sun as a god continuously, in the city of Rome, from at least the mid Republic (and probably much earlier) until the end of the fourth century ad. This sun god was simply called Sol, often with the addition of epithets such as oriens or invictus. His cult was a public one, and though not particularly important, it was of greater significance to Roman religion than has long been thought. Conversely, while the cult of the sun did gain greater prominence in the third century ad, notably under the impetus of Aurelian, it never came to dominate late Roman religion to the extent that is often suggested. There is no real evidence in Rome for any form of officially sanctioned pagan solar henotheism or monotheism.1

How is a traditional sun god evidence of the decline of traditional paganism?
 
Not sure what you mean by "naturalistic" peasant superstition playing a role in uprisings against jews?

i.e. They believed in a near witch-type sense of the Jews causing various kinds of ills, causing the plagues, etc.

Your point about Greco-Roman "paganism" being in "decline" doesn't make much sense to me. Eastern mystery cults-which included Mithraism-were a part of paganism, not separated from it. Soldiers that joined a Mithraic cell didn't join a new "religion". They were simply putting more focus on a particular tradition with particular knowledge. They still participated just fine in normal "pagan religion". Gnosticism is also a very vague term that applied to a bunch of different groups. Is there evidence that they were especially popular compared to traditional Greco-Roman religion? Sol Invictus is perhaps the most baffling thing you list as he's just a Roman sun god. See the article Temples and Priests of Sol in the City of Rome by Steven Hijmans:

How is a traditional sun god evidence of the decline of traditional paganism?

I sort of confused Sol Invictus with Elagabalus, but you can forgive me given that some scholars also seem to believe that there was a connection. Scholars have challenged but as far as I can tell not definitively proven the assertion that the Cult of Sol Invictus had always existed to the extent (with some reforms) it did in the 3rd century.

The various mystery cults were definitely a distinctive religious movement in the period in contrast to what had then been the mainstream practice - I made no assertion that they were a different religion.

In terms of Gnosticism, yes, Manichaeism was present in the Roman Empire, just to name one strand - St. Augustine himself was one, and the state expended considerable effort suppressing it beginning in the Theodosian era
 
Well, for sure there was eventually a big tie into the government. The Church itself takes it structure from the College of Pontifexes of the Roman Republic and then Empire. Pontifex Maximus was a separate position for the Roman State Religion before it was subsumed by the Imperial Office.

The reforms of Augustus may have in the long run done more harm, as once the Imperial Cult became Christian so did the government. If the Pontifexes Collegium had remained independent a stronger resistance to Christianity could have been mounted.
 

Teejay

Gone Fishin'
The ones in Northumbria were, and the same may have been true in areas like the Rhineland and between the Alps and Danube; but I've never heard any suggestion that Gaul as a whole, let alone Italy or Spain, ever became generally German speaking.

What is what I meant the regions you mentioned that became Germanic speaking after Western Roman Empire fell, also the former Roman provinces in the Balkans. Christianity in those areas took such a big hit, they were re-evangelized in the latter centuries.
 
i.e. They believed in a near witch-type sense of the Jews causing various kinds of ills, causing the plagues, etc.



I sort of confused Sol Invictus with Elagabalus, but you can forgive me given that some scholars also seem to believe that there was a connection. Scholars have challenged but as far as I can tell not definitively proven the assertion that the Cult of Sol Invictus had always existed to the extent (with some reforms) it did in the 3rd century.

The various mystery cults were definitely a distinctive religious movement in the period in contrast to what had then been the mainstream practice - I made no assertion that they were a different religion.

In terms of Gnosticism, yes, Manichaeism was present in the Roman Empire, just to name one strand - St. Augustine himself was one, and the state expended considerable effort suppressing it beginning in the Theodosian era

You say that "general non-compliance" took the form of "nearly-rabid" superstition only up to the 1200's but people believed in the Jews causing ills and killing children long after that. People were still accusing Jews of blood libel in the 19th century. Including very educated people like bishops.

Sol Invictus Elagabal was the official name for a distinct deity imposed by the emperor Elagabalus for just four years. He's immediately distinguishable from the Roman god Sol in both name and iconography. It's like how Jupiter Dolichenus and the Capitoline Jupiter are two distinct deities despite sharing parts of their name. The scholar you linked is a little confusing because he keeps asserting that older references to Sol Invictus actually refer to the Syrian god Sol Invictus Elagabal but (as far as I can tell) doesn't provide actual evidence for it. It's true that Aurelian implemented reforms in order to increase the status of Sol Invictus- his principal ones were to elevate the priests of Sol to the rank of pontifices (reserved for men of senatorial rank), to build a lavish new temple for Sol, and to institute quadrennial agones in his honour from October 19th to 22nd. Certainly this was in increase in prestige from the 1st and second centuries when the cult of Sol seems to have been made of up men with mainly lower rank. However, I don't see how the reforms are evidence for a "decline" in Greco-Roman paganism when it's simply lavishing more attention on a traditional god.

How was Greco-Roman paganism in popular decline if the Mystery cults are a form of Greco-Roman paganism, with more traditional forms of paganism still being practised the same by their members?

Manichaeism was present yes but is that evidence for Greco-Roman pagan popular decline? A religious community growing and becoming established doesn't necessarily mean that the religion of the society around them is in decline.

Perhaps we just have different definitions of "decline" but I don't see much evidence that a majority of the population stopped practising and believing in Greco-Roman polytheism until after decades upon decades of government-sponsored Christianization. There was thriving development in Greco-Roman pagan ideas before the urban centers were predominantly Christianized. We can see key signs of traditional polytheism and philosophy fusing into a transcendentalist religion headed by professional high priests with key figures like the philosopher Iamblichus and the tetrarchy emperor Maximinus Dias' religious reforms. Even after that, as late as 542, John of Ephesus found fifteen hundred pagan shrines, thousands of worshippers, and annual convocations at a sacred place high in the mountains. None of this indicates a natural "decline" to me. Compare with India wherein multiple other religions managed to grow and gain converts (jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Christianity, etc) and yet various forms of Hinduism remained quite strong and actively developed.
 
I would add that Islamic society is allowed to make room for non-Muslims, and this was the rule. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait, all Muslim majority nations have non-Muslim minorities for centuries. On the other hand, pre modern Christian societies were extremely intolerant and didnt allow for non-Christians, the notable exception being Jews (who were barely tolerated).
 
Only in that Islam allowed Abrahamic religions within the lands of Dar al-Islam. That is, most of the nations conquered by the Caliphate were already Christian, more so than medieval Christendom even.

Zoroastrianism, as John7755 has stated in previous threads, suffered a ton of persecution over the course of centuries, which is why most of them live in India now.

And no man in this age prays to Al-Lat, nor to Bel, nor to Mithras. There were limits to this Islamic tolerance.

This is demonstrably not true. Zoroastrianism has People of the Book status and is non-Abrahamic. While the Druze and Alevi could be considered Abrahamic, their beliefs diverge radically from traditional monotheism and have existed for centuries. The Yazidis, Yarsan and Ahle Haqq are non Abrahamic and have existed for centuries. Let's also not forget the religious diversiry in South Asia that was under centuries of Muslim rule.
 
This is demonstrably not true. Zoroastrianism has People of the Book status and is non-Abrahamic. While the Druze and Alevi could be considered Abrahamic, their beliefs diverge radically from traditional monotheism and have existed for centuries. The Yazidis, Yarsan and Ahle Haqq are non Abrahamic and have existed for centuries. Let's also not forget the religious diversiry in South Asia that was under centuries of Muslim rule.

Would you like to bring this point up to me and make that case? The Zoroastrian are also not Ahl al-Dhimma in terms other than bidah (innovation). Ulema of the past agreed to this. Further, are you stating that extreme persecution of Zoroastrian did not occur? I am not sure who you are, but I doubt you wish to have this discussion.
 
Last edited:
I would add that Islamic society is allowed to make room for non-Muslims, and this was the rule. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait, all Muslim majority nations have non-Muslim minorities for centuries. On the other hand, pre modern Christian societies were extremely intolerant and didnt allow for non-Christians, the notable exception being Jews (who were barely tolerated).

This is incorrect, Islam does not “make room,” for other religions. Islam, in terms of traditional fiqh, conquers other religions and places them within fealty to Islam. Scholars of the past agree, it is clearcut, there is no ‘freedom of religion’ there is only those who are in fealty to Islam and or those who are too secluded as to not warrant the attention of Islam (or so rural that Islam takes little notice as to its existence).
 
This is incorrect, Islam does not “make room,” for other religions. Islam, in terms of traditional fiqh, conquers other religions and places them within fealty to Islam. Scholars of the past agree, it is clearcut, there is no ‘freedom of religion’ there is only those who are in fealty to Islam and or those who are too secluded as to not warrant the attention of Islam (or so rural that Islam takes little notice as to its existence).
Not really my area of expertise, but aren't "people of the book" such as Christians or Jews afforded some tolerance? In some places being Christian in an Islamic country was better than living in most of medieval Europe, which served those nations well as I recall.
 
Would you like to bring this point up to me and make that case? The Zoroastrian are also not Ahl al-Dhimma in terms other than bidah (innovation). Ulema of the past agreed to this. Further, are you stating that extreme persecution of Zoroastrian did not occur? I am not sure who you are, but I doubt you wish to have this discussion.

John, we've had this discussion a couple of times in the past, check your history. We all know you're an expert in Salafist interpretations. I really don't care what Islamic jurisprudence has to say about Zoroastrianism, I'm talking about historical facts. Obviously there were periods of persecutions and tolerance, as with all minority groups in Muslim ruled lands. If it was sustained then Zoroastrians wouldn't exist in Iran. They are an urban people, so interacted with Muslims in all matters of life and served in influential positions. This is historical fact. For the record, it's all over the place and Zoroastrians do have people of the book status among Shias.
 
Not really my area of expertise, but aren't "people of the book" such as Christians or Jews afforded some tolerance? In some places being Christian in an Islamic country was better than living in most of medieval Europe, which served those nations well as I recall.

This depends upon what you term tolerance; these discussions on Islam can and never should be framed in the sense of Europe and its concept of religion which is anathema in some ways to that of Islam. Our societies are in opposition in terms and conceptions of words lost in translation. One of the most misunderstood when Islam is applied to the West, is the idea of 'tolerance' or freedom of religion, each of which do not exist in Islamic culture. There is no such thing as tolerance, only those to whom as I have explained are under fealty to Islam and or otherwise totally and abjectly subject to the power of Islam and thus by their submission totally and completely, give praises to Allah and blessings to the Muslim by the fact that he does as Allah commands and subjugates those who disbelieve.

However, these issues can be complex and I will give a short description of the status of ahl al-Dhimma and other religions with the Abbasid period. The Abbasid period is by far the most important as nearly all precedents in Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) are set during the Abbasid period and all schools of mainstream Sunni fiqh are developed during the Abbasid hegemony.

-To begin, the status of Dhimma is the term, 'one under a truce, with the stipulation of taxation,' such a term cannot ever be separated from the pre-Islamic (Jahiliyyah) Arab contract laws and hakm (ruling). Arab contract law was based near entirely upon the concept of security pacts and those agreements from which one was considered protected, but also submissive. Arabs prior to Islam used these ideals as the height of nobility and the traits with which defined Arab peoples and separated them from Jews, who used Mosaic contract laws, whose stipulations differed from that of the Arabs. These security pacts were such that one group or an individual was kept under another by the basis that he had accepted a submissive role to another stronger person and was thus defended by this person and in most cases the tribe from which the powerful person derived, also was defenders of such a pact. These security pacts were of such great importance to Arab nobility, that Muhammad ibn Abdallah by virtue of being in a security pact under and a member of a noble branch of the Quryaish was not to be harmed until a later time; this was even so by Abu Sufyan who when asked regarding the status of Muhammad's birth, he answered that Muhammad was from amongst the most eloquent of the Arabs and his pact with his kin is strong and thus, murder of him was not honorable.

From this background, we understand the Christians and Jews as those people who have been conquered and submissive to the Muslim religion. Their status is one of two in Islamic fiqh of the Abbasid period:

>Dar al-Harb: Those whom the Muslim are in a perpetual state of war with and are those states whom are in a state of fitnah or mischief that places them in opposition to the Muslim whose single goal in existence is the eradication of fitnah both in their individual personage through internal Jihad and on the externals of the dar al-Islam by way of physical jihad through dawaa (missionary work, if you like) or by harb/war.

>Dar al-Hudna: Those whom the Muslim use or have a truce with. Each of the two are similar and interlocked, in the sense that a Dhimmi has a pact with the Muslim and thus benefits the Muslim by submitting and by paying the jizya. However, external states or groupings are also considered to be ones within dar al-Hudna. Thus, a great example are states opposing the dar al-Islam who sign a temporary treaty of peace or alliance of sorts. As well, groups of people who have a certain usage that can be utilized by the Muslim in some way, can be placed into this pact. A major case of that form of pact, is the Abbasid agreements with the Paulicians, who were not eligible for the status of Dhimmi and thus could not pay the Jizya; however, their martial skill and groupings along the Byzantine border, allowed them to have a use with which the Muslim could exploit and thus, it is said, they paid a jizya in the form of lost blood.

Jews and Christians were thus, not tolerated by the Abbasid, they simply were allowed to exist in the sense that the groups were already submissive to the Muslim. All forms of public religion were specifically banned by all forms of fiqh. A person for instance who attempted to spread his religion to a Muslim was one who was prescribed death in the hadood. Jewish and Christian women were required to wear the veil and males of those faiths were also required to follow roughly Islamic dress, thus no tight wearings, offensive idols upon the neck, head, ears, ankles, wrists, etc...There are many such requirements however, that for the sake of brevity, I will not mention.

Other faiths of course depended. Many where rural to the point of lacking the interest which would of lured the authorities into persecution. Others however, were persecuted in a very powerful sense.

Manichaens: Manichaens for instance, whilst at times these Manichaens practiced dissimulation and contributed to the city of Baghdad, it is more the common narrative that Manichaens were ruthlessly purged from the Iraqi landscape and removed completely by the 10th century in Baghdad. Manichaens most principally were hated by various Caliphs and their persecution was pursued personally by the Abbasid elites and by the Mu'Tazilah who saw the sect as irrational.

Khawarij: Khawarij were obviously purged in any case in which a community openly claimed such views. Khawarij were punished in many brutal ways, during the first two Khilafah. For instance, Ali ibn Talib burned Khawarij rebels at the stake (there is disagreement on this; Shafi'i believe that he literally burned Khawarij at the stake and also burned the followers of Abdallah ibn Saba, and thus Shafi'i are of the opinion that burning is a permissible form of execution [see ISIS or punishments levied by various Shafi'i states of the past, which at times, included burning], however, the other three madhahb claim that he did burn them, but was incorrect in doing so; against both positions, Shi'i faqih [of all kinds] claim that Ali ibn Talib did not burn anyone and instead believe the term 'smoked them' referred to a torture by which he set a fire and covered them in smoke so that they choke from the fumes). In addition, Khawarij were so feared that the simple mention of their existence in a region, would lead to the Abbasid authorities saturating the entire region in some form of examining to capture and execute them.

Shi'i: Viciously persecuted and attacked by the Abbasid authorities after the 820s at least. Many Alids were executed by the Abbasid authorities and at many occasions, the tomb of Husayn was off limits and all pilgrmages to Karbala, Kufa and Najaf, were prohibited. There is a clear reason for which the Shi'i Imamiyyah gave taqiyyah as a blessing unto the Shi'i; a blessing and tactic with which the Shi'i may use to simply survive the persecution of the regimes of the day. Further, even during the reign of Hajaj ibn Yusf, you see Umayyad officials who killed Alids en masse and murdered large numbers of Shi'i peasants unfortunate enough to be targeted as subversive. This is not even mentioning the Mihna (inquisition of 830s-870s), which aimed to not only rectify Sunni Ulema, but to uproot Shi'i Islam from Iraq.

Zunbils: The famous people of the Zwambinar or Zabul, who revered the Sun, Zun, as the ultimate god. They were once conquered, I presume, forcibly converted to Islam or sold into slavery. Further, many were killed as they rushed to defend their idols covered in jewels and were cut down by the Abbasid/Saffarid armies. The Abbasid period prescription in the case of the Zunbils, was either convert or death, this is a clearcut issue.

Buddhists: Buddhists of Central Asia and Afghanistan were seemingly forcibly converted by the advancing Muslim armies or fled en masse to different areas. It should be noted, that by all accounts, any idol of Buddha or other pictures of relevance, were burned and desecrated by the Umayyad-Abbasid armies and eventually by the Islamized Turkic armies. The exception being the large statues of Buddha in Bamiyan (eventually destroyed by al-Qayda; despite the resentment of the local Taliban against the destruction [one should note the level to which the Taliban were an ethnic fighting force with high amounts of syncretic beliefs]) with which the Abbasid forces not familiar with siege technology, had no way of destroying (the same is true of the Pyramids). We have no evidence further of Hindu/Buddhist temples in Afghanistan, other than caves where Buddhist monks likely survived after the conquests and period of struggle. I would personally assume that they were all destroyed as idols.

Zoroastrians: This group was most certainly persecuted acutely. Abbasid period opinions of the day where most greatly surmised in the trial of al-Afshin and Mayzar al-Qarvaniyya. (this is partly a reply to @Dfront21 )

Al-Afshin, the most talented general of his time in the Abbasid period and the famous general who defeated the Byzantine emperor at the battle of Anzen (838) and was considered the personal favorite of Caliph al-Mu'Tasim. Mayzar al-Qarvaniyya, was a Tabaristani/Dalaimite feudal lord who converted to Islam to gain protection from the Abbasid state who guaranteed the protection of his estates (at the time, his state was the last Sassanid holdout in Iran, due to the impregnable fortresses there).

Al-Ashin himself, was a convert. His feudal estate was the entirety of Sogdia and Ferghana; what I deduce from the sources, at around the early 790s, the Zoroastrian/Buddhist rulers in Ferghana-Sogdia engaged each other in a civil war of sorts, over the status of their lands. The conflict seems to be one of whether to remain independent and suffer the increasing attacks from Turkic tribes to the north, previously held in bay, wait for a power to capture the region (such as Tang and not the Abbasid) or submit to the Abbasid by converting to Islam and joining the Abbasid hegemony. After said conflict, the lords of Ferghana announced their intention to convert to Islam and submit to the Abbasid throne. Al-Afshin was the ruler of this land at the onset of the 830s and commanded some of the most exquisite cavalry divisions in the Abbasid hegemony. Due to this, and his perceived crypto-Zoroastrian traits, he was commanded to wage war against the Zoroastrian rebel, Babak Khurramiyyah. Al-Afshin, proceeded to gain victory and thus proved himself by later his performance in the Amorium campaign and in a short time, solidified himself as the greatest commander in all the Abbasid hegemony.

However; while al-Afshin was away in battle against Byzantium, Mayzar al-Qarvaniyya unleashed a scheme wherein he would capture Abdallah al-Tahir (the governor of Fars/Iran) and gain control. With this attempt, he reverted to Zoroastrianism and planned his assault. However, his bodyguard betrayed him before he could implement his plans and he was taken to Abdallah al-Tahi who whipped him and humiliated him and took him to Baghdad. Once placed in interrogation, Mayzar revealed that his accomplice in the scheme to capture Iran was that of al-Afshin and explained in detail his plans and produced written records supposedly penned by al-Afshin (possibly forged by Mayzar to frame al-Afshin). Al-Afshin thus upon his victorious return was captured by Abbasid guards and taken to be interrogated. Al-Mu'Tasim however, halted the process and demanded that al-Afshin be given a trial and swore that he himself could attest to the fact that al-Afshin was Muslim.

The trial would become infamous in Islamic history, two feudal lords of the highest class, accused of being Zoroastrian reverts and as schemers against Islam. Mayzar admitted his wrong doing and in many ways sought to be executed; however, this position of his made him an asset in seeing that al-Afshin was found guilty. One by one, the evidence stacked opposed to al-Afshin:

-First, the evidence of the ransacked Afshin estate and the procuring of his personal items. All of which revealed idols to various gods and emblems that exhibited a status of having a traditional faith or Zoroastrianism. The evidence from his estate included altars and other priceless memorabilia. These items dammed him almost immediately in the eyes of the ulema in Baghdad, who had ruled that such items must be destroyed and that a Muslim carrying such was liable to the penalty of death. Further, all forms of idols, whether owned by a Muslim or non Muslim must be destroyed and those who worship them punished, unless they are among the Dhimmi (not Zoroastrians).

-Second, Muslim witnesses arrived and made statements that al-Afshin had preserved Zoroastrian temples and religious sites. One example was where al-Afshin hindered and exiled a group of Muslim muhjahid from destroying a Zoroastrian temple and other sites in his lands. Within Abbasid fiqh of the time, it was allowed and obligatory for either an individual, group or the state to destroy all offending idols, if possible. A ruler who hindered such destruction was seen as one of the Taghoot (transgressors) and in many cases carried the penalty of death. Abbasid investigation thus agreed and concurred that yes, despite rulings on the temples and sites of Ferghana, they had been maintained and not destroyed; this piece of evidence completely damned al-Afshin in the eyes of the time.

>What this shows is that the zeitgeist of the time, was to abuse Zoroastrians completely by destroying their religious sites.

In the end, al-Afshin was sealed away in a white tower where he was starved to death. Mayzar al-Qarvaniyya was taken into the public square and tortured then strapped to a pole and skinned alive before he was then beheaded. He, al-Afshin and Babak Khurramiyyah were both skinned and their skin, head and bodies were denied burial and displayed in public.

Also do note, that until the Buyyid period, the Zoroastrians were never under Shi'i faqih of any kind. Thus, the Shi'i opinion on their status is irrelevant. We are discussing the Abbasid-Umayyad period, those who principally dealt with Zoroastrians.
 
So, if I'm understanding this right, there was a certain degree of tolerance only if you were useful, and even if you had this you essentially had to follow Islamic law and customs anyways. And that tolerance was for all intents and purposes non existent for people like Zoroastrian people.

Out of curiosity then, why do you think that the religion has survived even into the modern day?
 
So, if I'm understanding this right, there was a certain degree of tolerance only if you were useful, and even if you had this you essentially had to follow Islamic law and customs anyways. And that tolerance was for all intents and purposes non existent for people like Zoroastrian people.

Out of curiosity then, why do you think that the religion has survived even into the modern day?

Because the effort was not to destroying said communities. The Muslim authorities did not have enough care to uproot constantly rural folk religions.
 
Because the effort was not to destroying said communities. The Muslim authorities did not have enough care to uproot constantly rural folk religions.

This is laughable. Basically you rely on one case to state that Zoroastrians were a constantly persecuted and not tolerated despite all the evidence to the contrary. You conveniently left out that Zoroastrians formed a significant minority up until the Mongol invasions. I live in California and texting while driving is illegal, but I only know a handful of people who've received citations for texting and driving.
 
This is laughable. Basically you rely on one case to state that Zoroastrians were a constantly persecuted and not tolerated despite all the evidence to the contrary. You conveniently left out that Zoroastrians formed a significant minority up until the Mongol invasions. I live in California and texting while driving is illegal, but I only know a handful of people who've received citations for texting and driving.

“Laughable,” any historian would understand the gravity of my example... I said, when it was considered a crime by al-Afshin to disallow the destruction of Zoroastrian religious sites, we can assume that this was a widespread practice thus and we know it was. Simply go to Iran and attempt to find the various Zoroastrian religious sites mentioned in annals, you will not find them.

To ask for a massive numbered response when the evidence we work with as historians is very sparse, is not credible.

I am not sure on the Zoroastrian significance either. Zoroastrian likely predominated in many rural regions. However, cities were almost certainly Muslim super majority. Not even al-Tabari or any of the great Muslim scholars mention such massive Zoroastrian populaces as you seem to believe.

The Mongol destruction of Iran is an hypothesis. There is only so much we can work from in that case and taking the words of scholars without questioning is incorrect. Even so, by the Mongol period, much of what we receive in terms of resistance is from the Shi’i conglomerations in Mazandran who were notably from the most heavily Zoroastrian region in the Abbasid period. That being the Zanjan foothills and the Mazandrani mountains. Yet, by the mongol period, the entire regions of both were ruled by Shi’i conglomerations. That seems odd in my opinion if the Zoroastrian were such a powerful minority.

Also, can you name a single Zoroastrian governor from the Abbasid period? Or perhaps Zoroastrian scholars in Baghdad or Iran at the time? Yet, I can fulfill the second for Jews and Christians.

Regardless, other than laughing at a legitimate answer to your opinion, without arguing in an amicable function, do you have any other statement? I grow tired of laughing at such a long paragraph and information. Perhaps you would decide to discuss without laughing.
 
Top