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

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.
No, what he is only saying is that there was in general not a systematic active search for Zoroastrians (like an inquisition). You could say there was in practice a certain freedom of conscience, but certainly not in principle (in contrast to f.i. the dutch republic, where it was also in principle) You were only allowed to be a non-muslim if you would not show it in public in any way. As almost all in life in persian culture happens in public, this would mean in theory a constant supression. Now it's up to local government how strict those rules are maintained in practise, but John's example shows that sometimes local rulers themself could be severly punished if they didn't live up to the principles(although i ask myself if the political reason wasn't more deciding In that case). In short: in theory no tolerance, in practice not much.
 
Last edited:
Read The Fire, The Star and the Cross for info on Zoroastrian officials during the early Caliphate. Even the current Islamic Republic of Iran contains Zoroastrians in its government.

What do you mean by ‘early Caliphate?’ This can mean anything. I do not know of any during the Umayyad period and am not aware of any major officials by name from primary sources during the early Abbasid period (if I was to guess, this is what the book you cite attempts to suggest).

There is currently one small politician who won approximately 9% of a regional vote within Yazd, who is Zoroastrian in Iran. This is not a vibrant community, only 25k individuals? There are nearly equal numbers of Jews within Iran to the ancient and native religion of Iran. This is more a testament to the damage the Abbasid period did to the Zoroastrians, unless you believe the Mongols killed only Zoroastrians, yet spared all other faiths.
 
What do you mean by ‘early Caliphate?’ This can mean anything. I do not know of any during the Umayyad period and am not aware of any major officials by name from primary sources during the early Abbasid period (if I was to guess, this is what the book you cite attempts to suggest).

There is currently one small politician who won approximately 9% of a regional vote within Yazd, who is Zoroastrian in Iran. This is not a vibrant community, only 25k individuals? There are nearly equal numbers of Jews within Iran to the ancient and native religion of Iran. This is more a testament to the damage the Abbasid period did to the Zoroastrians, unless you believe the Mongols killed only Zoroastrians, yet spared all other faiths.
You clearly have a depth sources, but lack the ability to accept other sources or interpret beyond your literalist Salafist interpretations. The source I cited includes numerous names and positions of Zoroastrian officials, which directly contradicts your position. Rather than check yourself you choose to belittle the Zoroastrian faith and community in typical malakh khor fashion.
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
You clearly have a depth sources, but lack the ability to accept other sources or interpret beyond your literalist Salafist interpretations. The source I cited includes numerous names and positions of Zoroastrian officials, which directly contradicts your position. Rather than check yourself you choose to belittle the Zoroastrian faith and community in typical malakh khor fashion.

This is an interesting debate, and I am not sure where the truth lies as I have no knowledge of the subject. However, I think that in this post you are taking the baggage of previous discussions into a debate where that does not help. Perhaps a more constructive approach would be to quote the sources you refer to, or name these early Zoroastrian officials and when and where they were in office. It is always better to provide positive concrete examples where possible.
 
You clearly have a depth sources, but lack the ability to accept other sources or interpret beyond your literalist Salafist interpretations. The source I cited includes numerous names and positions of Zoroastrian officials, which directly contradicts your position. Rather than check yourself you choose to belittle the Zoroastrian faith and community in typical malakh khor fashion.

It is not anti Arabism (Malakh Khor) to present Islamic History as it’s own, separate from comparisons to the east or west. Since I have joined this site, I have done none else other than educate and advocate a study of Islamic history as it’s own, without european fetishized notions and contrary to the misguided conceptions of the ancient orientalists.

Thus, I find it mildly offending that you believe that I advocate anti Arabism, after all I have done to this site to attempt to promote Islamic historical/Arab literacy. Anyway, you will believe what you wish.
 
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.

Zoroastrians in Persia were not given protected status until the Shia had dominated Iran for some time. For a long time they were definitely not People of the Book. It was during this early period their decline was quite rapid. The only groups that were granted protection were the People of the Book, Jews, Christians and an enigmatic group of called the Sabians. People still argue about who exactly the Sabians were, but they definitely weren't Zoroastrians.
 
Leaving aside the issue of persecution, I think that Zoroasterianism essentially survived when European paganism did not (any witch cults that may have endured into the early modern period were so debased as not to meaningfully constitute an enduring religious tradition ) was that Zoroasterianism was (mainly and usually) a universalist monotheistic faith whereas paganism was polytheistic. Polytheistic faiths do not usually survive and early modern level of technological / scientific understanding when it becomes clear that (for example ) the phases of the moon are the cause of the tides. So the separate sea god and moon goddess are no longer convincing. Those paganisms that still survive in relatively advanced societies are those which have adopted a universalist underpinning - Hinduism that the universe is a dream of the creator God and that their deities are to some extent avatars or dream manifestations of the same. Chinese and Japanese polytheism adopted the concept of a celestial bureaucracy with all their gods working in concert to common defined purposes.
 
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.
What do you mean by "significant minority"? And where were they located?
 
Was there ever a place in the west that Greco-Roman Pagans could have been welcomed to like Gujarat was for the Parsi?

The countryside, mountains and isolated regions was were many pagan beliefs persisted. Isolated communities with little coherence or creed to ensure their survival. It was because of their location that these communities were largely ignored, while missionaries travelled to larger more organised cities or states creating tension between various multi faith cities, such as Alexandria.

The infrastructure of the West; roads, ports and trade was largely created or eventually dominated by Rome. There are not many places that could harbour such a group that would not fall under the shadow of the growing Church.
 
Top