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.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.
Last edited: