 Bad thoughts,
bad words,
bad deeds
The myth concerning Zoroastrianism
Persia Lover
October 18, 2004
iranian.com
A few months ago, I left Europe for Iran, hoping
to join Iranians in their fight for a brighter future. Among the
different factions
in Iran fighting for liberty are the groups advocating a return
to our pre-Islamic past and the "glory" of our Persian
empire. These people believe that Iranians have lost their "culture
consciousness", some looking to the West and some to the
Arabs for answers to their problems. They believe that only by
reviving our ancient customs and religion can we retain our pride
and glory as a nation. What annoys me most about this group is
the myth they have created, concerning Zoroastrianism.
If you read
our pre-Islamic history, you realize that, to the Iranians, the
Arab invaders" new religion, Islam, seemed to be less rigorous
than the corrupt Zoroastrianism prevalent in Persia. To common
Iranian people, Islam seemed more tangible and more humane because
it denounced the caste system upon which Sassanian Iran was based.
In actual fact, Muslim invaders abolished the class society of
Sassanian Iran after they brought the whole empire under their
domination.
The fact that we hate Arab invaders of Persia should
not make us idealize all aspects of our past. Most historians believe
that, in the eyes of the Zoroastrian priesthood, ordinary Iranians
including artisans and craftsmen were ritually untouchable and
unclean and therefore neglective. To these people, Islam spelt
liberation from forced labor and military service which the Persians
were bound to do in Iran (see Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 4).
If you study the Zoroastrian sacred book, Sad
Dar,
a compilation of Persian religious traditions,
you can clearly see how intolerant and superstitious the Zoroastrians
were. Let's have a look at Chapter 9, for example. The chapter
is entitled: "The sin of unnatural intercourse to be punished,
by any one, by death on the spot". Do you see any difference
between the Islamic practice of stoning "sinful" people
and this Zoroastrian verdict? You be the judge:
1. The ninth
subject is this, that it is necessary to practice abstinence from
committing or permitting unnatural intercourse.
2. For this is the chief of all sins in the religion: there is
no worse sin than this in the good religion, and it is proper to
call those who commit it worthy of death in reality. 3. If any
one comes forth to them, and shall see them in the act, and is
working with an ax, it is requisite for him to cut off the heads
or to rip up the bellies of both, and it is no sin for him. 4.
But it is not proper to kill any person without the authority of
high-priests and kings, except on account of committing or permitting
unnatural intercourse. 5. For it says in revelation that unnatural
intercourse is on a par with Ahriman, with Afrasiyab, with Dahak
[Zohak], with Tur-i Bradrok-resh who slew Zartosht, with Malkos
who will arise, with the serpent Srobovar which existed in the
days of Sam Nariman, and as many sins as are theirs. 6. And Ahriman,
the evil one, becomes more joyful, owing to this practice, than
owing to the other sins which have made high-priests necessary;
for the soul itself of that person becomes extinct. 7. And when
they commit the sin with women, it is just the same as that with
men.
How about Chapter 38 ?
1. The thirty-eighth subject
is this, that, so far as effort and endeavor prevail, it is requisite
to abstain from the same cup
as those of a different religion, and it is not desirable to drink
the water of any goblet of theirs. 2. And if the goblet be of copper
or of tin, it is requisite to wash it with water, so that it may
be proper to drink the water. 3. If the goblet be of earthenware
or wooden, it is altogether improper. 4. Because, when any one
drinks with a stranger, it makes his heart inclined (mail) towards
him, for it would be a sin; and, on account of the sin committed,
he becomes bold, and his soul has an inclination for wickedness.
This
reminds me of my Muslim Iranian friend who refused to touch books
which arrived by post from abroad and had them rinsed before
touching them.
Chapter 7 of Sad Dar also caught my attention because I always
thought the "sneeze scare" practice in Iran had its
origin in Islam but it seems I was wrong:
1. The seventh subject
is this, that, when a sneeze ('hatsat) comes forth from any one,
it is requisite to recite one Yatha-ahu-vairyo
and one Ashem-vohu. 2. Because there is a fiend in our bodies,
and she is an adversary who is connected with mankind, and strives
so that she may make misfortune ('hillat) and sickness predominant
(mustauli) over mankind. 3. And in our bodies there is a fire which
they call a disposition -- in Arabic they say tabi'hat -- and they
call it the sneezing instinct (gharizi). 4. It is connected with
that fiend, and they wage warfare, and it keeps her away from the
body of man. 5. Then, as the fire becomes successful over that
fiend, and puts her to flight (hazimat), a sneeze comes because
that fiend comes out. 6. Afterwards, because it is necessary, they
recite these inward prayers and perform the benediction (afrin)
of the fire, so that it may remain for a long period while thou
art keeping this fiend defeated. 7. When another person hears the
sneeze, it is likewise requisite for him to utter; the said prayers,
and to accomplish the benediction of that spirit.
 I think it is
time we debunked Zoroastrianism of the myth surrounding it. Zoroastrianism
was another intolerant religion which the Iranians
wanted to get rid of. Unfortunately, it was too late when our people
realized that they were getting out of the frying pan and into
the fire. The atrocities committed by Arab invaders were so horrendous
that they have made us idealize our dark past.
When Iranians realized
that the new religion was as intolerant and sometimes even more
cruel than the old faith, they tried to resist the invaders. They
took every opportunity to rise up against the blood-thirsty Arabs
because what they really wanted was not another fanatic religion
but freedom from religion and bigotry. When the Arab Calif, Uthman,
was slain, the brave people of Estakhr chose the moment to rise,
only to be supressed in a welter of blood by Abdollah ben Abbas
on the orders of his cousin, Ali ibne Abi Taleb, the fourth Calif.
The
people of Neyshapur, also in the time of Ali, rose against Arab
overlordship and refused to pay Jaziyyeh and Kharaj (payments
to Arabs for not converting to Islam) so the Calif had to send
an army to bring them back into submission. In the Cambridge History
of Iran (vol. 4) we read about the marzban (general) of Zarang
(Sistan) named Parviz who appeared before the Arab general Rabi"
(bin Ziyad Harethi). He found the Arab general sitting on the
corpse
of a dead Iranian soldier, his head reclining against another.
Rabi" had ordered his ontrouge to also provide themselves
with such horrible seats. The sight terrified Parviz into submission
to spare his people such barbarous cruelties.
 Many Iranians accepted
Islam to spare their lives such cruelties and to gain exemption
from payment of Jaziyeh and Kharaj. They repeatedly found excuses
to break free from Islam but I doubt it if they ever yearned
to return to their old religion. The memory of Zoroastrian dominance
was too fresh to lure them back into it, although that memory
has
faded now and perhaps that is why a section of our community
is longing to go back in time and is finding solace in our ancient
religion. For this is human nature: When you stay away from something
for a long time, you start romanticizing about it and forget
about
its nefarious sides.
*
*
|
Bad thoughts,
bad words,
bad deeds
