Revival of ancestral links between Iranians and Kurds and Parsis picking up pace around the world

[Baibars_1260]

بارزانی‎مستہ فا

 

[Baibars_1260]

Religion in Kurdistan

Religious diversity has been a feature of Kurdistan for many centuries. Main religions that currently exist in Kurdistan are as follows: Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Yarsanism, Yazidism, Alevism, and Judaism. Today, Sunni Islam is the most adhered religion in Kurdistan.

Islam


The majority of Kurdish people are Muslim by religion. Islam has gained strong popular support and historically acted as a back-bone of the Kurdish Movement.Sunni Islam
The majority of Kurds are Sunni Muslims. The exact proportion is uncertain but McDowall gives the percentage as 'approximately 75%', while Martin van Bruinessen estimates around two thirds or three quarters at least. Sunni Kurds follow the Shafi‘i madhhab, which distinguishes them from Arab and Turkish neighbors who in general are Hanafi. This difference is identified by some Kurds as being essential to their ethnic identity and deliberately emphasized.

Historically, Kurds played an important role in Islamic intellectual development. Kurdistan was situated in a geographic location which enabled Kurds to equip Arabic, Persian and Turkish, all had been principal languages of Islamic civilization at different times. This condition had made Kurds playing mediators of different Islamic cultural centers. Kurdish ulama were especially significant at the high ranks of Ottoman Nizamiye Courts, Al-Azhar University in Cairo and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina in the Arabian Peninsula. After the secularization of Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan became the only remaining place where traditional Islamic institutions were preserved in the country, and many Turkish Muslim scholars went to Kurdistan in order to obtain the Islamic education.

Sunni Islam among Kurds is characterized by a strong overtone of mysticism and its scholars’ affiliation with Sufi orders. In Kurdish society these constitute a hierarchical system, in which the leaders (sheikh) deploy their influence onto the localities through their deputies (khalifa), who mediate between sheikhs and common people. Today, Naqshbandiya and Qadiriyya are the most active tariqas. These tariqas had produced numbers of significant figures in the early history of Kurdish nationalist movement, including Mahmud Barzanji of Qadiriyyah, and Sheikh Said and Sheikh Ubeydullah of Naqshbandiyyah. Strong influences of sheikhs in the late 19th and the early 20th centuries were attributed to the Ottoman administrative reforms and the defense against the intrusion of Christian missionaries.

Modern political development among Sunni Muslim Kurds varies throughout the state to which they belong. In Turkey, Said Nursî exerted major influence. In the early days,

 

[Baibars_1260]

I was actually surprised to know about the anthem. What can explain this..

A brief history:

When Pakistan became independent in 1947 it didn't have a national anthem.
There was a National Song penned by the renowned Urdu poet
Jagannath Azad ...
اے سر زمئن پاک
( Aye Sar Zameene Pak)
This song was broadcast from Radio Pakistan on 14th August 1947.

Even though there was a lot of pressure to adopt Aye Sar Zameene Pak it was not officially adopted but continued as a defacto anthem.
The new anthem Pak Sarzamin was written by Hafeez Jullandari in 1952 and the anthem was adopted in 1954.

Why is it Persianized?

Farsi was the official language of the subcontinent for 600 years.
The Moghuls used Chagtai Turkish in their homes but for administrative work and military communications used Farsi.
Pakistan has a Farsi speaking population. Farsi is taught as an optional subject in most schools and there are Farsi faculties in a several universities and colleges.
Urdu and Farsi share a large number of words as common vocabulary.
The anthem was therefore written keeping the ease with which people would relate to the values espoused. As Pakistan was intended to be a secular republic the last line of the anthem references only a generic spiritual entity )as a shadow.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Jami and Rumi. Street singers in Pakistan have a traditional bonding with these two poets.
They sing in Farsi, the secular revolutionary songs promoting tolerance and reason.
(Check out the video embedded in the link below)

Mun khaak-e-kaaf-e-paaye Rindan-e-Kharabaatam
Qurbaan-e-lab-e-laal-e-janaan-e-Kharabaatam

I am as dust 'neath the feet of the Drunkards of Kharabaat
Sacrificed, for the red lips of the Beloveds of Kharabaat

Jami: Mun Khaak-e-Kaaf-e-Paaye

Kharabaat (Persian: خرابات ‎‎) is a term in Persian poetry, created as a combination of the two opposite fragments kharaab (ruinous) and aa...

shayarmarket.blogspot.com

 

[padamchen]

Arabs Muslims are burying the hatchet with the their fellow sematic Jews.

Ethnicity is a greater bond than Religion.

I am pretty sure Iranians will chose Kurds, Parsis and Indians.

Fire is the ultimate truth and Iranians will embrace it again.

I'm pretty sure of it too.

There is the very likely possibility of the God Switch the Persians are famous for.

Either way as you can see from the thread, we are not doing anything inside Iran.

The Kurds are the ones fighting. The Kurds are the ones converting in the hundreds of thousands.

In all likelihood, the Kurds will be an established Zoroastrian nation long before Iran reverts.

Surprisingly though, we still don't marry our daughters to them. They are looked at as amcestral racial cousins. Closer than you, but cousins all the same.

Cheers, Doc

 

[padamchen]

There certainly aren't 5 million, that is the entire population of that region.

As of 2018, there were close to 8 million in that region.

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/KRSO_IOM_UNFPA_Demographic_Survey_Kurdistan_Region_of_Iraq.pdf

That region is in flux population wise as you know.

The Zoroastrian Kurds we meet let us say are no great respecters of formal boundary lines on maps ....

Cheers, Doc

 

[Cliftonite]

Surprisingly though, we still don't marry our daughters to them. They are looked at as amcestral racial cousins. Closer than you, but cousins all the same

Sounds borderline creepy. Very Harry Potted pureblood.

All that inbreeding is going to give you a ton of diseases Doc. All of you will be wearing glasses like Orthodox Jews.

 

[padamchen]

Sounds borderline creepy. Very Harry Potted pureblood.

All that inbreeding is going to give you a ton of diseases Doc. All of you will be wearing glasses like Orthodox Jews.

We breed with the Dari speaking Iroons quite famously.

Our laws are very detailed and very clear and pretty strict.

You are on the Morocco Israel thread.

Read the passage of the banned guy I quoted and bolded.

That is one of THE core concepts of Mazdayasnism.

It's why Iran suffers to this day.

And we thrive.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Baibars_1260]

Sounds borderline creepy. Very Harry Potted pureblood.

All that inbreeding is going to give you a ton of diseases Doc. All of you will be wearing glasses like Orthodox Jews.

Thalassemia is a difficult affliction to get rid of.
As the genetic pool diminishes,the risk of birth defects increases as well. This is common in specialty dog breeds. Shih Tzu's brought into North America and bred from a limited number of pairs had problems until vigorous culling, neutering, and " Not for breeding tagging" stabilized the breed. Even so the odd weak pup turns up from the litter.

 

[padamchen]

Its a Lockdown Choir for the Parsis with Shayan Italia's Power of Love

By -
TIMESOFINDIA.COM

facebooktwitterincom

Spreading like wildfire on Facebook, the Zoroastrian Parsi Gods seem to be giving a big thumbs up to Shayan Italia's cover version of Power of Love. The beautiful 80's hit has been recreated by Shayan Italia, a well-respected Indian-born multi-award International winning musician and entrepreneur, with many fellow Parsis sitting across the globe using technology to get the song going. Shayan came into the limelight in 2018 being crowned “Global Indian Of The Year” for his heartfelt rendition of the Indian National Anthem, an ode to his late Mum, which stands as the most viewed anthem the world over today.

THE POWER OF LOVE, his second heartfelt music initiative is dedicated to those away from their loved ones during the lockdown period and features the astounding “Global Lockdown Choir”. Describing the unusual circumstances of the world and the thought behind the song, Shayan says, “For every project, I take on, there has to be a message greater than the artist/performer/writer etc. There has to be a higher purpose. For me, there is no greater POWER than the POWER OF LOVE between two living things: human beings or animals. A Mum is a Mum for everyone (be it for you or a dog or even a whale), and a loved one is a loved one for every living thing. To enforce that ethos, I felt I could do a unique yet intimate arrangement that may inspire people in these times of hardship in all of our lives.”

Shayan elaborates how this beautiful project unfolded, "I came to know of a fellow Parsi vocalist Delraaz Bunshaha few months ago. I loved her demeanour as a person and I’ve been meaning to work with her ever since. I was also insistent that the STEM of the project originates from the Zoroastrian Parsi community, which I believe to be one of the most artistic and creative communities pan India and the world over. So I sat down one day, at home, turned on the house lights and started. After completing it I shared it with a friend, who instantly loved it and one connection organically led to another. Within 72 hours vocalists from various parts of the world were assembling."

He further adds, "It took a total of 2 weeks from concept to put this entire initiative together, coordinating 56 vocalists from various parts of the globe on a crappy 3G/4G network, making them sing the song like 15 times across Zoom, FaceTime and WhatsApp sessions with massive dropouts." Unfortunately, Shayan faced fibre cuts from Internet providers during each recording session adding to the complexities.

When asked why music he says, "Music has always possessed the power to spread a message across the globe incredibly fast, and connect with people individually on a very deep level."

Shayan Italia has arranged, produced, performed the song "Power Of Love" on piano and sung the same live featuring the enigmatic Delraaz Bunshah as lead vocalist.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=2920603354688762

Cheers, Doc

 

[padamchen]

Iranian Nationalism and Zoroastrian Identity: Between Cyrus and Zoroaster

Monica M. Ringer

Amherst College

​

One of the most famous performances of Iranian nationalism was the elaborately choreographed celebration of 2500 years of Iranian monarchy by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi before Cyrus the Great’s tomb in 1971. Scholars have pointed to Iranian nationalism’s use of the ancient past in an attempt to construct a modern, secular nationalism free from the institutional power of the ulama and legal constraints of shari’a law. Iran as a nation and identity was thereby imagined as an entity of long durée – and thus distinguishable from more recent history of decadence and decline.[1] Increased centralization, accompanied by the reduction of ulama power and shari’a law led to increased legal status and socioeconomic opportunities for religious minorities. The emphasis on the ancient past was also welcomed by religious minorities eager to embrace a national identity that was not primarily Islamic. Although all religious minorities benefitted from nationalism and increased centralization and secularization, no minority group was as closely associated with the pre-Islamic past than the Zoroastrians.

Iranian nationalism’s relationship to the Zoroastrian community was unique. The ancient, pre-Islamic past of the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires, although (re)imagined as a secular, historic and national past, was in fact ethnically Persian and religiously Zoroastrian.[2] Nationalism was envisioned as inclusive – seeking to embrace and unify all Iranians – yet was unable to include all Iranians equally. The Zoroastrian community not only appreciated this fact, but actively participated in promoting nationalism and their special place in it. Yet their enthusiasm was not without some ambivalence. The intimacy between Iranian Zoroastrians and Iranian nationalism obscure the fundamental underlying tensions in this relationship. Nationalism produced profound complications within the Zoroastrian community over the basis of its identity. By seeking to universalize the pre-Islamic past, the past was articulated as a historic and thus national past. But in so doing, the secularization of this past denuded it of religious content. Were the Zoroastrians thus an ethnico-historic group? Or a religious group defined by tenets of faith? Modern, reformist Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period increasingly defined itself as an individual faith yet the community never abandoned a strong, and implicitly contradictory, sense of historico-ethnic identity. This paper explores the Zoroastrian articulation of, participation in and uneasy relationship to nationalism in the Pahlavi period.

Iranian nationalism was constructed as modern, accessible and retrievable. Ancient Iran was claimed as the origin and repository of modern ideas and institutions that could be retrieved and resuscitated. This past was imagined not as a Persian and Zoroastrian past, but as a secular historic past that was thereby the inheritance of all Iranians, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. This claim to universality was an essential component in nationalism’s ideological utility and stood at the basis of claims of authenticity. Positing ancient Iran as the foundation of modern Iran enabled modernity to be claimed as intrinsic, inherently Iranian and thus not imitative or adoptive. Nationalism also contained a strong element of secular citizenship which provided an ideological basis for equality of citizenship as opposed to inequality based on religious affiliation.[3] Iranian-ness, in this formulation, was accessible to all, not the preserve of one group, but instead dependent on the conscious embrace of nationalism’s ideology and its modern project.

Despite these significant elements of universalism and accessibility, nationalism’s location in the pre-Islamic period inevitably privileged the Zoroastrians as the most authentic and thus the most Iranian. The tension between inclusivity and exclusivity remained unresolved and found frequent expression in the Zoroastrian community. For example, the principal pillars of nationalism that permitted the resuscitation and accessibility of ancient Iran were language, literature and the celebration of selective historical sites as monuments to ancient (and thus present) national identity.[4] Persian (Farsi) was claimed as a common national language – local and linguistic (ethnic) differences were deemphasized through compulsory acquisition of Persian in schools and the use of Persian in the vast majority of publications, literary and otherwise. Persian was thus claimed as the language of all Iranians, whether native Persian speakers or not. To this end, many “non-Persian” Arabic-based words were eliminated and new Persian words invented for use. The Zoroastrians made particular claims to ownership of the Persian language. An editorial in Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian argued that the people of Fars, Persian Dari speakers (explicitly Zoroastrians), were the “original Iranians” and advocated ridding Persian of foreign, read Arab, elements and returning to what he termed “Shahnameh” Persian.[5] The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran situated itself as a preserver of Iranian culture by sponsoring students interested in the literature and culture of ancient Iran to study abroad.[6]

The Shahnameh was seized upon and promoted by nationalists as the quintessential Iranian epic, written in “pure” Persian, and capturing the nostalgia for the pre-Islamic era of Iranian greatness. The Shahnameh clearly differentiates Iranians from non-Iranians, and identifies Arabs with Islam (and implicitly thus, Islam as an Arab and thus foreign religion). It should also be noted that the Shahnameh commemorates values of royalty, nobility and an ethical system that differs markedly from Islamic-based virtues. For example, the knight-hero, not the Prophet Mohammad is the ideal man, aristocratic privilege trumps equality of faith, and women in the Shahnameh more closely resemble early Islamic models of political action and power than medieval shari’a-oriented prescriptions of seclusion. In practice, pre-Islamic Persian conceptions of kingship were Islamicized in the political theory of al-Ghazzali and Nizam al-Molk, and the synthesis of early Islamic, Arab tribal and Persian ideas of kingship became the functioning norm for much of Islamic (and Iranian) history. The Shahnameh’s association with the ancient past was emphasized by Zoroastrians who considered the book an actual history. The association of the Shahnameh with non-Muslim non-Arab “Iranian-ness” and thus Zoroastrianism was perfectly illustrated by an Iranian Muslim who sought to convert to Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period. As he explained it, he “had always been a nationalist and had read a little Ferdowsi;” since he considered himself Iranian, not Arab, he felt that he should adhere to an Iranian, not an Arab religion.[7] Not surprisingly, one of the first “historical sites” to be celebrated in Pahlavi Iran was the discovery and refurbishing of Ferdowsi’s tomb in Khorasan in 1935. This project was directed by Zoroastrian parliamentary representative and head of the Tehran Zoroastrian anjoman, Kay Khosrow Shahrokh at Reza Shah’s request.[8]

The anti-Arab component in Iranian nationalism was seized on by the Zoroastrian community. It often bled into indistinct anti-Muslim attitudes as well, although the Zoroastrian community was always careful not to criticize Islam directly. Articles in Zoroastrian journals frequently referred to the coming of Arabs (and thus Islam) to Iran as a calamity. Arabs were clearly distinguished from “Iranians” as uncivilized. In seeking to answer the nagging problem of why the Arabs defeated the Persian Empire, authors were at pains to insist that it had nothing to do with cultural or religious superiority.[9] The religious implications were explicitly refuted in a public lecture by Hashem Reza in Hukht, the organ of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. He insisted that “everyone knows that Arabs had no culture or civilization.” When the Arabs came to Iran they brought with them destruction. He describes Islam as “intolerant” and “harsh” and responsible for destroying “humanity, morals and kindness.” To the contrary, he asserted that the Zoroastrian Avesta inculcates strong morals, culture and love for humanity.[10]

The lines between Zoroastrian and Iranian identity were naturally indistinct. The difference between Zoroastrian religious ceremonies and national, secular ceremonies was deliberately blurred both by the Pahlavi monarchs, and by the Zoroastrian community itself. Reza Shah adopted Zoroastrian calendar names, and placed the Zoroastrian Fravahar symbol on the National Bank and the Ministry of Justice.[11] Reza Shah had a close relationship with the Zoroastrian parliamentary representative Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, and entrusted him with many governmental tasks on his behalf.[12] Reza Shah was also sympathetic to Indian Zoroastrians (Parsis), inviting delegations to Iran and even offering to facilitate their settlement in Iran. Dinshah Irani, the Parsi founder of both the Iranian Zoroastrian Anjoman and the Iran League in India, was invited by Reza Shah to Iran in 1932 as leader of a Parsi delegation. Reza Shah awarded him honors and entrusted him with a message to take back to the Parsi community in India:

You Parsis are as much the children of this soil as any other Iranis, and so you are as much entitled to have your proper share in its development as any other nationals. We estimate Our Empire’s resources to be even greater than those of America, and in tapping them you can take your proper part. We do not want you to come all bag and baggage; just wait a little and watch. If you find the proposition beneficial both to yourselves and to this land, then do come and We shall greet you with open arms, as We might Our dear brothers and sisters. Iran is a vast country pregnant with many advantages and fresh fields waiting for development. We suggest that the Parsis, who are still the sons of Iran, though separated from her, should look upon this country of to-day as their own, and differentiate it from its immediate past, and strive to derive benefit from her developments.[13]

Reza Shah’s interest in Zoroastrianism even led one American diplomat to speculate that the shah might one day establish it as the state religion.[14] Reza Shah’s heir, Mohamad Reza Pahlavi, continued his father’s emphasis on Iranian nationalism and the resultant nationalization and secularization of the Zoroastrian past and religion. He encouraged the performance of Nowruz and the winter-solstice celebration of Mehragan as national holidays. Prominent Zoroastrians, Mobed Rostam Shahzadi and Ardeshir Mobed, were invited to the palace for Zoroastrian festivals.[15]

Not surprisingly, Zoroastrians frequently laid claim to preeminence as the most Iranian of Iranians. A writer in the journal Pendarha exclaimed that, “the [Zoroastrian] youth have not forgotten old ways and ancient customs. You are the souvenir of an illustrious past. Long live the king.” [16] This idea was also voiced by Muslim Iranians. For example, in 1979 Ayat Sadughi speaking in Yazd noted that” Zoroastrians are the roots of Iran. We Moslems are like the branches of a tree, if our roots are cut off, we shall shrivel up and die.”[17] The Zoroastrian community encouraged the identification of national symbols, sites and ceremonies with Zoroastrian historical and religious ones. For example the Sadeh religious ceremony in Shiraz was celebrated at the historical site of Nakhsh-e Rostam and inaugurated by the singing of the national anthem.[18] Nowruz in particular was characterized as an Iranian and thus national holiday. In an article in the Zoroastrian journal Pandarha, the author described Nowruz as an ancient Iranian festival which had persisted despite Arab attempts to wipe it out.[19] Consistent with nationalism’s secularization of the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians themselves de-emphasized the religious nature of this ceremony. Nowruz was portrayed as a day of remembrance of the mythical King Jamshid’s discovery of fire, and closely identified with “the celebration of royalty and [royal] farr.”[20] The importance of kingship was stressed as an integral component of the Avesta.[21]

Zoroastrians consistently emphasized their loyalty to the monarchy. Their noted monarchism had a number of underlying reasons. It was foremost a commitment to the Pahlavi monarchy as it promoted centralization, secularization and modernization with the concomitant reduction in the institutional and ideological power of the ulama and Islamic law, respectively. The central government had been responsible for initiating and protecting legal, social, economic and political advances of minorities since the late nineteenth century. Zoroastrian attachment to the monarchy also stemmed from the nationalist emphasis on the ancient glories of the Persian monarchies that were seized on by both Zoroastrians and the Pahlavi monarchs. The Zoroastrians repeatedly mention the institution of kingship as a respected component of Zoroastrian religious tradition. This also enabled a disassociation from Islam as marking the end of the ancient past of might and glory of the Persian Empire. The Zoroastrian press is full of eulogies to Reza Shah who is lauded as having brought Iran back on the path of greatness and assuming her rightful place as a leader of civilization.[22] Not coincidentally, the 2500 year anniversary of the Persian monarchy was claimed by Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi and celebrated with much fanfare. The Zoroastrian community in Iran and India were actively involved in preparing events to coincide with the celebration. It was seen as an opportunity to promote awareness on the international stage of Zoroastrian religion, the Zoroastrian historical past and Iranian civilization.[23]

Zoroastrian traditions were posited as models for Iranian modernity by the Zoroastrian community. Contemporary Iranian society, if purged of the non authentic and if firmly anchored in the traditions of the pre-Islamic past, could in fact become modern and in so doing recapture Iran’s glorious place as a leader among nations. In addition to obvious historical associations of pre-Islamic Iran with the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians also marshaled theological arguments to assert the essential modernity of Zoroastrianism. These arguments exhibit similar tensions between universality (inclusivity) and particularism (exclusivity) as do the historically-based arguments. The theological arguments claimed that Zoroastrianism was consistent with modern values (women’s rights, science, and progress). As hallmarks of Iranian-ness and pre-Islamic “authenticity” the Zoroastrians both symbolized this modern project, and went a step further by claiming to be the originators of many of these modern values.

In community lectures and articles, it was frequently posited that Zoroastrian religious ideals not only were consistent with the modern agenda, but that Zoroaster’s teaching was in fact the origin of their first articulation. Zoroaster was the first to establish a monotheistic religion and to preach a simple ethical religion suitable for contemporary Iranians. In a public lecture given in 1965 entitled “The Teachings of Zoroaster and the New Civilization,” the audience was instructed that the subject itself “is not just for Zoroastrians, but for all Iranians interested in this country and those who know about their history and glory of the past.” The speaker went on to explain that “thousands of years ago, the teachings of Zoroaster can be compared with today’s humanism,” and that his teachings continue to be relevant in the twentieth century. Zoroaster’ teachings about humanity and human happiness were claimed to be “true” according to modern principles of economics, as well as contemporary social values, according to the speaker. In another lecture given by a Zoroastrian priest on the occasion of the anniversary of Zoroaster’s birthday, the Zoroastrian tenets of ritual purity were given scientific certification: “now we have scientific proof of the polluting danger of microbes.” In yet another public lecture, Dr. Sarefnia argued that “Zoroaster was the first prophet of mankind” who taught peace, the promotion of agriculture, civility and love of homeland.” Zoroaster’s message is universal: “That which Zoroaster taught thousands of years ago is now in the twentieth century the essence of civilization and salvation.”[24] Zoroastrian theological compatibilities with modernity credit Iranians as the originators of these ideas, and even go further by presenting Iranians as the originators of something universal, something that generated human “progress” and the “civilization” of mankind. Zoroastrianism is presented as the crucible of universal modern social values. The historical argument for resting modernity on the pre-Islamic past was easier to extend to contemporary Iranians, who, even if not Zoroastrian, still in a sense shared this historical past. It was trickier to Iranianize Zoroastrian religion and claim that somehow Muslim Iranians were also its inheritors. A resolution was attempted by making the argument for universalism according to which all monotheists – all Christians, Jews and Muslims – shared in Zoroaster’s legacy and were thus in a sense also the inheritors of his message. Zoroaster established a set of universal ethics for all mankind.

Zoroastrianism was claimed as the first modern religion and therefore consistent with modern ideals of rationalism, science, hygiene and women’s rights. Claims that the Zoroastrian historical past enjoyed gender equality, freedom, and social justice abound in the Zoroastrian journals. For example, although civilized countries now tout the importance of women’s rights, they had always been important in Zoroastrian religious text and historical tradition.[25] Another example from the Zoroastrian journal Hukht reads:

His Majesty ordered that in order to renew the majesty and glory of ancient Iran, all practices and laws of the old Iran should be followed – including freedom of women to pursue their own destinies…in ancient Iran men and women were equal. . . now women are out from behind the black curtain of hijab and are accepting their rights. Zoroastrian women have established organizations and societies in the service of the king and are bearing fruit in advancing public health, and the culture of our country. . .[26]

Zoroastrian women’s organizations were deeply involved in promoting the ideals of the new modern woman as quintessentially Zoroastrian. The provincial, Yazd-based Zoroastrian women’s organization (the Sazeman-e Zanan-e Zartoshtian-e Yazd or the Jalaseh-ye Zanan-e Zartoshtian-e Yazd) was first established in 1925 in the context of Reza Shah’s promotion of modernization. In the Zoroastrian community’s own history of this organization, based upon the records of the organization itself, the connection between modernizing women and modernizing religion is made explicit:

The ignorant and prejudiced realized that cleanliness and dirtiness were not functions of which religious community you belonged to, but rather whether your clothes were clean and you lived a clean life. [The Zoroastrian women who founded the organization] believed that Zoroastrians worshipped Ahura Mazda and had the book of the Avesta. They believed that the principles of their religion were good thoughts, good words, good deeds and following the path of cleanliness and righteousness, the love of shah and country, humanity and culture. They understood that Zoroastrians were the true Iranians and the true heirs of this land. And that Zoroastrian women needed to gather together…and pursue their goals of ending deprivation and spreading culture and raising the level of knowledge, awareness of religious practices and fighting against superstition. [They organized in order to] end their backwardness.[27]

What is clear in the above quotation is the firm connection of the “New” woman agenda of social activism, hygiene and education, with nationalist notions of Zoroastrian identity and goals of ending backwardness and its association with filth. Particularly interesting is the additional conviction that religion too needs modernizing. Modern religion reconsiders Tradition and redraws the line between “true religion” and “superstition” using the yardstick of compatibility with modern values. Modern religion is rational, internalized and ethical, and placed itself at odds with “tradition” and “ritual” as failures to understand the underlying intent of religion and to thus move into a more spiritual and rationalized relationship to religious performance.

This new understanding of Zoroastrianism was a function of the Parsi and subsequently Iranian Zoroastrian reform movements. Parsi religious reform began in the 1850s and left a deep footprint in the Iranian Zoroastrian community.[28] Iranian reformism was most forcefully argued by Kay Khosrow Shahrokh in the 1920s and retained its essential features in the subsequent Pahlavi period. Zoroastrian reformism was characterized by a rationalization of religion and consequent emphasis on individual spirituality and ethical responsibility. Rational religion eschewed external mediation between individuals and God, instead promoting the interiorization of piety and it outward expression as ethical behavior in society. Ritual was seen as irrational and the performance of ritual in public viewed as essentially inimical to the emphasis on the universal ethical foundation of all religions. Kay Khosrow Shahrokh espoused these ideas which became widely accepted in theory, although not always corresponding to community practice.[29] Shahrokh’s articulation of reformist Zoroastrianism was frequently expressed in public lectures on religion sponsored by Zoroastrian groups, as well as in articles and editorials in Zoroastrian journals. For example, Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp argued that Zoroaster knew God as fatherly and kind. He established monotheism and an ethical view of world with consequent responsibilities of individuals.[30] Zoroastrians must work to create the ‘heavenly kingdom’ of equality and universal well-being in this world. . . people should work on their souls, not worldly gain.[31] Individual spirituality was frequently linked to social responsibility.[32]

Modern rational religion, although firmly embraced by the Zoroastrian community, was also partly responsible for a lack of community identity. The de-emphasis on ritual and the performance of difference as opposed to the emphasis on individual faith as ethical behavior stressed the nature of religion as faith, rather than ritual practice and particularism. This contributed to a decline in participation in religious observance, something that the Zoroastrian community viewed with concern. The problem of youth not having faith and not interested in religion was the subject of a public lecture by Mobed Rostam Shahzadi who worried about eventual diminishing numbers of Iranian Zoroastrians.[33]

The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and other community organizations sought to educate Zoroastrians about their religion in an attempt to revive identity and practice. Zoroastrians were urged to differentiate Zoroastrian religious practice from Muslim practice. For example, they were urged to wear white only at religious ceremonies, rather than black as was typical of Muslims.[34] Animal sacrifice was another practice that the Zoroastrian community leaders sought to eliminate, arguing that it had no basis in Zoroastrianism.[35] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi explained that Zoroastrianism, despite its antiquity, was an evolved religion. Sacrifice, typical of ancient religions, was outlawed by Zoroaster.[36] In a thinly veiled denunciation of Islamic practice as irrational, Shahzadi declared that “sacrifice is senseless and illogical and not practiced by Parsees” and noted that the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and the Council of Mobeds (Konkash-e Mobedan) of Yazd had both forbidden it.[37]

The Dari dialect was also seized on as quintessentially Zoroastrian. Leaders sought to maintain it as a “pillar” of Zoroastrian identity, although the youth increasingly did not speak it.[38] The preservation of Dari as a language particular to Iranian Zoroastrians was of special interest to prominent philanthropist and community activist Morvarid Khanum Giv.[39] In order to preserve the use and knowledge of Dari she ordered that Zoroastrian students in the Tehran Pars development must always speak Dari in religious classes that were held three times a week.[40]

Dwindling attendance at community religious ceremonies was countered in the post 1960 period by new Zoroastrian community organizations that sought to combine religious performance with socialization and other activities. Both the youth group Fravahar and the Women’s Anjoman, as well as the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran, sponsored religious ceremonies that combined the teaching of Zoroastrianism with social events. The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran decided to hold monthly lectures on religion. An editorial in the journal Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian encouraged people to attend, promising that, “this will create feelings of faith and love of religion and Zoroastrian-ness and …in this way develop a sense of unity and togetherness and similar spirit and maybe even you will learn more about Zoroastrianism.”[41]

The inherent conflict between religion as faith and religion as community identity remained in full force in the Zoroastrian community. This deep ambivalence about the essential nature of Zoroastrian religious identity was exacerbated by Iranian nationalism. The Zoroastrian community’s embrace of Pahlavi modernizing programs, secular culture, citizenship and westernization was inseparable from its rapid growth in terms of economic wealth, social status and political power. The Zoroastrian community’s fortunes were in many ways tied to the official promotion of modernization, secularism and Iranian nationalism. At the same time, nationalism’s claim that the ancient past was a national past, universally accessible and claimable by all Iranians created strong ambivalence in the nature of Iranian Zoroastrian identity. The secularization of the ancient past and emphasis of Zoroastrians as “authentic” Iranians suggested that Zoroastrians were in a sense an ethnicity. If their religious holidays were national holidays, and Zoroastrians exemplars of Iranian-ness, then what was the status of Zoroastrian religious practice and belief? The question revolved around what determined Zoroastrian identity: faith or birth. The tensions about identity were clearly not just an issue of tension between the state and the Zoroastrian community, but also within the community itself. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the debates surrounding the twin problems of marriage and conversion.

As socioeconomic Iranian elites of all religious backgrounds increasingly sent their children abroad to Europe and the U.S. to pursue higher education in the 1960s and 1970s, the social and cultural fallout from time spent abroad began to be felt. In particular, the Zoroastrian community, as a minority community, suffered from Zoroastrians marrying foreigners (and thus not fellow Zoroastrians). This negatively effected community cohesion since Zoroastrians married to foreigners either did not return to Iran, or upon their return were less enthusiastic about participating in community activities. The problem was so intensely felt, that it was likened to the kidnapping and forcible conversion of Zoroastrian girls in the pre-modern, Islamic period: “I remember when. . . girls from our villages were taken away and converted and how miserable we all were. But today we are unaware of a danger even greater, and more home-wreaking” – study abroad. As one editorial in a Zoroastrian journal lamented, “this might be of no consequence to other communities and religions but for our small community, the loss of each person is a problem.”[42] It was also a problem with the integration of children from these marriages into the Zoroastrian community, and with the growing issue of whether or not a non-Zoroastrian born spouse might in fact convert to Zoroastrianism.

What we see here from this brief sketch of the problem, is the inherent conflict between community identity, religious identity and nationalism. On the one hand we have the paradox of Zoroastrian enthusiastic adoption of the modernizing national agenda, yet an adoption that in its effects, can and did lead to loss of community. Study abroad threatened the community with loss of its members. We also see the related problem of identity: what is a Zoroastrian: primarily a member of a religious community? Or a member of an ethno-historical community? Can one join by adopting the tenets of faith? Or must one be born into the community? These were not easy questions. They were all the more complicated given in a Muslim context which forbade apostasy from Islam. Although there were conversions from Islam in the 1960s and 1970s, the National Zoroastrian Organization never sanctioned them, perhaps for political reasons, although a Zoroastrian priest was found to perform initiation ceremonies.[43] At the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in 1968 conversion of non-Zoroastrian spouses was condoned, although with the understanding that these spouses would not be apostatizing from Islam. More than ten foreign-born spouses in Iran took advantage of this ruling.[44] Yet the notion, consistent with Zoroastrianism as a modern rational religion, that faith denoted identity, never led to the abandonment of Zoroastrian identity as an ethno-historic community. Commenting on the conversion of forty or so Muslims in Abadan to Zoroastrianism in the 1970s, a Zoroastrian woman voiced her opposition in ethnic terms: “Zoroastrianism is a race and a culture. When we suffered persecution, where were these would-be Zoroastrians?”[45]

Zoroastrianism as a religion contained strong elements of both universalism and particularism. Zoroastrianism was claimed as universal by insisting on its essential modernity. This was partly an argument about the universal validity and applicability of Zoroastrian values and the past in order to claim authenticity and thus the intrinsic capacity of modernizing, avoiding the charge of imitation of Western models. But this argument also implicitly rested on a substantially different notion of what religion was. Modern Zoroastrianism – the result of Zoroastrian reformism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – promoted the acceptance of secularism and citizenship in important ways. Adopting a deist notion of religions as human phenomena that in essence all provided a similar impetus for individual ethical behavior meant that religious difference was not based on truth value so much as historical context. Religion was privatized not in the sense of reducing the role of religion, but in the sense that public performance of sectarian identity and ritualism was abandoned in favor of individual spirituality and internalized piety. This meant that individual consciousness of God led to ethical behavior in society – public participation and civic duty. Religious universalism, internalization and privatization opened up space for the articulation of national identities and public participation of equality of citizenship.

Iranian nationalism, Zoroastrian community identity and the changing nature of religion and its relationship to society were indissolubly connected in Pahlavi Iran. Iranian nationalism, due to its reliance on the secularization of the ancient past, contained fundamental conflicts between inclusivity and exclusivity – with Iranian-ness so closely associated with the Zoroastrian past. On the one hand, it had to be a secular past in order to include all Iranians as citizens and equal participants in the nation. On the other hand, it was impossible to completely disassociate Zoroastrians from this past, and thus to include Shiite Muslims and other religious minorities equally. The Zoroastrian community also suffered from the tensions this created in their identity, since the nationalization of their religious past and their religious ceremonies simultaneously voided them of religious content.

Bibliography​

Abrahamian, Ervand. A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.

Amanat, Abbas. Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Amighi, Janet Kestenberg. The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistance. New York: AMS Press, 1990.

Amini, T., ed. Some Records on the Iranian Contemporary Zoroastrians (1879-1959). Tehran: Records Research Center, Iran National Archives Organization, 2001.

Ashidari, Dr. Jahangir. “A Corner of History.” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian Nowruz 2535 (March 1976).

Azargoshasp, Ardeshir. Adab va Rosum-e Zartoshtiyan [Ceremonies and Customs of Zoroastrians]. Tehran: Fravahar, 1973.

Azargoshasp, Mobed Firuz. “Explanation of the Imposition and End of Jazieh on Zoroastrians.” Pandarha 2, no. 8 (1940): 15-18.

Bakhash, Shaul. Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy, and Reform under the Qajars, 1856-1896. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca Press, 1978.

Bekhradnia, Shahin. “The Decline of the Zoroastrian Priesthood and its Effect on the Iranian Zoroastrian Community in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 23, no. 1 (1992): 37-47.

Bharucha, Ervad Sheriarji Dadabhai. “Is Zoroastrianism Preached to All Mankind or One Particular Race?” In Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, 248-257. Bombay: Fort Printing Press, 1918.

Boyce, Mary. “Manekji Limji Hataria in Iran.” In K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume, edited by N.D. Minochehr-Homji and M.F. Kanga, 19-31. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1969.

Boyce, Mary. “Parsis in Iran after the Arab Conquest.” In A Zoroastrian Tapestry, edited by Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, 228-245. Usmanpura: Mapin Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

Boyce, Mary. A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Boyce, Mary. “The Zoroastrian Houses of Yazd.” In Iran and Islam, edited by C.E. Bosworth, 125-147. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1971.

Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 1979.

Coyajee, Sir Jehangir C. “A Brief Life-Sketch of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani.” Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects. Bombay: Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, 1948.

Grigor, Talinn. “Recultivating 'Good Taste': The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their Society for National Heritage.” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (March 2004): 17-45.

Hataria, Manekji Limji. “Travels in Iran: A Parsi Mission to Iran (1865).” 6 April 2007. Fravahr.org. http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article61

Hinnells, John R. “Social Change and Religious Transformation among Bombay Parsis in the Early Twentieth Century.” In Traditions in Contact and Change: Selected Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, 105-125. Ontario: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1983.

Joseph, Suad, ed. Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press, 2000.

Keddie, Nikki R. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2003.

Maneck, Susan Stiles. The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997.

Marashi, Afshin. Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State 1870-1940. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 2008.

Marashi, Afshin. “The Nation's Poet: Ferdowsi and the Iranian National Imagination.” In Narrating Modern Iran: Historiography and Political Culture, edited by Touraj Atabaki. New York: I.B. Tauris Press/Iran Heritage Foundation, forthcoming.

Mehr, Farhang. “Zoroastrians in Twentieth Century Iran.” In A Zoroastrian Tapestry, edited by Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, 279-299. Usmanpura: Mapin Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

Meneckji, Hateria. Social and Economic Life of Zoroastrians in the Last Century: The Jezya Problem. Trans. into Persian H. Razi. Tehran: Fravahar, 1975.

Patel, Dinyar. “The Iran League of Bombay: Parsis, Iran, and the Appeal of Iranian Nationalism, 1922-1942.” Ph.D diss., Harvard Univ., 2008.

Ringer, Monica M. Education, Religion and the Discourse of Cultural Reform in Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2001.

Ringer, Monica M. “Rethinking Religion: Progress and Morality in the Early Twentieth-Century Iranian Women's Press.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 49-57.

Ringer, Monica M. “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in Nineteenth-Century Iran.” Iranian Studies (September 2009).

Rose, Jennifer. “The Traditional Role of Women in the Iranian and Indian (Parsi) Zoroastrian Communities from the Ninteenth to the Twentieth Century.” Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute no. 56 (1989): 1-102.

Shahmardan, Rashid. Farzanegan-e Zartoshti. Tehran: Rasti Publishers, 1960.

Shahrokh, Kay Khosrow. The Memoirs of Keikhosrow Shahrokh. Trans., eds. Shahrokh Shahrokh and Rashna Writer. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994.

Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohamad. Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Historiography. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Tsadik, Daniel. Between Foreigners and Shi’is: Nineteenth-century Iran and its Jewish Minority. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2007.

[1] On the emergence and articulation of Iranian nationalism, see Afshin Marashi, Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State 1870-1940 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008).
[2] Zoroastrianism spread under the Achaemenians. Cyrus the Great is generally believed to have practiced Zoroastrianism. Boyce claims that “his actions were…those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper,” See Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 1979), pp. 51-52. Subsequently, Sassanian Iran adopted Zoroastrianism as the state religion.
[3] Full secularization which would have permitted equality of citizenship was never enacted in Iran. Instead, Islam remained the religion of state, Muslims enjoyed certain privileges prohibited to non-Muslims, and legal identity remained a function of religious sectarianism. See Suad Joseph (ed.) Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000).
[4] Talinn Grigor, “Recultivating ‘Good Taste’: The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their Society for National heritage,” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (March 2004): 17-45.
[5] Khodadad Khodabakhshi, “Farsi or Dari” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 25-26. Although held up as the epitomy of a “pure” Persian text, the Shahnameh is not devoid of Arabic words.
[6] Pandarha (2, 4 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 43.
[7] Janet Kestenberg Amighi, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence (New York: AMS Press, 1990), pp. 229-230.
[8] Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, The Memoirs of Kay Keikhosrow Shahrokh (trans.) (eds.) Shahrokh Shahrokh and Rashna Writer (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994).
[9] Ibrahim Pourdavud, “Why have Iranians lost out to Newcomers?” Pandarha, (vol 2, no 2, Bahman 1338), pp. 11-13, continued in vol. 2, no 3, pp. 11-16. See also Hashem Reza, “Mistakes of Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht,” Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965) pp. 24-38.
[10] Hashem Reza, “Mistakes of Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht,” lecture sponsored by Sazeman-e Fravahar-e Javanan-e Zartoshtian published in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp. 24-38; continued 11-12; 46-54.
[11] Boyce, Zoroastrians, p. 219 and Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 170.
[12] On Shahrokh’s relationship to Reza Shah see Shahrokh, Memoirs.
[13] The Shah’s missive is reproduced in Sir Jehangir C. Coyajee, “A brief Life-Sketch of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani” in Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects (Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, Bombay: 1948), pp i-xiii. Emphasis added.
[14] U.S. State Department, Letter dated 3 February, 1932, RG59/250, file 891.404/24, National Archives, p. 2.
[15] Ardeshir Mobed was the secretary of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. See for example Pandarha (2, 1 1338), inside cover; and Pandarha (2, 4 2499), p. 2; and Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, pp. 277-8.
[16] Mohamad Ali Asef, Pendarha (2, 8 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 34.
[17] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 229.
[18] Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535 Shahanshahi), p.78.
[19] Mohandes Ghafari , “Remarks of Mr. Mohandes Ghaffari, Farmandar of Yazd Province on the Occasion of Nowruz,” Pandarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 30.
[20] “Festival Greetings,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 2, 37.
[21] “Festival Greetings,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 2, 37.
[22] Mohandes Ghaffari, “On the Occasion of Reza Shah’s Birthday,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 24-25, 31.
[23] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 10, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 25-26.
[24]Hukht (14, 3 1342), p. 4.
[25] “Teachings of Zoroaster and the New Civilization,” public lecture sponsored by Sazeman’e Fravahar Esfand 2, 1341, in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp. 6-9; 57-58.
[26] Hukht, (14, 1 1342), p. 4.
[27] Parvin Yaynejad, “The Establishment of The Conference of Zoroastrian Women of Yazd Forty Years Ago,” Hukht (14, 6 1342), pp. 16-17; continued (14, 7 1342), pp. 24-26.
[28] See Monica M. Ringer, “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in Nineteenth-Century Iran,” Iranian Studies (September 2009).
[29] Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, A’ineh-ye A’in-e Mazdasna (Bombay: Mozzafari Publishers, 1921), second edition, and Zartosht: Payghambari keh as now bayad shenakht (Forough-e Mazdasna) (ed.) Farzan Kayani, (Tehran: Jami Publishers, 1380); and his Memoirs.
[30] Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Message of Zoroaster,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 29-31.
[31] Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Message of Zoroaster,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 31-32)
[32] See also Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Testimony of Faith of Zoroastrians,” Pendarha (2, 4 2499), pp. 29-31.
[33] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi, “Lecture Concerning the Celebration of the Life of Zoroaster,” Hukht (14, 2, 1342.), pp. 13-20; 45.
[34] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499), pp. 22-23.
[35] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 6, 2499), pp. 22-23; and Pandarha (2, 7, 2499), pp. 22-24 and Pandarha (2, 8, 2499), pp. 22-23.
[36] Here he cites Yasna 32 line 12.
[37] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi, “Answers to Religious Questions,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 41-42.
[38] “A’ineh” Pandarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 22.
[39] Morvarid Giv was the wife of Anjoman President and philanthropist Rostam Giv, and the daughter of Ardeshir Mehraban.
[40] “Morvarid Khanum Giv, One of the Most Notable Women of our Community,” Pandarha (2, 8, 2499), pp. 28-29.
[41] Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian. (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), p. 26.
[42] Hukht (14, 5 1342), pp. 18-20.
[43] The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran sent literature about Zoroastrianism but refused to sanction the conversion. Mobed Shahmardan performed the initiation rite. The converts, to assuage the fears of the Anjoman, called themselves the lesser-known name of Mazdiyasna, rather than Zoroastrians. See Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 230.
[44] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 286. These spouses were Christians, not Muslims.
[45] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 241.

An interesting read.

Gives us a good idea of where the Iranians here are coming from.

Something which is easy to miss when looked at from India, divorced from their history of the past 1000 years.

Cheers, Doc

 

[unrequitted_love_suzy]

There are no links whatsoever ,
it's just when Kurds hit desperate times , when Turks bomb them as a convinient scape goat . they start resorting to such ethnic stunts .

 

[padamchen]

Iranian Nationalism and Zoroastrian Identity: Between Cyrus and Zoroaster

Monica M. Ringer

Amherst College

​

One of the most famous performances of Iranian nationalism was the elaborately choreographed celebration of 2500 years of Iranian monarchy by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi before Cyrus the Great’s tomb in 1971. Scholars have pointed to Iranian nationalism’s use of the ancient past in an attempt to construct a modern, secular nationalism free from the institutional power of the ulama and legal constraints of shari’a law. Iran as a nation and identity was thereby imagined as an entity of long durée – and thus distinguishable from more recent history of decadence and decline.[1] Increased centralization, accompanied by the reduction of ulama power and shari’a law led to increased legal status and socioeconomic opportunities for religious minorities. The emphasis on the ancient past was also welcomed by religious minorities eager to embrace a national identity that was not primarily Islamic. Although all religious minorities benefitted from nationalism and increased centralization and secularization, no minority group was as closely associated with the pre-Islamic past than the Zoroastrians.

Iranian nationalism’s relationship to the Zoroastrian community was unique. The ancient, pre-Islamic past of the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires, although (re)imagined as a secular, historic and national past, was in fact ethnically Persian and religiously Zoroastrian.[2] Nationalism was envisioned as inclusive – seeking to embrace and unify all Iranians – yet was unable to include all Iranians equally. The Zoroastrian community not only appreciated this fact, but actively participated in promoting nationalism and their special place in it. Yet their enthusiasm was not without some ambivalence. The intimacy between Iranian Zoroastrians and Iranian nationalism obscure the fundamental underlying tensions in this relationship. Nationalism produced profound complications within the Zoroastrian community over the basis of its identity. By seeking to universalize the pre-Islamic past, the past was articulated as a historic and thus national past. But in so doing, the secularization of this past denuded it of religious content. Were the Zoroastrians thus an ethnico-historic group? Or a religious group defined by tenets of faith? Modern, reformist Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period increasingly defined itself as an individual faith yet the community never abandoned a strong, and implicitly contradictory, sense of historico-ethnic identity. This paper explores the Zoroastrian articulation of, participation in and uneasy relationship to nationalism in the Pahlavi period.

Iranian nationalism was constructed as modern, accessible and retrievable. Ancient Iran was claimed as the origin and repository of modern ideas and institutions that could be retrieved and resuscitated. This past was imagined not as a Persian and Zoroastrian past, but as a secular historic past that was thereby the inheritance of all Iranians, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation. This claim to universality was an essential component in nationalism’s ideological utility and stood at the basis of claims of authenticity. Positing ancient Iran as the foundation of modern Iran enabled modernity to be claimed as intrinsic, inherently Iranian and thus not imitative or adoptive. Nationalism also contained a strong element of secular citizenship which provided an ideological basis for equality of citizenship as opposed to inequality based on religious affiliation.[3] Iranian-ness, in this formulation, was accessible to all, not the preserve of one group, but instead dependent on the conscious embrace of nationalism’s ideology and its modern project.

Despite these significant elements of universalism and accessibility, nationalism’s location in the pre-Islamic period inevitably privileged the Zoroastrians as the most authentic and thus the most Iranian. The tension between inclusivity and exclusivity remained unresolved and found frequent expression in the Zoroastrian community. For example, the principal pillars of nationalism that permitted the resuscitation and accessibility of ancient Iran were language, literature and the celebration of selective historical sites as monuments to ancient (and thus present) national identity.[4] Persian (Farsi) was claimed as a common national language – local and linguistic (ethnic) differences were deemphasized through compulsory acquisition of Persian in schools and the use of Persian in the vast majority of publications, literary and otherwise. Persian was thus claimed as the language of all Iranians, whether native Persian speakers or not. To this end, many “non-Persian” Arabic-based words were eliminated and new Persian words invented for use. The Zoroastrians made particular claims to ownership of the Persian language. An editorial in Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian argued that the people of Fars, Persian Dari speakers (explicitly Zoroastrians), were the “original Iranians” and advocated ridding Persian of foreign, read Arab, elements and returning to what he termed “Shahnameh” Persian.[5] The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran situated itself as a preserver of Iranian culture by sponsoring students interested in the literature and culture of ancient Iran to study abroad.[6]

The Shahnameh was seized upon and promoted by nationalists as the quintessential Iranian epic, written in “pure” Persian, and capturing the nostalgia for the pre-Islamic era of Iranian greatness. The Shahnameh clearly differentiates Iranians from non-Iranians, and identifies Arabs with Islam (and implicitly thus, Islam as an Arab and thus foreign religion). It should also be noted that the Shahnameh commemorates values of royalty, nobility and an ethical system that differs markedly from Islamic-based virtues. For example, the knight-hero, not the Prophet Mohammad is the ideal man, aristocratic privilege trumps equality of faith, and women in the Shahnameh more closely resemble early Islamic models of political action and power than medieval shari’a-oriented prescriptions of seclusion. In practice, pre-Islamic Persian conceptions of kingship were Islamicized in the political theory of al-Ghazzali and Nizam al-Molk, and the synthesis of early Islamic, Arab tribal and Persian ideas of kingship became the functioning norm for much of Islamic (and Iranian) history. The Shahnameh’s association with the ancient past was emphasized by Zoroastrians who considered the book an actual history. The association of the Shahnameh with non-Muslim non-Arab “Iranian-ness” and thus Zoroastrianism was perfectly illustrated by an Iranian Muslim who sought to convert to Zoroastrianism in the Pahlavi period. As he explained it, he “had always been a nationalist and had read a little Ferdowsi;” since he considered himself Iranian, not Arab, he felt that he should adhere to an Iranian, not an Arab religion.[7] Not surprisingly, one of the first “historical sites” to be celebrated in Pahlavi Iran was the discovery and refurbishing of Ferdowsi’s tomb in Khorasan in 1935. This project was directed by Zoroastrian parliamentary representative and head of the Tehran Zoroastrian anjoman, Kay Khosrow Shahrokh at Reza Shah’s request.[8]

The anti-Arab component in Iranian nationalism was seized on by the Zoroastrian community. It often bled into indistinct anti-Muslim attitudes as well, although the Zoroastrian community was always careful not to criticize Islam directly. Articles in Zoroastrian journals frequently referred to the coming of Arabs (and thus Islam) to Iran as a calamity. Arabs were clearly distinguished from “Iranians” as uncivilized. In seeking to answer the nagging problem of why the Arabs defeated the Persian Empire, authors were at pains to insist that it had nothing to do with cultural or religious superiority.[9] The religious implications were explicitly refuted in a public lecture by Hashem Reza in Hukht, the organ of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. He insisted that “everyone knows that Arabs had no culture or civilization.” When the Arabs came to Iran they brought with them destruction. He describes Islam as “intolerant” and “harsh” and responsible for destroying “humanity, morals and kindness.” To the contrary, he asserted that the Zoroastrian Avesta inculcates strong morals, culture and love for humanity.[10]

The lines between Zoroastrian and Iranian identity were naturally indistinct. The difference between Zoroastrian religious ceremonies and national, secular ceremonies was deliberately blurred both by the Pahlavi monarchs, and by the Zoroastrian community itself. Reza Shah adopted Zoroastrian calendar names, and placed the Zoroastrian Fravahar symbol on the National Bank and the Ministry of Justice.[11] Reza Shah had a close relationship with the Zoroastrian parliamentary representative Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, and entrusted him with many governmental tasks on his behalf.[12] Reza Shah was also sympathetic to Indian Zoroastrians (Parsis), inviting delegations to Iran and even offering to facilitate their settlement in Iran. Dinshah Irani, the Parsi founder of both the Iranian Zoroastrian Anjoman and the Iran League in India, was invited by Reza Shah to Iran in 1932 as leader of a Parsi delegation. Reza Shah awarded him honors and entrusted him with a message to take back to the Parsi community in India:

You Parsis are as much the children of this soil as any other Iranis, and so you are as much entitled to have your proper share in its development as any other nationals. We estimate Our Empire’s resources to be even greater than those of America, and in tapping them you can take your proper part. We do not want you to come all bag and baggage; just wait a little and watch. If you find the proposition beneficial both to yourselves and to this land, then do come and We shall greet you with open arms, as We might Our dear brothers and sisters. Iran is a vast country pregnant with many advantages and fresh fields waiting for development. We suggest that the Parsis, who are still the sons of Iran, though separated from her, should look upon this country of to-day as their own, and differentiate it from its immediate past, and strive to derive benefit from her developments.[13]

Reza Shah’s interest in Zoroastrianism even led one American diplomat to speculate that the shah might one day establish it as the state religion.[14] Reza Shah’s heir, Mohamad Reza Pahlavi, continued his father’s emphasis on Iranian nationalism and the resultant nationalization and secularization of the Zoroastrian past and religion. He encouraged the performance of Nowruz and the winter-solstice celebration of Mehragan as national holidays. Prominent Zoroastrians, Mobed Rostam Shahzadi and Ardeshir Mobed, were invited to the palace for Zoroastrian festivals.[15]

Not surprisingly, Zoroastrians frequently laid claim to preeminence as the most Iranian of Iranians. A writer in the journal Pendarha exclaimed that, “the [Zoroastrian] youth have not forgotten old ways and ancient customs. You are the souvenir of an illustrious past. Long live the king.” [16] This idea was also voiced by Muslim Iranians. For example, in 1979 Ayat Sadughi speaking in Yazd noted that” Zoroastrians are the roots of Iran. We Moslems are like the branches of a tree, if our roots are cut off, we shall shrivel up and die.”[17] The Zoroastrian community encouraged the identification of national symbols, sites and ceremonies with Zoroastrian historical and religious ones. For example the Sadeh religious ceremony in Shiraz was celebrated at the historical site of Nakhsh-e Rostam and inaugurated by the singing of the national anthem.[18] Nowruz in particular was characterized as an Iranian and thus national holiday. In an article in the Zoroastrian journal Pandarha, the author described Nowruz as an ancient Iranian festival which had persisted despite Arab attempts to wipe it out.[19] Consistent with nationalism’s secularization of the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians themselves de-emphasized the religious nature of this ceremony. Nowruz was portrayed as a day of remembrance of the mythical King Jamshid’s discovery of fire, and closely identified with “the celebration of royalty and [royal] farr.”[20] The importance of kingship was stressed as an integral component of the Avesta.[21]

Zoroastrians consistently emphasized their loyalty to the monarchy. Their noted monarchism had a number of underlying reasons. It was foremost a commitment to the Pahlavi monarchy as it promoted centralization, secularization and modernization with the concomitant reduction in the institutional and ideological power of the ulama and Islamic law, respectively. The central government had been responsible for initiating and protecting legal, social, economic and political advances of minorities since the late nineteenth century. Zoroastrian attachment to the monarchy also stemmed from the nationalist emphasis on the ancient glories of the Persian monarchies that were seized on by both Zoroastrians and the Pahlavi monarchs. The Zoroastrians repeatedly mention the institution of kingship as a respected component of Zoroastrian religious tradition. This also enabled a disassociation from Islam as marking the end of the ancient past of might and glory of the Persian Empire. The Zoroastrian press is full of eulogies to Reza Shah who is lauded as having brought Iran back on the path of greatness and assuming her rightful place as a leader of civilization.[22] Not coincidentally, the 2500 year anniversary of the Persian monarchy was claimed by Mohamad Reza Shah Pahlavi and celebrated with much fanfare. The Zoroastrian community in Iran and India were actively involved in preparing events to coincide with the celebration. It was seen as an opportunity to promote awareness on the international stage of Zoroastrian religion, the Zoroastrian historical past and Iranian civilization.[23]

Zoroastrian traditions were posited as models for Iranian modernity by the Zoroastrian community. Contemporary Iranian society, if purged of the non authentic and if firmly anchored in the traditions of the pre-Islamic past, could in fact become modern and in so doing recapture Iran’s glorious place as a leader among nations. In addition to obvious historical associations of pre-Islamic Iran with the Zoroastrian past, Zoroastrians also marshaled theological arguments to assert the essential modernity of Zoroastrianism. These arguments exhibit similar tensions between universality (inclusivity) and particularism (exclusivity) as do the historically-based arguments. The theological arguments claimed that Zoroastrianism was consistent with modern values (women’s rights, science, and progress). As hallmarks of Iranian-ness and pre-Islamic “authenticity” the Zoroastrians both symbolized this modern project, and went a step further by claiming to be the originators of many of these modern values.

In community lectures and articles, it was frequently posited that Zoroastrian religious ideals not only were consistent with the modern agenda, but that Zoroaster’s teaching was in fact the origin of their first articulation. Zoroaster was the first to establish a monotheistic religion and to preach a simple ethical religion suitable for contemporary Iranians. In a public lecture given in 1965 entitled “The Teachings of Zoroaster and the New Civilization,” the audience was instructed that the subject itself “is not just for Zoroastrians, but for all Iranians interested in this country and those who know about their history and glory of the past.” The speaker went on to explain that “thousands of years ago, the teachings of Zoroaster can be compared with today’s humanism,” and that his teachings continue to be relevant in the twentieth century. Zoroaster’ teachings about humanity and human happiness were claimed to be “true” according to modern principles of economics, as well as contemporary social values, according to the speaker. In another lecture given by a Zoroastrian priest on the occasion of the anniversary of Zoroaster’s birthday, the Zoroastrian tenets of ritual purity were given scientific certification: “now we have scientific proof of the polluting danger of microbes.” In yet another public lecture, Dr. Sarefnia argued that “Zoroaster was the first prophet of mankind” who taught peace, the promotion of agriculture, civility and love of homeland.” Zoroaster’s message is universal: “That which Zoroaster taught thousands of years ago is now in the twentieth century the essence of civilization and salvation.”[24] Zoroastrian theological compatibilities with modernity credit Iranians as the originators of these ideas, and even go further by presenting Iranians as the originators of something universal, something that generated human “progress” and the “civilization” of mankind. Zoroastrianism is presented as the crucible of universal modern social values. The historical argument for resting modernity on the pre-Islamic past was easier to extend to contemporary Iranians, who, even if not Zoroastrian, still in a sense shared this historical past. It was trickier to Iranianize Zoroastrian religion and claim that somehow Muslim Iranians were also its inheritors. A resolution was attempted by making the argument for universalism according to which all monotheists – all Christians, Jews and Muslims – shared in Zoroaster’s legacy and were thus in a sense also the inheritors of his message. Zoroaster established a set of universal ethics for all mankind.

Zoroastrianism was claimed as the first modern religion and therefore consistent with modern ideals of rationalism, science, hygiene and women’s rights. Claims that the Zoroastrian historical past enjoyed gender equality, freedom, and social justice abound in the Zoroastrian journals. For example, although civilized countries now tout the importance of women’s rights, they had always been important in Zoroastrian religious text and historical tradition.[25] Another example from the Zoroastrian journal Hukht reads:

His Majesty ordered that in order to renew the majesty and glory of ancient Iran, all practices and laws of the old Iran should be followed – including freedom of women to pursue their own destinies…in ancient Iran men and women were equal. . . now women are out from behind the black curtain of hijab and are accepting their rights. Zoroastrian women have established organizations and societies in the service of the king and are bearing fruit in advancing public health, and the culture of our country. . .[26]

Zoroastrian women’s organizations were deeply involved in promoting the ideals of the new modern woman as quintessentially Zoroastrian. The provincial, Yazd-based Zoroastrian women’s organization (the Sazeman-e Zanan-e Zartoshtian-e Yazd or the Jalaseh-ye Zanan-e Zartoshtian-e Yazd) was first established in 1925 in the context of Reza Shah’s promotion of modernization. In the Zoroastrian community’s own history of this organization, based upon the records of the organization itself, the connection between modernizing women and modernizing religion is made explicit:

The ignorant and prejudiced realized that cleanliness and dirtiness were not functions of which religious community you belonged to, but rather whether your clothes were clean and you lived a clean life. [The Zoroastrian women who founded the organization] believed that Zoroastrians worshipped Ahura Mazda and had the book of the Avesta. They believed that the principles of their religion were good thoughts, good words, good deeds and following the path of cleanliness and righteousness, the love of shah and country, humanity and culture. They understood that Zoroastrians were the true Iranians and the true heirs of this land. And that Zoroastrian women needed to gather together…and pursue their goals of ending deprivation and spreading culture and raising the level of knowledge, awareness of religious practices and fighting against superstition. [They organized in order to] end their backwardness.[27]

What is clear in the above quotation is the firm connection of the “New” woman agenda of social activism, hygiene and education, with nationalist notions of Zoroastrian identity and goals of ending backwardness and its association with filth. Particularly interesting is the additional conviction that religion too needs modernizing. Modern religion reconsiders Tradition and redraws the line between “true religion” and “superstition” using the yardstick of compatibility with modern values. Modern religion is rational, internalized and ethical, and placed itself at odds with “tradition” and “ritual” as failures to understand the underlying intent of religion and to thus move into a more spiritual and rationalized relationship to religious performance.

This new understanding of Zoroastrianism was a function of the Parsi and subsequently Iranian Zoroastrian reform movements. Parsi religious reform began in the 1850s and left a deep footprint in the Iranian Zoroastrian community.[28] Iranian reformism was most forcefully argued by Kay Khosrow Shahrokh in the 1920s and retained its essential features in the subsequent Pahlavi period. Zoroastrian reformism was characterized by a rationalization of religion and consequent emphasis on individual spirituality and ethical responsibility. Rational religion eschewed external mediation between individuals and God, instead promoting the interiorization of piety and it outward expression as ethical behavior in society. Ritual was seen as irrational and the performance of ritual in public viewed as essentially inimical to the emphasis on the universal ethical foundation of all religions. Kay Khosrow Shahrokh espoused these ideas which became widely accepted in theory, although not always corresponding to community practice.[29] Shahrokh’s articulation of reformist Zoroastrianism was frequently expressed in public lectures on religion sponsored by Zoroastrian groups, as well as in articles and editorials in Zoroastrian journals. For example, Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp argued that Zoroaster knew God as fatherly and kind. He established monotheism and an ethical view of world with consequent responsibilities of individuals.[30] Zoroastrians must work to create the ‘heavenly kingdom’ of equality and universal well-being in this world. . . people should work on their souls, not worldly gain.[31] Individual spirituality was frequently linked to social responsibility.[32]

Modern rational religion, although firmly embraced by the Zoroastrian community, was also partly responsible for a lack of community identity. The de-emphasis on ritual and the performance of difference as opposed to the emphasis on individual faith as ethical behavior stressed the nature of religion as faith, rather than ritual practice and particularism. This contributed to a decline in participation in religious observance, something that the Zoroastrian community viewed with concern. The problem of youth not having faith and not interested in religion was the subject of a public lecture by Mobed Rostam Shahzadi who worried about eventual diminishing numbers of Iranian Zoroastrians.[33]

The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and other community organizations sought to educate Zoroastrians about their religion in an attempt to revive identity and practice. Zoroastrians were urged to differentiate Zoroastrian religious practice from Muslim practice. For example, they were urged to wear white only at religious ceremonies, rather than black as was typical of Muslims.[34] Animal sacrifice was another practice that the Zoroastrian community leaders sought to eliminate, arguing that it had no basis in Zoroastrianism.[35] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi explained that Zoroastrianism, despite its antiquity, was an evolved religion. Sacrifice, typical of ancient religions, was outlawed by Zoroaster.[36] In a thinly veiled denunciation of Islamic practice as irrational, Shahzadi declared that “sacrifice is senseless and illogical and not practiced by Parsees” and noted that the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran and the Council of Mobeds (Konkash-e Mobedan) of Yazd had both forbidden it.[37]

The Dari dialect was also seized on as quintessentially Zoroastrian. Leaders sought to maintain it as a “pillar” of Zoroastrian identity, although the youth increasingly did not speak it.[38] The preservation of Dari as a language particular to Iranian Zoroastrians was of special interest to prominent philanthropist and community activist Morvarid Khanum Giv.[39] In order to preserve the use and knowledge of Dari she ordered that Zoroastrian students in the Tehran Pars development must always speak Dari in religious classes that were held three times a week.[40]

Dwindling attendance at community religious ceremonies was countered in the post 1960 period by new Zoroastrian community organizations that sought to combine religious performance with socialization and other activities. Both the youth group Fravahar and the Women’s Anjoman, as well as the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran, sponsored religious ceremonies that combined the teaching of Zoroastrianism with social events. The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran decided to hold monthly lectures on religion. An editorial in the journal Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian encouraged people to attend, promising that, “this will create feelings of faith and love of religion and Zoroastrian-ness and …in this way develop a sense of unity and togetherness and similar spirit and maybe even you will learn more about Zoroastrianism.”[41]

The inherent conflict between religion as faith and religion as community identity remained in full force in the Zoroastrian community. This deep ambivalence about the essential nature of Zoroastrian religious identity was exacerbated by Iranian nationalism. The Zoroastrian community’s embrace of Pahlavi modernizing programs, secular culture, citizenship and westernization was inseparable from its rapid growth in terms of economic wealth, social status and political power. The Zoroastrian community’s fortunes were in many ways tied to the official promotion of modernization, secularism and Iranian nationalism. At the same time, nationalism’s claim that the ancient past was a national past, universally accessible and claimable by all Iranians created strong ambivalence in the nature of Iranian Zoroastrian identity. The secularization of the ancient past and emphasis of Zoroastrians as “authentic” Iranians suggested that Zoroastrians were in a sense an ethnicity. If their religious holidays were national holidays, and Zoroastrians exemplars of Iranian-ness, then what was the status of Zoroastrian religious practice and belief? The question revolved around what determined Zoroastrian identity: faith or birth. The tensions about identity were clearly not just an issue of tension between the state and the Zoroastrian community, but also within the community itself. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the debates surrounding the twin problems of marriage and conversion.

As socioeconomic Iranian elites of all religious backgrounds increasingly sent their children abroad to Europe and the U.S. to pursue higher education in the 1960s and 1970s, the social and cultural fallout from time spent abroad began to be felt. In particular, the Zoroastrian community, as a minority community, suffered from Zoroastrians marrying foreigners (and thus not fellow Zoroastrians). This negatively effected community cohesion since Zoroastrians married to foreigners either did not return to Iran, or upon their return were less enthusiastic about participating in community activities. The problem was so intensely felt, that it was likened to the kidnapping and forcible conversion of Zoroastrian girls in the pre-modern, Islamic period: “I remember when. . . girls from our villages were taken away and converted and how miserable we all were. But today we are unaware of a danger even greater, and more home-wreaking” – study abroad. As one editorial in a Zoroastrian journal lamented, “this might be of no consequence to other communities and religions but for our small community, the loss of each person is a problem.”[42] It was also a problem with the integration of children from these marriages into the Zoroastrian community, and with the growing issue of whether or not a non-Zoroastrian born spouse might in fact convert to Zoroastrianism.

What we see here from this brief sketch of the problem, is the inherent conflict between community identity, religious identity and nationalism. On the one hand we have the paradox of Zoroastrian enthusiastic adoption of the modernizing national agenda, yet an adoption that in its effects, can and did lead to loss of community. Study abroad threatened the community with loss of its members. We also see the related problem of identity: what is a Zoroastrian: primarily a member of a religious community? Or a member of an ethno-historical community? Can one join by adopting the tenets of faith? Or must one be born into the community? These were not easy questions. They were all the more complicated given in a Muslim context which forbade apostasy from Islam. Although there were conversions from Islam in the 1960s and 1970s, the National Zoroastrian Organization never sanctioned them, perhaps for political reasons, although a Zoroastrian priest was found to perform initiation ceremonies.[43] At the Third World Zoroastrian Congress in 1968 conversion of non-Zoroastrian spouses was condoned, although with the understanding that these spouses would not be apostatizing from Islam. More than ten foreign-born spouses in Iran took advantage of this ruling.[44] Yet the notion, consistent with Zoroastrianism as a modern rational religion, that faith denoted identity, never led to the abandonment of Zoroastrian identity as an ethno-historic community. Commenting on the conversion of forty or so Muslims in Abadan to Zoroastrianism in the 1970s, a Zoroastrian woman voiced her opposition in ethnic terms: “Zoroastrianism is a race and a culture. When we suffered persecution, where were these would-be Zoroastrians?”[45]

Zoroastrianism as a religion contained strong elements of both universalism and particularism. Zoroastrianism was claimed as universal by insisting on its essential modernity. This was partly an argument about the universal validity and applicability of Zoroastrian values and the past in order to claim authenticity and thus the intrinsic capacity of modernizing, avoiding the charge of imitation of Western models. But this argument also implicitly rested on a substantially different notion of what religion was. Modern Zoroastrianism – the result of Zoroastrian reformism of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – promoted the acceptance of secularism and citizenship in important ways. Adopting a deist notion of religions as human phenomena that in essence all provided a similar impetus for individual ethical behavior meant that religious difference was not based on truth value so much as historical context. Religion was privatized not in the sense of reducing the role of religion, but in the sense that public performance of sectarian identity and ritualism was abandoned in favor of individual spirituality and internalized piety. This meant that individual consciousness of God led to ethical behavior in society – public participation and civic duty. Religious universalism, internalization and privatization opened up space for the articulation of national identities and public participation of equality of citizenship.

Iranian nationalism, Zoroastrian community identity and the changing nature of religion and its relationship to society were indissolubly connected in Pahlavi Iran. Iranian nationalism, due to its reliance on the secularization of the ancient past, contained fundamental conflicts between inclusivity and exclusivity – with Iranian-ness so closely associated with the Zoroastrian past. On the one hand, it had to be a secular past in order to include all Iranians as citizens and equal participants in the nation. On the other hand, it was impossible to completely disassociate Zoroastrians from this past, and thus to include Shiite Muslims and other religious minorities equally. The Zoroastrian community also suffered from the tensions this created in their identity, since the nationalization of their religious past and their religious ceremonies simultaneously voided them of religious content.

Bibliography​

Abrahamian, Ervand. A History of Modern Iran. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.

Amanat, Abbas. Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1831-1896. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Amighi, Janet Kestenberg. The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistance. New York: AMS Press, 1990.

Amini, T., ed. Some Records on the Iranian Contemporary Zoroastrians (1879-1959). Tehran: Records Research Center, Iran National Archives Organization, 2001.

Ashidari, Dr. Jahangir. “A Corner of History.” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian Nowruz 2535 (March 1976).

Azargoshasp, Ardeshir. Adab va Rosum-e Zartoshtiyan [Ceremonies and Customs of Zoroastrians]. Tehran: Fravahar, 1973.

Azargoshasp, Mobed Firuz. “Explanation of the Imposition and End of Jazieh on Zoroastrians.” Pandarha 2, no. 8 (1940): 15-18.

Bakhash, Shaul. Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy, and Reform under the Qajars, 1856-1896. Ithaca, NY: Ithaca Press, 1978.

Bekhradnia, Shahin. “The Decline of the Zoroastrian Priesthood and its Effect on the Iranian Zoroastrian Community in the Twentieth Century.” Journal of the Anthropological Society of Oxford 23, no. 1 (1992): 37-47.

Bharucha, Ervad Sheriarji Dadabhai. “Is Zoroastrianism Preached to All Mankind or One Particular Race?” In Dastur Hoshang Memorial Volume, 248-257. Bombay: Fort Printing Press, 1918.

Boyce, Mary. “Manekji Limji Hataria in Iran.” In K.R. Cama Oriental Institute Golden Jubilee Volume, edited by N.D. Minochehr-Homji and M.F. Kanga, 19-31. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1969.

Boyce, Mary. “Parsis in Iran after the Arab Conquest.” In A Zoroastrian Tapestry, edited by Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, 228-245. Usmanpura: Mapin Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

Boyce, Mary. A Persian Stronghold of Zoroastrianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Boyce, Mary. “The Zoroastrian Houses of Yazd.” In Iran and Islam, edited by C.E. Bosworth, 125-147. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1971.

Boyce, Mary. Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices. London: Routledge, 1979.

Coyajee, Sir Jehangir C. “A Brief Life-Sketch of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani.” Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects. Bombay: Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, 1948.

Grigor, Talinn. “Recultivating 'Good Taste': The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their Society for National Heritage.” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (March 2004): 17-45.

Hataria, Manekji Limji. “Travels in Iran: A Parsi Mission to Iran (1865).” 6 April 2007. Fravahr.org. http://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article61

Hinnells, John R. “Social Change and Religious Transformation among Bombay Parsis in the Early Twentieth Century.” In Traditions in Contact and Change: Selected Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, 105-125. Ontario: Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion, 1983.

Joseph, Suad, ed. Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Univ. Press, 2000.

Keddie, Nikki R. Modern Iran: Roots and Results of Revolution. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2003.

Maneck, Susan Stiles. The Death of Ahriman: Culture, Identity and Theological Change Among the Parsis of India. Bombay: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute, 1997.

Marashi, Afshin. Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State 1870-1940. Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 2008.

Marashi, Afshin. “The Nation's Poet: Ferdowsi and the Iranian National Imagination.” In Narrating Modern Iran: Historiography and Political Culture, edited by Touraj Atabaki. New York: I.B. Tauris Press/Iran Heritage Foundation, forthcoming.

Mehr, Farhang. “Zoroastrians in Twentieth Century Iran.” In A Zoroastrian Tapestry, edited by Firoza Punthakey Mistree and Pheroza J. Godrej, 279-299. Usmanpura: Mapin Publishing Pvt, Ltd., 2002.

Meneckji, Hateria. Social and Economic Life of Zoroastrians in the Last Century: The Jezya Problem. Trans. into Persian H. Razi. Tehran: Fravahar, 1975.

Patel, Dinyar. “The Iran League of Bombay: Parsis, Iran, and the Appeal of Iranian Nationalism, 1922-1942.” Ph.D diss., Harvard Univ., 2008.

Ringer, Monica M. Education, Religion and the Discourse of Cultural Reform in Qajar Iran. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2001.

Ringer, Monica M. “Rethinking Religion: Progress and Morality in the Early Twentieth-Century Iranian Women's Press.” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East 24, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 49-57.

Ringer, Monica M. “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in Nineteenth-Century Iran.” Iranian Studies (September 2009).

Rose, Jennifer. “The Traditional Role of Women in the Iranian and Indian (Parsi) Zoroastrian Communities from the Ninteenth to the Twentieth Century.” Journal of the K.R. Cama Oriental Institute no. 56 (1989): 1-102.

Shahmardan, Rashid. Farzanegan-e Zartoshti. Tehran: Rasti Publishers, 1960.

Shahrokh, Kay Khosrow. The Memoirs of Keikhosrow Shahrokh. Trans., eds. Shahrokh Shahrokh and Rashna Writer. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994.

Tavakoli-Targhi, Mohamad. Refashioning Iran: Orientalism, Occidentalism and Historiography. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Tsadik, Daniel. Between Foreigners and Shi’is: Nineteenth-century Iran and its Jewish Minority. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2007.

[1] On the emergence and articulation of Iranian nationalism, see Afshin Marashi, Nationalizing Iran: Culture, Power, and the State 1870-1940 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2008).
[2] Zoroastrianism spread under the Achaemenians. Cyrus the Great is generally believed to have practiced Zoroastrianism. Boyce claims that “his actions were…those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper,” See Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge, 1979), pp. 51-52. Subsequently, Sassanian Iran adopted Zoroastrianism as the state religion.
[3] Full secularization which would have permitted equality of citizenship was never enacted in Iran. Instead, Islam remained the religion of state, Muslims enjoyed certain privileges prohibited to non-Muslims, and legal identity remained a function of religious sectarianism. See Suad Joseph (ed.) Gender and Citizenship in the Middle East (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 2000).
[4] Talinn Grigor, “Recultivating ‘Good Taste’: The Early Pahlavi Modernists and their Society for National heritage,” Iranian Studies 37, no. 1 (March 2004): 17-45.
[5] Khodadad Khodabakhshi, “Farsi or Dari” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 25-26. Although held up as the epitomy of a “pure” Persian text, the Shahnameh is not devoid of Arabic words.
[6] Pandarha (2, 4 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 43.
[7] Janet Kestenberg Amighi, The Zoroastrians of Iran: Conversion, Assimilation, or Persistence (New York: AMS Press, 1990), pp. 229-230.
[8] Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, The Memoirs of Kay Keikhosrow Shahrokh (trans.) (eds.) Shahrokh Shahrokh and Rashna Writer (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1994).
[9] Ibrahim Pourdavud, “Why have Iranians lost out to Newcomers?” Pandarha, (vol 2, no 2, Bahman 1338), pp. 11-13, continued in vol. 2, no 3, pp. 11-16. See also Hashem Reza, “Mistakes of Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht,” Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965) pp. 24-38.
[10] Hashem Reza, “Mistakes of Islamic Scholars Regarding the Teachings of Zardosht,” lecture sponsored by Sazeman-e Fravahar-e Javanan-e Zartoshtian published in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp. 24-38; continued 11-12; 46-54.
[11] Boyce, Zoroastrians, p. 219 and Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 170.
[12] On Shahrokh’s relationship to Reza Shah see Shahrokh, Memoirs.
[13] The Shah’s missive is reproduced in Sir Jehangir C. Coyajee, “A brief Life-Sketch of the Late Mr. Dinshah Jeejeebhoy Irani” in Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects (Dinshah J. Irani Memorial Fund Committee, Bombay: 1948), pp i-xiii. Emphasis added.
[14] U.S. State Department, Letter dated 3 February, 1932, RG59/250, file 891.404/24, National Archives, p. 2.
[15] Ardeshir Mobed was the secretary of the Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran. See for example Pandarha (2, 1 1338), inside cover; and Pandarha (2, 4 2499), p. 2; and Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, pp. 277-8.
[16] Mohamad Ali Asef, Pendarha (2, 8 2499 Shahanshahi), p. 34.
[17] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 229.
[18] Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz, 2535 Shahanshahi), p.78.
[19] Mohandes Ghafari , “Remarks of Mr. Mohandes Ghaffari, Farmandar of Yazd Province on the Occasion of Nowruz,” Pandarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 30.
[20] “Festival Greetings,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 2, 37.
[21] “Festival Greetings,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 2, 37.
[22] Mohandes Ghaffari, “On the Occasion of Reza Shah’s Birthday,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 24-25, 31.
[23] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 10, 2499 Shahanshahi), pp. 25-26.
[24]Hukht (14, 3 1342), p. 4.
[25] “Teachings of Zoroaster and the New Civilization,” public lecture sponsored by Sazeman’e Fravahar Esfand 2, 1341, in Hukht (14, 1 1342/1965), pp. 6-9; 57-58.
[26] Hukht, (14, 1 1342), p. 4.
[27] Parvin Yaynejad, “The Establishment of The Conference of Zoroastrian Women of Yazd Forty Years Ago,” Hukht (14, 6 1342), pp. 16-17; continued (14, 7 1342), pp. 24-26.
[28] See Monica M. Ringer, “Reform Transplanted: Parsi Agents of Change amongst Zoroastrians in Nineteenth-Century Iran,” Iranian Studies (September 2009).
[29] Kay Khosrow Shahrokh, A’ineh-ye A’in-e Mazdasna (Bombay: Mozzafari Publishers, 1921), second edition, and Zartosht: Payghambari keh as now bayad shenakht (Forough-e Mazdasna) (ed.) Farzan Kayani, (Tehran: Jami Publishers, 1380); and his Memoirs.
[30] Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Message of Zoroaster,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 29-31.
[31] Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Message of Zoroaster,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 31-32)
[32] See also Mobed Firuz Azargoshasp, “The Testimony of Faith of Zoroastrians,” Pendarha (2, 4 2499), pp. 29-31.
[33] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi, “Lecture Concerning the Celebration of the Life of Zoroaster,” Hukht (14, 2, 1342.), pp. 13-20; 45.
[34] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 4, 2499), pp. 22-23.
[35] “A’ineh,” Pandarha (2, 6, 2499), pp. 22-23; and Pandarha (2, 7, 2499), pp. 22-24 and Pandarha (2, 8, 2499), pp. 22-23.
[36] Here he cites Yasna 32 line 12.
[37] Mobed Rostam Shahzadi, “Answers to Religious Questions,” Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), pp. 41-42.
[38] “A’ineh” Pandarha (2, 5, 2499), p. 22.
[39] Morvarid Giv was the wife of Anjoman President and philanthropist Rostam Giv, and the daughter of Ardeshir Mehraban.
[40] “Morvarid Khanum Giv, One of the Most Notable Women of our Community,” Pandarha (2, 8, 2499), pp. 28-29.
[41] Mahnameh-ye Zartoshtian. (Nowruz 2535 Shahanshahi), p. 26.
[42] Hukht (14, 5 1342), pp. 18-20.
[43] The Zoroastrian Anjoman of Tehran sent literature about Zoroastrianism but refused to sanction the conversion. Mobed Shahmardan performed the initiation rite. The converts, to assuage the fears of the Anjoman, called themselves the lesser-known name of Mazdiyasna, rather than Zoroastrians. See Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 230.
[44] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 286. These spouses were Christians, not Muslims.
[45] Amighi, Zoroastrians of Iran, p. 241.

An interesting read.

Gives us a good idea of where the Iranians here are coming from.

Something which is easy to miss when looked at from India, divorced from their history of the past 1000 years.

Cheers, Doc

And now reading between the lines I understand their concerns.

We are closer than we thought we are.

And we were so close yet so far ...

Hope SOME of the children of post revolution Iran take the time to read this piece.

Ushta te. Its suddenly turned into a great day.

@Shapur Zol Aktaf @aryobarzan @Bahram Esfandiari @Dariush the Great @Cliftonite @Xerxes22 @Cthulhu @925boy @Baibars_1260 @SalarHaqq @Sam. @Chhatrapati @-=virus=-

Cheers, Doc

 

[padamchen]

IRANIAN HISTORY: POST-SASANIAN

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland



By: Dr. Daryoush Jahanian

Presented at the North American Zoroastrian Congress in San Francisco 1996

and the World Zoroastrian congress in Houston 2000-2001​

​

Artist impression of fall of Ctesiphon Two modern posters commemorating the Battle of Qadissiyah and the massacre of Nahavand​

Abstract: This is only a fraction of what actually happened to the Zoroastrians after the Arab invasion. The purpose of the presentation is not to generate hard feeling toward any people. Because no generation is responsible for the actions of past generations, although almost always they are unfairly blamed for. However, denial of historical facts is not an option either. The real goal in addition to presentation of an untold history is to make our community aware of their past history and the suffering and indignities that their ancestors received to preserve their religion, culture and identity. Once it is realized that nothing that we have inherited is to be taken as granted, our responsibility toward the young generation, the generation of the 21st century is better realized.

Due to continuous persecution, discrimination and massacre the population of Zoroastrians of Iran from an estimated five million at the turn of the fifteenth century dwindled to only seven thousand at the middle of the nineteenth century. At this time the French ambassador to Iran wrote “only a miracle can save them from total extinction”. By the support of their Parsi brethren and their own faith, the Zoroastrian community in Iran revived and their fate turned around. Today they are well educated and enjoy the respect and trust of the general population for their reputation of “scrupulous honesty”.

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.

When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.

To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

The First Voice of Protest

The first voice of protest against the Arab oppression came from Firooz who assassinated Omar. He was a Persian artisan and prisoner of war who had been enslaved by an Arab. While observing the Iranian children taken to be sold as slaves, he was overcome by grief and wept for the sorry plight of his nation.[10] Thereafter other uprisings against the Arab occupation were all suppressed. They are recognized as Abu Moslem of Khrassan, the white clad, red clad (lead by Babak), Maziyar, Afshin and others. All together, during the two centuries of Arab occupation, a total of 130 Iranian uprisings have been recorded. All were brutally put down and each time lands were confiscated and the local people were forced to provide the Arabs with gold, silver and certain number of young slaves annually for reparation.

Finally the Arabs were driven out of Iran by an ordinary man from the south (Sistan) named Yaghoub (Jacob) Leisse Saffari, who forced the occupiers to the Tigris river where the stream was turned toward his army, many of whom died and he developed pneumonia. At his deathbed he received the Caliph’s emissary who presented him jewels and offered him the governorship of several provinces. Yaghoub responded with anger “tell your ruler, I have lived all my life on bread and onion, if I survive, only sword will rule between the two of us”.

The two centuries Arab rule of Iran has been compared to a nightmare associated with the moans of widows and orphans, “a dark night of silence that was interrupted only by the hoot of owls and the harsh sound of thunder”.[11]

By the independence of Iran however, the suffering of Zoroastrians was not over. Many Iranians at this era had been Arabized and picked up Arabic names. The new Moslems were no less hostile toward their old religion than the Arabs. Now the Arabic was considered a scientific language, the knowledge of which would place one in higher class among the scholars. That is why many scientific books at this era were written in Arabic and mistakenly those scholars and scientists have been assumed to be Arabs. The loss of identity had caused some Iranians to become alien to their own nationality. An Iranian premier (Sahib ibn-e Obbad) did not look in the mirror lest would see a Persian. Another ruler of Khorassan (Abdollah ibn-e Tahir) would not acknowledge any language but the Arabic. He banned publications in Persian and by his order all the Zoroastrians were forced to bring their religious books to be thrown in the fire. Those who refused were slain.

During the Islamic period many Iranian poets and scholars attempted to revive the Persian culture and history and reintroduce the national identity to the despised nation. Zoroastrian poets, Daghighi and Zardosht Bahram Pazhdoh and the Persian poets as Ferdowsi, Hafiz and Khayyam among many are to be mentioned here.

As the Arabs destroyed and burned all the non-Arabic and Pahlavi writings, Iranian scholars found a solution to save the books that was to translate them into Arabic. One of the rare books that survived the carnage was “Khodai-namak”, a Pahlavi writing of the Sassanian era. It was translated into Arabic by Dadbeh “Ebn-e-Moghaffaa” under the title of “The Manner of the Kings.” Ferdowsi versified and named it “Shah-Nameh.” In 1991 Unesco recognized this book as the masterpiece of epics and Ferdowsi in Iran was glorified by the International Community.

Ferdowsi by versifying the “Khodai-namak” as his book of “Shah-Nameh,” a new Persian poetry almost devoid of Arabic words truly revived the Persian language, and by renewing the legend of Iranian victory under the leadership of Kauveh, the blacksmith and Fereidoun over the blood thirsty Zahhak the Arab, gave a new sense of pride and identity to the Iranians. He certainly does not exaggerate when recites”

“I labored hard in these years of thirty

I revived the Ajam (mute) by this Parsi.

Hafiz a beloved mystical poet always refreshes the love of Zoroastrian faith in his poetry by calling himself a follower of the old Magi. In a poem he reminds the readers “ In a garden renew your Zoroastrian faith” and:

“In the monastery of the Magi, why they honor us

The fire that never dies, burns in our hearts”[12]

Khayyam who was a poet, scientist, astronomist, mathematician and a true intellectual, abhorred the Moslem clergy and their blind adherents. There were however, intellectuals whose views were resented by the clergy and because of that they even received a dreadful death. Among them Dadbeh who was burned alive, and Sohravardi, the founder of school of illumination whose views were based on the teachings of Zarathushtra, and Mansour Hallaj are to be mentioned. Flame of the past glory could rekindle in the hearts of Iranians by a spark. Khaghani Sherwani on his return from Hajj Pilgrimage spent a night at the city of Baghdad. There, the ruins of palace of Anoushiravan, known as Kassra Hall inspired him to recite one of the masterpieces of Persian poetry reflecting the glory of the past and the history of Sassanian era.

Despite all the intellectuals’ efforts, the suffering of Zoroastrians continued. Any local incident could flare up a major riot and become a calamity for the Zoroastrian population and cause their massacre. The famous incident was when a group of fanatic Moslems in the City of Harat (Greater Khorassan, today Afghanistan), destroyed the wall of a mosque and blamed the action on the Zoroastrians, by the order of Sultan Sanjar (Saljuqi) many Zoroastrians of the greater Khorassan were massacred. The Parsis are known to originate from Khorassan and migrated to India during this era. Later another group from the city of Sari, Mazandaran joined them and founded the city of Nov-Sari. Parsis later became an example of successful community who founded industries, universities and charitable institutions and established themselves as a major force in the development of India. As the prime minister of Mharashtra once put it, “They were a shining diamond in the ocean of Indian population”.[13]

In 1934 Mr. Foroughi, the Iranian minister of education and culture, himself a scholar and later prime minister, in response to Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian Philosopher and Nobel laureate, who had thanked the government of Iran for founding a chair of Iranian studies, wrote: “Dear Sir: You should not thank us and I will explain to you why! “ For one thousand years your nation has hosted our sons and daughters know as Parsis. They left Iran under a distressful condition; but we never thanked you for it. Please accept this chair of Iranian studies only as a small token of appreciation.”

Despite repeated mass slaughters, by the advent of Safavite Dynasty at the turn of the 15th century (600 years ago), between 3 to 5 million Iranian remained Zoroastrians.[14] The Caspian province of Mazandaran, at this time not only had preserved the old religion but was ruled by a Zoroastrian dynasty known as Paduspanian who remained in power until 1006 Hijri. The Safavites by enticement and use of violence both, converted the majority of Iranian into Shiism. This was a political act to encourage Iranians to fight against the Ottomans who were Sunni Moslems. By the order of Shah Ismail, the founder of the dynasty many Sunni Moslems were slaughtered but in the turmoil many Zoroastrians were included as well. During the rule of Shah Abbas the Great (1587-1628 A.D.) a strong unified Iranian army was in war against the Ottomans. Meanwhile, he dispatched troops to Mazandran with the task to Islamize the province, and by the use of force and violence the mission was accomplished. By his order many Zoroastrians were deported to a ghetto town near Isfahan named Gabrabad, where they lived in abject poverty. Many of deportees during deportation lost their lives. To these people who were forcefully detached from their farms and businesses, no job was given. They were brought there just to do the menial works that nobody else would accept. It was said that the poorest Iranians in comparison to them appeared quite rich. Due to the extent of indigence, the Zoroastrian community was the only one who could not present a gift for the coronation of King Soleiman the third.[15] A Roman tourist, Pietro Della Valle, who has visited the town writes:[16] I had heard of the outcast sector of Iranian society named Gabrs who are faithless. I was determined to visit them. The streets of Gabrabad are straight and clean but the houses are one floor, reflecting the poverty of people. As I was walking I met a husband and wife. I asked the man do you love God? At this time the woman jumped in the conversation and said: “How one may know God but would not love Him.” I realized that these people have their own religion but they are the victims of bigotry.”

The Safavite era is the darkest period for the Zoroastrians. The writings of the high Islamic clerics would instigate hatred toward them. Even in public opinion they were responsible for the natural disasters as flood and earthquake, this kind of sentiment would make them vulnerable to persecution and massacre.

A letter from a French priest to his boss at this era (17th Century A.D.) reflects the state of suffering and misery of the Zoroastrians of Iran. He wrote, “Islam is not the only religion of the Iranians, there are many Iranians who have preserved their old religion. But they have none of their ancestral knowledge and science. They live in a state of slavery and absolute misery. Most difficult and harshest public works are assigned to them. They are mostly porters or work in the farms. The state of slavery has caused them to be shy, naïve and rough mannered. They speak in a different dialect and use their old alphabets. Iranians call them (Gavre) that mean idol worshippers, and they are treated much worse than the Jews. They are accused of being fire worshippers…but they respect the fire. They believe that in order to receive salvation, one should till the land, develop orchards, and avoid polluting the water and putting down the fire. Their holiest man is called Zartosht and their most important festival is Nov Rooz…”[17]

Despite all the adversities, population of the Zoroastrians of Iran at the turn of the 18th century was estimated to be one million.[18] But the most horrendous massacre of the Zoroastrian population took place by the order of the last Safavite King, Shah Sultan Hussein (1694-1722.) Soon after ascension to the Persian throne, he issued a decree that all Zoroastrians should convert to Islam or face the consequences. By one estimate, one hundred thousand Zoroastrian families lived in the Central Iran. Nearly all were slaughtered or coercively converted. In this blood bath, the entire population of Gabrabad was wiped out. In other parts many men, women and children lost their lives. The bodies’ of Zoroastrians thrown in the central river (Zayandeh Rood) have been witnessed by the French missionary and reported. The reports of the French priests residing in Isfahan reflect the enormity of the genocide that took place three hundred years ago in the central Iran. By the French estimate a total of 80,000 Zoroastrians lost their lives and many fled the massacre in misery to preserve their religion. The Zoroastrian sources estimate the number of victims at hundreds of thousand. The towns of Naiin and Anar (between Isfahan and Yazd) converted to Islam. The local language of the people there remains Dari, exactly the same dialect that is exclusively spoken by the Zoroastrians of Iran. The customs and traditions of Abiyaneh (a town near Kashan) remains Zoroastrian. It is believed that the Zoroastrians of Khoramshah, a suburb of Yazd are the descendants of the survivors of that infamous blood bath. Again, the Zoroastrian families have quoted this event to this day, but our books of history have kept a policy of total silence toward it.

The Safavites were overthrown by the Afghan rebellion under the leadership of Mahmoud Mir Oveis. Then, Afghanistan was a province of Iran and Afghan insurgency was an internal affair. During the passing through the central desert due to harsh condition Mahmoud lost too many men, therefore he was unable to capture the city of Kerman; but before returning to Afghanistan he massacred the Zoroastrian population of the suburban Gavashir (1719 A.D.). The reason why he only massacred the Zoroastrians was due to the fact that this sector of the community as a result of in-city persecution had moved to the outskirts of Kerman and taken residence there. This area was not protected by high walls and towers; consequently they were easily accessible to the Afghans. For the next two years Mahmoud retrained and reorganized his army and this time he conquered the city of Kerman (1721 A.D.). Despite the Gavashir calamity, because of the carnage done by the Safavites and the extent of suffering under that dynasty, the Zoroastrians formed a brigade and supported the Afghans. Majority of Afghans were Sunni Moslems and their rebellion was due to religious persecution under the Shiite rule, thus the Zoroastrians sympathized with their cause. Zoroastrian commander of the brigade was a man, titled Nassrollah. This title was granted my Mahmoud, however, his real name is not known. He addressed his troop, reminded them of the glory of the past and the duty to their country. Nassrollah became the most popular commander in the Afghan army and soon Mahmoud commanded him to conquer Fars in the south. He succeeded, but in the last battle for the city of Shiraz was fatally wounded. Mahmoud truly mourned the loss of his favorite general and at his funeral wept. He ordered a mausoleum was built for him near Isfahan and a Mobed was designated to perform the rituals. Twenty-two years later this mausoleum has been witnessed and reported by an English tourist.[19]

The victorious Afghans were eventually defeated by a strong military leader named Nader Shah Afshar (1736-1747 A.D.) who also defeated the Ottomans. He later invaded and conquered India and brought with him the famous peacock throne. In the army of Nader 12000 Zoroastrians men served. But even the victories of Nader and resurgence of a strong Iran did not change the fate of the Zoroastrian population and their agony went on. Nader upon return from India had become insane and after a failing assassination attempt that wounded his arm, became suspicious at his own son who was blinded at his order. When Nader became aware that his suspicion was unfounded and his son was totally innocent, he resorted to mass murder. By one estimate during the bloodbath none of the remaining Zoroastrian soldiers survived and many of the Zoroastrian population of Khorassan and Sistan were massacred. Few survivors could cross the desert on foot and take refuge in Kerman or Yazd. The public census of the Zoroastrians of Kerman belonging to this era shows that 8000 were called Khorassani and 2000 Sistani. Today few families in Yazd can trace their lineage to Khorassan.

The Afshar dynasty founded by Nader Shah was short lasting, after whom the Zands took over. The founder of the dynasty was a kind-hearted man named Karim Khan who established the city of Shiraz as his capital. For a short time Iranians enjoyed peace and tranquility. After him the Zands were challenged by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. The Zands under the commandership of a brave man named LotfAli Khan Zand retreated to the city of Kerman. The city for several month remained under siege by the army of Qajar. A Zoroastrian astrologer named Mulla Gushtasp son of Bahman through the astrological signs predicted that on Friday, 29th day of the first Rabie, 1209 Hijri, the city would fall to the Qajar army. The Zand ordered Gushtasp to be jailed and if his prediction did not come true be killed. As he had forecasted, on the exact day due to the treason of one of the Zand commanders, the gates were opened and the city fell to the Qajar. Agha Mohammad who was incensed by the stiff resistance put up by the people of Kerman, ordered 20,000 of the residents to be blinded but because of the Gushtasp’s forecast the Zoroastrians were spared. Mulla Gushtasp is the great grand father of the late Keikhosrow Shahrokh. He was brought out of jail and was presented gifts and thereafter accompanied the new king in his trips.

The Qajar Era (1796-1925 A.D.)

The census of early Qajar era indicates that the total population of Zoroastrians was 50,000 and they had taken refuge mainly in the two central cities of Yazd and Kerman. One census includes a pocket of Zoroastrians living in the city of Qazvin.[20] There is no information about the fate of the Qazvin community. It is not known whether they were massacred, forcefully converted or scattered. But what about the Zoroastrians living in Yazd and Kerman? Did they live there in peace?

Despite the aforementioned favorable incident, the Zoroastrians during the Qajar dynasty remained in agony and their population continued to decline. Even during the rule of Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the dynasty many Zoroastrians were killed and some were taken as captives to Azarbaijan.[21] The community was regarded as outcast, impure and untouchable. Various methods were used to convert them to Islam. According to a law, if any member of family converted to Islam, he/she was entitled to all inheritance. This was a materialistic incentive to proselytize the minorities. According to Edward Browne, the wall of Zoroastrian houses had to be lower than that of the Moslems. If they were riding a donkey, upon facing a Moslem had to discount and during the rainy days they were not allowed to appear in public, because the water that had run down through their bodies and cloths could pollute the Moslems. The Zoroastrian food was considered impure and many public places refused to serve them. Harassments and persecution were the norms of daily life. At times, Zoroastrian girls were kidnapped and forcefully converted and married to Moslems and brought to town in fanfare. On top of all the misery the Zoroastrians had to pay a heavy religious tax known as Jizya. Due to corruption of the tax officials, at times twice and even three times the official figure would be collected, because every intermediary had to receive his share. If the families could not afford paying the Jizya, their children were beaten and even tortured and their religious books were thrown in fire. That is how the term “the bookless” came about. Under the woeful conditions, some had to convert and there were those who declared themselves Moslems, picked up Islamic names, but in secret continued Zoroastrian practices. Today the latter group among the Zoroastrians is known as Jaddid (new).

Count de Gobineau, the French Ambassador to Iran (1850’s A.D.) expressed a pessimistic view of the Zoroastrians that reflects the plight of community during the Qajar ear. He writes “Only 7000 of them remain and just a miracle may save them from extinction.” He adds, “These are the descendants of the people who one day ruled the world.” Zoroastrian massacre did not cease during the Qajar rule. The last two are recorded at the villages surrounding the city of Boarzjan and Turkabad near Yazd. Today, the village of Maul Seyyed Aul near Borazjan, among the local people is know as “killing site” (Ghatl-Gauh)[22] and Zoroastrian surnames of Turk, Turki, Turkian and Turkabadi reflect lineage to the survivors of Turkabad.

To present the true picture of Zoroastrian life in that era, I will quote several writers (Napier Malcom: 1905, Dr. Rostam Sarfeh: Parsiana, March 1990, Page 43, Khosrow Bastanifar: at last I return to Yazd, 1996, P 192 in Persian). The Zoroastrians even were not allowed to wear shoes but only slippers. They had to put on a dirty torn cap and sew a yellow old patch on their back, so that would be distinguished in public places. Their pants had to be short, so that when stones were thrown at them hit their exposed legs. They were not allowed to wear a new suit, the dirtier the cloth, and the less punishment. A prominent Zoroastrian merchant had put on a new pant. In the market place he was surrounded by mob and was forced to remove his pant, hold it on his head and walk back home. Zoroastrians entering a Moslem house had to carry a shawl upon which they had to sit, so that the place will not be polluted.

Zoroastrian farmers subsisted on the sale of their products. Once an authority announced their products are impure, people refused buying from them. After receiving payment, he declared that if those products ere kept high in the air, are purified. A Zoroastrian girl carrying products to the city was raped. The attackers claimed she was drunk and was responsible for the crime. The girl could not tolerate the stigma and committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.

The misery of Zoroastrians is beyond description. Some even converted to Islam to be able to protect their old co-religionists.

Due to the extent of oppression, agony and destitution, many Zoroastrians ventured the hazardous journey to India. They had to risk their lives by crossing the hostile desert on donkeys or even on foot. Those who could afford voyaged aboard the ships. In India, they were recognized for Sadra and Kushti and were sheltered by their Parsi brethren. In the new environment, they proved their talents in business and science and prospered.

The woeful plight of the Zoroastrians caused the Parsis to dispatch emissaries to Iran. The notable one, Maneckji Limji Hataria arrived for the first time on March 31, 1854 A.D. at the age of 41. For one year he studied the general condition of the persecuted community. He found the Zoroastrians to be uneducated and suffered from endemic diseases and malnutrition. Worse than all, centuries of oppression and persecution had taken a heavy toll on their spirit. The community had no confidence in herself and no hope for the future. Maneckji upon return to India reported his findings to the Parsi Panchayet. This is truly a historical document, part of which is quoted hereunder:

Dear Sir; This noble group has suffered in the hands of cruel and evil people so much that they are totally alien to knowledge and science. For them even black and white, and good and evil are equal. Their men have been forcefully doing menial works in the construction and as slaves receive no payment. As some evil and immoral men have been looking after their women and daughters, this sector of Zoroastrians community even during daytime stays indoor. Despite all the poverty, heavy taxes under the pretexts of land, space, pasture land; inheritance and religious tax (Jizya) are imposed on them. The local rulers have been cruel to them and have plundered their possessions. They have forced the men to do the menial construction work for them. Vagrants have kidnapped their women and daughters. Worse than all, community is disunited. Their only hope is the advent of future savior (Shah Bahram Varjavand). Because of extreme misery, belief in the savior is so strong that 35 years earlier when an astrologer forecasted the birth of the savior, many men in his search left the town and were lost in the desert and never returned. Perhaps this one sentence of Maneckji epitomizes the sorry plight of the community. “I found the Zoroastrians to be exhausted and trampled, so much that even no one in this world can be more miserable than them.’

Amelioration fund was set up and from its interest income part of the Jizya was paid off. Once again Maneckji returned to Iran. This time he devoted his life toward saving his co-religionists from the brink of extinction. He followed three goals: To educate the community, to organize them and to abolish the burden of Jizya. He was a charming man who rallied the support of Dadabhoy Naorjoi and some of the European ambassadors to eliminate the injustice suffered by so many Zoroastrian generations in Iran. Several times he intervened in the unfair court rulings and forced them to reverse the unjust decisions. At that time if a Moslem murdered a Zoroastrian, the culprit would automatically be freed. If a Moslem borrowed money from a Zoroastrian and denied it, court would side with the Moslem. On the other hand, if a Zoroastrian borrowed from a Moslem and could not afford paying back, court would force his relatives, neighbors and friends to raise fund and defray the loan.

In his pursuit of educating the community, Maneckji faced unexpected difficulties for the following reasons:

1. The Zoroastrians for centuries had been prohibited from receiving education, just to be content with subsisting on menial jobs. The change of direction was difficult and even some believed that education will cause them not to be able to work and earn money:

2. The children worked and their dismal income nevertheless, subsidized the family. The families could not afford the loss of income.

3. Parents missed their children and they were not ready to send them away.

4. Some Zoroastrian leaders became envious of Maneckji, even saying that education will deprive the community of future workers who can make a living; some were even envious of children who will receive better education that they did.

Despite all the obstacles Maneckji prevailed and eventually picked up boys from Kerman and Yazd, took them to Tehran and founded a boarding school for them. He even subsidized the families for the loss of their children’s income. To teach them, Maneckji published books and employed the best scholars, some of whom were educated in Europe. From these children future teachers evolved, who were scattered in the cities of Yazd and Kerman and Zoroastrian villages and educated the community. The result is that today illiteracy rate among the Zoroastrian population is near zero. With the Maneckji’s encouragement and support, marriages took place and jobs were provided for the newly wed couples.

His historical achievement was the abolition of the religious tax (Jizya). Maneckji, through the direct negotiations with the Qajar King, Nassereddin Shah persuaded him to abolish the burden of Jizya and that took place in August of 1882 A.D. Through the enticement and direct involvement of Maneckji and his successor, Zoroastrians later formed local associations named after the then king, Nasseri Anjumans. I would like to quote the late Dr. Adharbad Irani, the famous Bombay ophthalmologist: “Words fall short of expression, we must devote our love and warm tears to our Parsi brothers who at the most critical time came to our rescue.”[23] The loving memory of Maneckji among the Zoroastrians or Iran is perpetual. We name our sons Majecki, Limji and many families have chosen his name as surname as “ Maneckji, Maneckjian, and Maneckjipour.” If it was not for his dedication and selfless efforts, perhaps the Zoroastrian religion had vanished in its country of origin. If we believe in the word “saoshyant” as benefactor, isn’t he the one who saved the Zoroastrians of Iran from extinction?[24]

Now, after centuries of suffering, the Zoroastrians began to enjoy the breeze of relative freedom and even under the unequal opportunities they proved their talents and abilities. One businessman, Jamshid Jamshidian known as Arbab Jamshid founded a trade center in the capital city of Tehran. He was well respected for his honesty and success even by the Qajar Kings. The notes of Jamshidian center generally were regarded and accepted as bank notes. Another Zoroastrian family, Jahanian, established a business center in Yazd. They expanded their business and even opened a branch office in New York. The public also accepted the notes of the Jahanian Center as bank note. The five brothers were planning to found the first Iranian National Bank. But the assassination of one of the brothers, Parviz, forced them to abandon the plan. Iranian public, generally held the British responsible for the assassination, believing that they did not want the Iranians to establish and own banks. Due to the unstable national economy, the two business centers at the end went bankrupt.

The revolution for the establishment of constitutional monarchy took place in 1909 A.D.

And the Qajar King (Mohammad Ali Shah) was ousted and his young son, Ahmad Mirza was installed King by the revolutionaries. The Zoroastrians were active in this revolution and one of them, Fereidoun Fereidounian was martyred. The new constitution officially recognized the Zoroastrians as a minority entitle to one Parliamentary deputy. The first elected deputy was Jamshidian, who after one term, voluntarily withdrew and the next deputy, a young energetic politician named Keikhosrow Shahrokh was elected who was trusted and respected by the Moslems as well as Zoroastrians. Shahrokh many times reminded the people “Although I have been elected by the Zoroastrians, but in the Parliament I am a representative of the whole nation.” Once a deputy name Modarres, who was a powerful clergy said, “ If I can name one true Moslem, that will be Arbab Keikhosrow,” Because of his honesty, during the famine he was appointed as the director of the central silo. In this capacity he encouraged all the landowners to sell their crops at a reasonable price to the silo. When Ahmad shah asked for an unreasonably high price, Shahrokh reminded the king: “His majesty, do you recall what you said when you took the oath of office at the inauguration of Parliament? That you always think and act for the welfare and prosperity of the nation?”

Pahlavi Era

Shahrokh was an active member of the Majlis during the events that led to the accession of Reza Shah to the Persian throne. Reza Shah a true nationalist picked up “Pahlavi” as the dynasty’s surname and emphasized the Persian nationalism. The pre-Islamic history, Keyanian, Pishdadian, Achaemenian, Parthian, and Sassanian were taught in the schools and Iranians were given a new sense of identity and a fresh direction. The Persian vocabulary was refined from many Arabic words and replaced by pure Persian vocables. Schools, roads, national railroad, factories and universities were built. The first chair of the Avestan studies was established in the University of Tehran, school of literature, under the directorship of the late Professor Pour Davoud who reintroduced the Avesta to the Iranians and after him one of his students the late Dr. Bahram Fravashi chaired the section. When Professor Pour Davoud passed away, a Tehran newspaper wrote: “the service of the professor to the nation is not less than that of Yaghoub Leisse who defeated and forced the Arabs out of Iran.”

Shahrokh remained a trusted confidant of Reza Shah. When the building of Iranian Parliament was consumed by fire, Reza Shah looking for an honest and trusted man to carry out the enormous project of reconstruction, appointed Shahrokh for this task. On the inauguration of the new building, Reza Shah was so much impressed that he told, “Arab Keikhosrow” although Arbab is redundant (He did not like titles), but Keikhosrow let me tell you, that destruction was well worth this construction.” After Shahrokh, Mr. Rustam Guiv was elected to the parliament and later to the Iranian Senate, whose generosity has enlightened many Zoroastrian communities around the world. Next deputy was Dr. Esfandiyar Yeganegi an economician and founder of an irrigation company who was respected by the whole nation for his generosity and charitable works.

In 1932 a Parsi delegation met with Reza Shah and expressed their appreciation for all the achievements, he replied “all that you have said is correct, whatever I have done is for my country, but you tell me what can you do for your original homeland.” The Shah invited Parsis to come and settle in the country of your ancestors. We will welcome you with open arms. Parsis at this time founded two high schools (Anoushiravan Dadgar for girls and Firooz-Bahram for boys.) These schools have graduated many Iranian scholars, professionals, leaders and statesmen who always have cherished their memories of studying there. Parsis also contributed to founding schools in the Zoroastrian Villages of Yazd. They also established clinics and dispatched Parsi physicians. The reason was not only to treat the patients who suffered from endemic diseases and malnutrition, but because the Zoroastrian patients even in medical fields were regarded as impure and untouchable and were mistreated by the crew. Actually some medical facilities did not accept Zoroastrian patients, consequently in their own homeland they were alien and ailing, and died young because of bigotry. The Parsi-founded clinics, however, delivered service equally to all patients at need regardless of religion. They remained in operation until Goodarz Hospital was founded by the Goodarz (Jahanian-Varza) brothers in Yazd and employed European and Iranian physicians. Later Laal Maternity Hospital and a nursing school were annexed to it. During the Iran-Iraq war, Goodarz Hospital delivered a great service by treating the wounded Iranian soldiers. Once the hospital became operational, the Parsi clinics were transferred to the Red Lion and Sun organization. The late Peshotan Marker is to be mentioned who founded Marker (known as Markar) Foundation that includes boarding schools. These schools were managed and directed by the late Soroush Lohrasp who recently passed away. The number of other students in the Zoroastrian schools surpass far beyond the Zoroastrians. Meanwhile, the community under the unequal opportunities resorted to education so much that the illiteracy rate among the Zoroastrians is almost zero while the national illiteracy rate approaches forty percent. The proportion of Zoroastrians with a university degree is the highest among the nation. They have founded schools, hospitals, industries, business centers and charitable organizations. Zoroastrians founded the first modern city in Iran at the Tehran Suburb. The community has produced physicians, engineers, professors, teachers, professionals, industrialists, and army generals. They have held important governmental positions up to the acting finance minister and deputy prime minister. Two Mobeds educated from Cama Athornan Madressa, exercised an effective role in the religious leadership and education of the community.

The Zoroastrians are well recognized as the genuine Iranians and respected for the reputation of scrupulous honesty. In 1972 I met an Iranian who complained of governmental corruption in Iran. But he admitted that when Dr. Farhang Mehr was the acting finance minister, no one talked about bribe. In response to my inquiry he added, “When people at the top are honest, the subordinates will watch.” These words were particularly rewarding because by his own admission he was at odds with Dr. Mehr. In 1971 a young Parsi in Iran told me that he had applied for several jobs. The Presidents of the companies had informed him that they had other applicants but because he was a Zoroastrian, they were giving him priority. In 1953 Tehran was under curfew. Dr. Sarfeh in an editorial wrote: on his way to visiting a patient, he was stopped by a soldier and as he did not carry his I.D. card, was taken to a military station. The officer in charge asked his name and then allowed him to go free and be escorted. When Dr.Sarfeh asked, don’t you want me bring my I.D? He responded it is not necessary, because your name indicates that you are a Zoroastrian and we trust and respect you. In 1963, Iran was facing a meat shortage. The Iranian government looking for a trusted and honest man to handle the crisis, appointed general doctor (Mobed) Jahanguir Oshidari as the director of “The National Meat Company.” In a matter of two months the crisis was over. Later General Oshidari “currently the president of council of Mobeds in Tehran” confided to his friends “people were offering me personal favors, but I rejected with anger. That is why the crisis was over soon.

At the turn of the recent revolution many scholars of the Zoroastrian studies suffered physical, psychological and financial punishments. Some were arrested, jailed and beaten. Others lost their jobs and even suffered the loss of a dear one, yet they pursued. These men have long foregone material interests and for the love of Zarathushtra put their families in distress. Their service to Zoroastrianism is beyond description.

Dr. Ali Jafarey, Dr. Bahram Fravashi, Dr. Hussein Vahidi, Hashim Razi and Dr. Ahmad Tafazzoli are to be named as examples. We must dedicate our love and heartfelt thanks and gratitude to these men whose devotion has brought us closer to the message of Zarathushtra than ever before. Today many Iranians in search of their national identity and original roots are looking into Zoroastrianism. Although currently in Iran many discriminatory laws are practiced and Zoroastrians as other minorities are not employed by the government, nevertheless they enjoy the public trust and respect as the people regard them as genuine Iranians who morally and historically represent their ancestors. The Zoroastrians in spite of all the hardships and indignities suffered by their ancestors will always remain patriotic to Iran. It is interesting that the Parsis of India even after a thousand years living in India look toward Iran as their true homeland. Iran is the birthplace and homeland of Zarathushtra, our beloved prophet and we are connected to our motherland by profound religious, cultural and historical roots.

By reviewing the history of Zoroastrians after the Arab invasion, one may conclude that it was a miracle that Zoroastrianism survived the harsh treatment of history. As once Dastoor Bode said, “ so many religions and nations have become part of ancient history. There must be a reason why Zoroastrianism survived.”[25]


NOTES:

[1] Gergie Zeidan, History of Islamic Civilization, 3rd volume p 42-47; Persian translation of Kashf el Zonoun- Eben-e Khaldoun, by Haj Khalifeh, preface.
[2] Abu Rayhan Birouni, Athar el Baghieh
[3] Ebn-e Esfandiar, Tārikh-e Tabarestān, 1320 Sh. (1941) p 120.
[4] Abdollah Mehdi el Khatib, Dolat-e Bani Omayeh dar Khorrāsān (The Umayyad Government in Khorassan), p40.
[5] Ebn-e Balkhi, Forsnāmeh 1313 SH. (1934), p116-135.
[6] Abu Hanifeh Dinouri, Akhbār el Tavāl, 1960 (Cairo) p141.
[7] Shojaeddin Shaffa, Tavalodī Dīgar, p443, third edition.
[8] Mohammad ibn-e Jarrir Tabari, History of the nations and the kings, p171, 1831, quoting Soleiman ibn-e Abdolmaleck
[9] Agha Khan-e Kermani, Nāmehā.
[10] Mohammad ibn-e Jarrir Tabari, History of prophets and the kings, 1358 AH, (Cairo) p414, (8,9,10) Quoted from Jenāyat va Mohāfat by: Shojaeddin Shaffa
[11] Abdul Hussein Zarrinkoub, Do Qarn Sokūt, p85, third edition.
[12] Translation by Seyyed Hussein Nasr
[13] Inauguration of the Zoroastrian congress in Bombay, 1963
[14] Estimated by Zabih Behrooz- Jean Chardin, a French tourist who visited Iran writes: %40 of the Iranians (or estimated four million) remains Zoroastrian.
[15] Rashid Shahmardan, Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, p176-177, quoting Jean Chardin
[16] His letter dated: December 8, 1617
[17] Bahram Fravashi, The marvelous letters (Persian translation from French) p108-109
[18] -- Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, P 177
[19] Jonas Hunway, Journal of the travels of revolution of Persia, Volume 11, p 153, 195, 208
[20] -- Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, p125
[21] Ibid. p126
[22] Ibid
[23] Dr. Adharbad Irani, in his informal visit with the Iranian delegation to the second Zoroastrian congress, Bombay 1963
[24] Khosrow Bastanifar, At last I return to Yazd, in Persian
[25] Framroze Ardeshir Bode, Informal conversation in Tehran, Iran 1963

@Shapur Zol Aktaf @aryobarzan @Bahram Esfandiari @Dariush the Great @Cliftonite @Xerxes22 @Cthulhu @925boy @Baibars_1260 @SalarHaqq @Sam. @Chhatrapati @-=virus=-

@Bahram Esfandiari this is especially for you.

Cheers, Doc

 

[aryobarzan]

IRANIAN HISTORY: POST-SASANIAN

The History of Zoroastrians after Arab Invasion; Alien in Their Homeland



By: Dr. Daryoush Jahanian

Presented at the North American Zoroastrian Congress in San Francisco 1996

and the World Zoroastrian congress in Houston 2000-2001​

​

Artist impression of fall of Ctesiphon Two modern posters commemorating the Battle of Qadissiyah and the massacre of Nahavand​

Abstract: This is only a fraction of what actually happened to the Zoroastrians after the Arab invasion. The purpose of the presentation is not to generate hard feeling toward any people. Because no generation is responsible for the actions of past generations, although almost always they are unfairly blamed for. However, denial of historical facts is not an option either. The real goal in addition to presentation of an untold history is to make our community aware of their past history and the suffering and indignities that their ancestors received to preserve their religion, culture and identity. Once it is realized that nothing that we have inherited is to be taken as granted, our responsibility toward the young generation, the generation of the 21st century is better realized.

Due to continuous persecution, discrimination and massacre the population of Zoroastrians of Iran from an estimated five million at the turn of the fifteenth century dwindled to only seven thousand at the middle of the nineteenth century. At this time the French ambassador to Iran wrote “only a miracle can save them from total extinction”. By the support of their Parsi brethren and their own faith, the Zoroastrian community in Iran revived and their fate turned around. Today they are well educated and enjoy the respect and trust of the general population for their reputation of “scrupulous honesty”.

The history of Zoroastrians of Iran after the Arab conquest can be summarized in three words: oppression, misery and massacre.

The Arabs invaded Persia not only for its reputed wealth, but to bring into the faith new converts and to impose Islam as the new state religion. They were religious zealots who believed that “in a religious war if one kills or is killed, one’s place in heaven is secure”. To impose the new religion, the old culture and creed had to be destroyed. Therefore first they targeted the libraries, universities and schools. Only few examples reflect the enormity of the calamity that befell upon Persia at 630 A.D. Although some events and figures appear legendary, nevertheless are considered to be true, as they have been recorded by many historians of the Islamic era.

When the Arab commander (Saad ibn-e Abi Vaghas) faced the huge library of Cteciphon, he wrote to Omar: what should be done about the books. Omar wrote back “If the books contradict the Koran, they are blasphemous and on the other hand if they are in agreement with the text of Koran, then they are not needed, as for us only Koran is sufficient”. Thus, the huge library was destroyed and the books or the product of the generations of Persian scientists and scholars were burned in fire or thrown into the Euphrates.[1] By the order of another Arab ruler (Ghotaibeh ibn-e Moslem) in Khwarezmia, those who were literate with all the historians, writers and Mobeds were massacred and their books burned so that after one generation the people were illiterate.[2] Other libraries in Ray and Khorassan received the same treatment and the famous international University of Gondishapour declined and eventually abandoned, and its library and books vanished. Ibn-e Khaldoun, the famous Islamic historian summarizes the whole anihilation and conflagration:” where is the Persian science that Omar ordered to be destroyed?” Only few books survived, because the Persian scholars translated them into Arabic.

To conquer Persia and force Islam, the Arab invaders resorted to many inhumane actions including massacre, mass enslavement of men, women and children, and imposition of heavy taxes (Jezyeh=Jizya) on those who did not convert. By the order of “Yazid ibn-e Mohalleb” in Gorgan so many Persians were beheaded that their blood mixed with water would energize the millstone to produce as much as one day meal for him, as he had vowed.[3] The event of blood mill has been quoted by the generations of Iranian Zoroastrian families to this day, yet our books of history have been silent about it. In recent years however, disenchanted Iranian scholars have been writing about the blood mills and in fact this event has been reported by our historians of the Islamic era. On the way to Mazandaran the same commander ordered 12,000 captives to be hanged at the two sides of the road so that the victorious Arab army pass through. Upon arrival, many more were massacred in that province and heavy tax (Jizya) was imposed on the survivors who did not convert. Some historians have estimated that a total of 400,000 civilians were massacred.[4] Even though the figure appears inflated, nevertheless it reflects the extent of atrocities committed by the Arab conquerors. After the battle of Alis, the Arab commander (Khalid ibn-e Valid) ordered all the prisoners of war be decapitated so that a creek of blood flows. When the city of Estakhr in the south put up stiff resistance against the Arab invaders, 40,000 residents were slaughtered or hanged.[5] One of the battles by the Arabs has been named, Jelovla (covered), because an estimated 100,000 bodies of the slain Iranian soldiers covered the desert.[6] It is reported that 130,000 Iranian women and children were enslaved and sold in the Mecca and Medina markets and large amount of gold and silver plundered. One respected Iranian scholar recently wrote, “Why so many had to die or suffer? Because one side was determined to impose his religion upon the other who could not understand ”.[7] The Arabs colonized, exploited and despised the population. In this context they called the Persians “Ajam” or mute. They even named the Iranian converts “Mavali” or “liberated slaves”. According to the Arab classification, this caste could not receive wages or booties of the war; they were to be protected and at times rewarded by their protectors. Mavalis were not allowed to ride horses and sometimes they were given away as gifts. One of the Umayyad Caliphs was quoted “milk the Persians and once their milk dries, suck their blood”.[8] With so much atrocities committed in the name of religion, how much truly the Arab invaders knew about Islam? By the order of Omar 1000 warriors who knew one Ayah of the Koran were to be selected to receive the booties of the war. But the problem was that among the Arab army there were not even 1,000 soldiers who could read one Ayah.[9]

The First Voice of Protest

The first voice of protest against the Arab oppression came from Firooz who assassinated Omar. He was a Persian artisan and prisoner of war who had been enslaved by an Arab. While observing the Iranian children taken to be sold as slaves, he was overcome by grief and wept for the sorry plight of his nation.[10] Thereafter other uprisings against the Arab occupation were all suppressed. They are recognized as Abu Moslem of Khrassan, the white clad, red clad (lead by Babak), Maziyar, Afshin and others. All together, during the two centuries of Arab occupation, a total of 130 Iranian uprisings have been recorded. All were brutally put down and each time lands were confiscated and the local people were forced to provide the Arabs with gold, silver and certain number of young slaves annually for reparation.

Finally the Arabs were driven out of Iran by an ordinary man from the south (Sistan) named Yaghoub (Jacob) Leisse Saffari, who forced the occupiers to the Tigris river where the stream was turned toward his army, many of whom died and he developed pneumonia. At his deathbed he received the Caliph’s emissary who presented him jewels and offered him the governorship of several provinces. Yaghoub responded with anger “tell your ruler, I have lived all my life on bread and onion, if I survive, only sword will rule between the two of us”.

The two centuries Arab rule of Iran has been compared to a nightmare associated with the moans of widows and orphans, “a dark night of silence that was interrupted only by the hoot of owls and the harsh sound of thunder”.[11]

By the independence of Iran however, the suffering of Zoroastrians was not over. Many Iranians at this era had been Arabized and picked up Arabic names. The new Moslems were no less hostile toward their old religion than the Arabs. Now the Arabic was considered a scientific language, the knowledge of which would place one in higher class among the scholars. That is why many scientific books at this era were written in Arabic and mistakenly those scholars and scientists have been assumed to be Arabs. The loss of identity had caused some Iranians to become alien to their own nationality. An Iranian premier (Sahib ibn-e Obbad) did not look in the mirror lest would see a Persian. Another ruler of Khorassan (Abdollah ibn-e Tahir) would not acknowledge any language but the Arabic. He banned publications in Persian and by his order all the Zoroastrians were forced to bring their religious books to be thrown in the fire. Those who refused were slain.

During the Islamic period many Iranian poets and scholars attempted to revive the Persian culture and history and reintroduce the national identity to the despised nation. Zoroastrian poets, Daghighi and Zardosht Bahram Pazhdoh and the Persian poets as Ferdowsi, Hafiz and Khayyam among many are to be mentioned here.

As the Arabs destroyed and burned all the non-Arabic and Pahlavi writings, Iranian scholars found a solution to save the books that was to translate them into Arabic. One of the rare books that survived the carnage was “Khodai-namak”, a Pahlavi writing of the Sassanian era. It was translated into Arabic by Dadbeh “Ebn-e-Moghaffaa” under the title of “The Manner of the Kings.” Ferdowsi versified and named it “Shah-Nameh.” In 1991 Unesco recognized this book as the masterpiece of epics and Ferdowsi in Iran was glorified by the International Community.

Ferdowsi by versifying the “Khodai-namak” as his book of “Shah-Nameh,” a new Persian poetry almost devoid of Arabic words truly revived the Persian language, and by renewing the legend of Iranian victory under the leadership of Kauveh, the blacksmith and Fereidoun over the blood thirsty Zahhak the Arab, gave a new sense of pride and identity to the Iranians. He certainly does not exaggerate when recites”

“I labored hard in these years of thirty

I revived the Ajam (mute) by this Parsi.

Hafiz a beloved mystical poet always refreshes the love of Zoroastrian faith in his poetry by calling himself a follower of the old Magi. In a poem he reminds the readers “ In a garden renew your Zoroastrian faith” and:

“In the monastery of the Magi, why they honor us

The fire that never dies, burns in our hearts”[12]

Khayyam who was a poet, scientist, astronomist, mathematician and a true intellectual, abhorred the Moslem clergy and their blind adherents. There were however, intellectuals whose views were resented by the clergy and because of that they even received a dreadful death. Among them Dadbeh who was burned alive, and Sohravardi, the founder of school of illumination whose views were based on the teachings of Zarathushtra, and Mansour Hallaj are to be mentioned. Flame of the past glory could rekindle in the hearts of Iranians by a spark. Khaghani Sherwani on his return from Hajj Pilgrimage spent a night at the city of Baghdad. There, the ruins of palace of Anoushiravan, known as Kassra Hall inspired him to recite one of the masterpieces of Persian poetry reflecting the glory of the past and the history of Sassanian era.

Despite all the intellectuals’ efforts, the suffering of Zoroastrians continued. Any local incident could flare up a major riot and become a calamity for the Zoroastrian population and cause their massacre. The famous incident was when a group of fanatic Moslems in the City of Harat (Greater Khorassan, today Afghanistan), destroyed the wall of a mosque and blamed the action on the Zoroastrians, by the order of Sultan Sanjar (Saljuqi) many Zoroastrians of the greater Khorassan were massacred. The Parsis are known to originate from Khorassan and migrated to India during this era. Later another group from the city of Sari, Mazandaran joined them and founded the city of Nov-Sari. Parsis later became an example of successful community who founded industries, universities and charitable institutions and established themselves as a major force in the development of India. As the prime minister of Mharashtra once put it, “They were a shining diamond in the ocean of Indian population”.[13]

In 1934 Mr. Foroughi, the Iranian minister of education and culture, himself a scholar and later prime minister, in response to Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian Philosopher and Nobel laureate, who had thanked the government of Iran for founding a chair of Iranian studies, wrote: “Dear Sir: You should not thank us and I will explain to you why! “ For one thousand years your nation has hosted our sons and daughters know as Parsis. They left Iran under a distressful condition; but we never thanked you for it. Please accept this chair of Iranian studies only as a small token of appreciation.”

Despite repeated mass slaughters, by the advent of Safavite Dynasty at the turn of the 15th century (600 years ago), between 3 to 5 million Iranian remained Zoroastrians.[14] The Caspian province of Mazandaran, at this time not only had preserved the old religion but was ruled by a Zoroastrian dynasty known as Paduspanian who remained in power until 1006 Hijri. The Safavites by enticement and use of violence both, converted the majority of Iranian into Shiism. This was a political act to encourage Iranians to fight against the Ottomans who were Sunni Moslems. By the order of Shah Ismail, the founder of the dynasty many Sunni Moslems were slaughtered but in the turmoil many Zoroastrians were included as well. During the rule of Shah Abbas the Great (1587-1628 A.D.) a strong unified Iranian army was in war against the Ottomans. Meanwhile, he dispatched troops to Mazandran with the task to Islamize the province, and by the use of force and violence the mission was accomplished. By his order many Zoroastrians were deported to a ghetto town near Isfahan named Gabrabad, where they lived in abject poverty. Many of deportees during deportation lost their lives. To these people who were forcefully detached from their farms and businesses, no job was given. They were brought there just to do the menial works that nobody else would accept. It was said that the poorest Iranians in comparison to them appeared quite rich. Due to the extent of indigence, the Zoroastrian community was the only one who could not present a gift for the coronation of King Soleiman the third.[15] A Roman tourist, Pietro Della Valle, who has visited the town writes:[16] I had heard of the outcast sector of Iranian society named Gabrs who are faithless. I was determined to visit them. The streets of Gabrabad are straight and clean but the houses are one floor, reflecting the poverty of people. As I was walking I met a husband and wife. I asked the man do you love God? At this time the woman jumped in the conversation and said: “How one may know God but would not love Him.” I realized that these people have their own religion but they are the victims of bigotry.”

The Safavite era is the darkest period for the Zoroastrians. The writings of the high Islamic clerics would instigate hatred toward them. Even in public opinion they were responsible for the natural disasters as flood and earthquake, this kind of sentiment would make them vulnerable to persecution and massacre.

A letter from a French priest to his boss at this era (17th Century A.D.) reflects the state of suffering and misery of the Zoroastrians of Iran. He wrote, “Islam is not the only religion of the Iranians, there are many Iranians who have preserved their old religion. But they have none of their ancestral knowledge and science. They live in a state of slavery and absolute misery. Most difficult and harshest public works are assigned to them. They are mostly porters or work in the farms. The state of slavery has caused them to be shy, naïve and rough mannered. They speak in a different dialect and use their old alphabets. Iranians call them (Gavre) that mean idol worshippers, and they are treated much worse than the Jews. They are accused of being fire worshippers…but they respect the fire. They believe that in order to receive salvation, one should till the land, develop orchards, and avoid polluting the water and putting down the fire. Their holiest man is called Zartosht and their most important festival is Nov Rooz…”[17]

Despite all the adversities, population of the Zoroastrians of Iran at the turn of the 18th century was estimated to be one million.[18] But the most horrendous massacre of the Zoroastrian population took place by the order of the last Safavite King, Shah Sultan Hussein (1694-1722.) Soon after ascension to the Persian throne, he issued a decree that all Zoroastrians should convert to Islam or face the consequences. By one estimate, one hundred thousand Zoroastrian families lived in the Central Iran. Nearly all were slaughtered or coercively converted. In this blood bath, the entire population of Gabrabad was wiped out. In other parts many men, women and children lost their lives. The bodies’ of Zoroastrians thrown in the central river (Zayandeh Rood) have been witnessed by the French missionary and reported. The reports of the French priests residing in Isfahan reflect the enormity of the genocide that took place three hundred years ago in the central Iran. By the French estimate a total of 80,000 Zoroastrians lost their lives and many fled the massacre in misery to preserve their religion. The Zoroastrian sources estimate the number of victims at hundreds of thousand. The towns of Naiin and Anar (between Isfahan and Yazd) converted to Islam. The local language of the people there remains Dari, exactly the same dialect that is exclusively spoken by the Zoroastrians of Iran. The customs and traditions of Abiyaneh (a town near Kashan) remains Zoroastrian. It is believed that the Zoroastrians of Khoramshah, a suburb of Yazd are the descendants of the survivors of that infamous blood bath. Again, the Zoroastrian families have quoted this event to this day, but our books of history have kept a policy of total silence toward it.

The Safavites were overthrown by the Afghan rebellion under the leadership of Mahmoud Mir Oveis. Then, Afghanistan was a province of Iran and Afghan insurgency was an internal affair. During the passing through the central desert due to harsh condition Mahmoud lost too many men, therefore he was unable to capture the city of Kerman; but before returning to Afghanistan he massacred the Zoroastrian population of the suburban Gavashir (1719 A.D.). The reason why he only massacred the Zoroastrians was due to the fact that this sector of the community as a result of in-city persecution had moved to the outskirts of Kerman and taken residence there. This area was not protected by high walls and towers; consequently they were easily accessible to the Afghans. For the next two years Mahmoud retrained and reorganized his army and this time he conquered the city of Kerman (1721 A.D.). Despite the Gavashir calamity, because of the carnage done by the Safavites and the extent of suffering under that dynasty, the Zoroastrians formed a brigade and supported the Afghans. Majority of Afghans were Sunni Moslems and their rebellion was due to religious persecution under the Shiite rule, thus the Zoroastrians sympathized with their cause. Zoroastrian commander of the brigade was a man, titled Nassrollah. This title was granted my Mahmoud, however, his real name is not known. He addressed his troop, reminded them of the glory of the past and the duty to their country. Nassrollah became the most popular commander in the Afghan army and soon Mahmoud commanded him to conquer Fars in the south. He succeeded, but in the last battle for the city of Shiraz was fatally wounded. Mahmoud truly mourned the loss of his favorite general and at his funeral wept. He ordered a mausoleum was built for him near Isfahan and a Mobed was designated to perform the rituals. Twenty-two years later this mausoleum has been witnessed and reported by an English tourist.[19]

The victorious Afghans were eventually defeated by a strong military leader named Nader Shah Afshar (1736-1747 A.D.) who also defeated the Ottomans. He later invaded and conquered India and brought with him the famous peacock throne. In the army of Nader 12000 Zoroastrians men served. But even the victories of Nader and resurgence of a strong Iran did not change the fate of the Zoroastrian population and their agony went on. Nader upon return from India had become insane and after a failing assassination attempt that wounded his arm, became suspicious at his own son who was blinded at his order. When Nader became aware that his suspicion was unfounded and his son was totally innocent, he resorted to mass murder. By one estimate during the bloodbath none of the remaining Zoroastrian soldiers survived and many of the Zoroastrian population of Khorassan and Sistan were massacred. Few survivors could cross the desert on foot and take refuge in Kerman or Yazd. The public census of the Zoroastrians of Kerman belonging to this era shows that 8000 were called Khorassani and 2000 Sistani. Today few families in Yazd can trace their lineage to Khorassan.

The Afshar dynasty founded by Nader Shah was short lasting, after whom the Zands took over. The founder of the dynasty was a kind-hearted man named Karim Khan who established the city of Shiraz as his capital. For a short time Iranians enjoyed peace and tranquility. After him the Zands were challenged by Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. The Zands under the commandership of a brave man named LotfAli Khan Zand retreated to the city of Kerman. The city for several month remained under siege by the army of Qajar. A Zoroastrian astrologer named Mulla Gushtasp son of Bahman through the astrological signs predicted that on Friday, 29th day of the first Rabie, 1209 Hijri, the city would fall to the Qajar army. The Zand ordered Gushtasp to be jailed and if his prediction did not come true be killed. As he had forecasted, on the exact day due to the treason of one of the Zand commanders, the gates were opened and the city fell to the Qajar. Agha Mohammad who was incensed by the stiff resistance put up by the people of Kerman, ordered 20,000 of the residents to be blinded but because of the Gushtasp’s forecast the Zoroastrians were spared. Mulla Gushtasp is the great grand father of the late Keikhosrow Shahrokh. He was brought out of jail and was presented gifts and thereafter accompanied the new king in his trips.

The Qajar Era (1796-1925 A.D.)

The census of early Qajar era indicates that the total population of Zoroastrians was 50,000 and they had taken refuge mainly in the two central cities of Yazd and Kerman. One census includes a pocket of Zoroastrians living in the city of Qazvin.[20] There is no information about the fate of the Qazvin community. It is not known whether they were massacred, forcefully converted or scattered. But what about the Zoroastrians living in Yazd and Kerman? Did they live there in peace?

Despite the aforementioned favorable incident, the Zoroastrians during the Qajar dynasty remained in agony and their population continued to decline. Even during the rule of Agha Mohammad Khan, the founder of the dynasty many Zoroastrians were killed and some were taken as captives to Azarbaijan.[21] The community was regarded as outcast, impure and untouchable. Various methods were used to convert them to Islam. According to a law, if any member of family converted to Islam, he/she was entitled to all inheritance. This was a materialistic incentive to proselytize the minorities. According to Edward Browne, the wall of Zoroastrian houses had to be lower than that of the Moslems. If they were riding a donkey, upon facing a Moslem had to discount and during the rainy days they were not allowed to appear in public, because the water that had run down through their bodies and cloths could pollute the Moslems. The Zoroastrian food was considered impure and many public places refused to serve them. Harassments and persecution were the norms of daily life. At times, Zoroastrian girls were kidnapped and forcefully converted and married to Moslems and brought to town in fanfare. On top of all the misery the Zoroastrians had to pay a heavy religious tax known as Jizya. Due to corruption of the tax officials, at times twice and even three times the official figure would be collected, because every intermediary had to receive his share. If the families could not afford paying the Jizya, their children were beaten and even tortured and their religious books were thrown in fire. That is how the term “the bookless” came about. Under the woeful conditions, some had to convert and there were those who declared themselves Moslems, picked up Islamic names, but in secret continued Zoroastrian practices. Today the latter group among the Zoroastrians is known as Jaddid (new).

Count de Gobineau, the French Ambassador to Iran (1850’s A.D.) expressed a pessimistic view of the Zoroastrians that reflects the plight of community during the Qajar ear. He writes “Only 7000 of them remain and just a miracle may save them from extinction.” He adds, “These are the descendants of the people who one day ruled the world.” Zoroastrian massacre did not cease during the Qajar rule. The last two are recorded at the villages surrounding the city of Boarzjan and Turkabad near Yazd. Today, the village of Maul Seyyed Aul near Borazjan, among the local people is know as “killing site” (Ghatl-Gauh)[22] and Zoroastrian surnames of Turk, Turki, Turkian and Turkabadi reflect lineage to the survivors of Turkabad.

To present the true picture of Zoroastrian life in that era, I will quote several writers (Napier Malcom: 1905, Dr. Rostam Sarfeh: Parsiana, March 1990, Page 43, Khosrow Bastanifar: at last I return to Yazd, 1996, P 192 in Persian). The Zoroastrians even were not allowed to wear shoes but only slippers. They had to put on a dirty torn cap and sew a yellow old patch on their back, so that would be distinguished in public places. Their pants had to be short, so that when stones were thrown at them hit their exposed legs. They were not allowed to wear a new suit, the dirtier the cloth, and the less punishment. A prominent Zoroastrian merchant had put on a new pant. In the market place he was surrounded by mob and was forced to remove his pant, hold it on his head and walk back home. Zoroastrians entering a Moslem house had to carry a shawl upon which they had to sit, so that the place will not be polluted.

Zoroastrian farmers subsisted on the sale of their products. Once an authority announced their products are impure, people refused buying from them. After receiving payment, he declared that if those products ere kept high in the air, are purified. A Zoroastrian girl carrying products to the city was raped. The attackers claimed she was drunk and was responsible for the crime. The girl could not tolerate the stigma and committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.

The misery of Zoroastrians is beyond description. Some even converted to Islam to be able to protect their old co-religionists.

Due to the extent of oppression, agony and destitution, many Zoroastrians ventured the hazardous journey to India. They had to risk their lives by crossing the hostile desert on donkeys or even on foot. Those who could afford voyaged aboard the ships. In India, they were recognized for Sadra and Kushti and were sheltered by their Parsi brethren. In the new environment, they proved their talents in business and science and prospered.

The woeful plight of the Zoroastrians caused the Parsis to dispatch emissaries to Iran. The notable one, Maneckji Limji Hataria arrived for the first time on March 31, 1854 A.D. at the age of 41. For one year he studied the general condition of the persecuted community. He found the Zoroastrians to be uneducated and suffered from endemic diseases and malnutrition. Worse than all, centuries of oppression and persecution had taken a heavy toll on their spirit. The community had no confidence in herself and no hope for the future. Maneckji upon return to India reported his findings to the Parsi Panchayet. This is truly a historical document, part of which is quoted hereunder:

Dear Sir; This noble group has suffered in the hands of cruel and evil people so much that they are totally alien to knowledge and science. For them even black and white, and good and evil are equal. Their men have been forcefully doing menial works in the construction and as slaves receive no payment. As some evil and immoral men have been looking after their women and daughters, this sector of Zoroastrians community even during daytime stays indoor. Despite all the poverty, heavy taxes under the pretexts of land, space, pasture land; inheritance and religious tax (Jizya) are imposed on them. The local rulers have been cruel to them and have plundered their possessions. They have forced the men to do the menial construction work for them. Vagrants have kidnapped their women and daughters. Worse than all, community is disunited. Their only hope is the advent of future savior (Shah Bahram Varjavand). Because of extreme misery, belief in the savior is so strong that 35 years earlier when an astrologer forecasted the birth of the savior, many men in his search left the town and were lost in the desert and never returned. Perhaps this one sentence of Maneckji epitomizes the sorry plight of the community. “I found the Zoroastrians to be exhausted and trampled, so much that even no one in this world can be more miserable than them.’

Amelioration fund was set up and from its interest income part of the Jizya was paid off. Once again Maneckji returned to Iran. This time he devoted his life toward saving his co-religionists from the brink of extinction. He followed three goals: To educate the community, to organize them and to abolish the burden of Jizya. He was a charming man who rallied the support of Dadabhoy Naorjoi and some of the European ambassadors to eliminate the injustice suffered by so many Zoroastrian generations in Iran. Several times he intervened in the unfair court rulings and forced them to reverse the unjust decisions. At that time if a Moslem murdered a Zoroastrian, the culprit would automatically be freed. If a Moslem borrowed money from a Zoroastrian and denied it, court would side with the Moslem. On the other hand, if a Zoroastrian borrowed from a Moslem and could not afford paying back, court would force his relatives, neighbors and friends to raise fund and defray the loan.

In his pursuit of educating the community, Maneckji faced unexpected difficulties for the following reasons:

1. The Zoroastrians for centuries had been prohibited from receiving education, just to be content with subsisting on menial jobs. The change of direction was difficult and even some believed that education will cause them not to be able to work and earn money:

2. The children worked and their dismal income nevertheless, subsidized the family. The families could not afford the loss of income.

3. Parents missed their children and they were not ready to send them away.

4. Some Zoroastrian leaders became envious of Maneckji, even saying that education will deprive the community of future workers who can make a living; some were even envious of children who will receive better education that they did.

Despite all the obstacles Maneckji prevailed and eventually picked up boys from Kerman and Yazd, took them to Tehran and founded a boarding school for them. He even subsidized the families for the loss of their children’s income. To teach them, Maneckji published books and employed the best scholars, some of whom were educated in Europe. From these children future teachers evolved, who were scattered in the cities of Yazd and Kerman and Zoroastrian villages and educated the community. The result is that today illiteracy rate among the Zoroastrian population is near zero. With the Maneckji’s encouragement and support, marriages took place and jobs were provided for the newly wed couples.

His historical achievement was the abolition of the religious tax (Jizya). Maneckji, through the direct negotiations with the Qajar King, Nassereddin Shah persuaded him to abolish the burden of Jizya and that took place in August of 1882 A.D. Through the enticement and direct involvement of Maneckji and his successor, Zoroastrians later formed local associations named after the then king, Nasseri Anjumans. I would like to quote the late Dr. Adharbad Irani, the famous Bombay ophthalmologist: “Words fall short of expression, we must devote our love and warm tears to our Parsi brothers who at the most critical time came to our rescue.”[23] The loving memory of Maneckji among the Zoroastrians or Iran is perpetual. We name our sons Majecki, Limji and many families have chosen his name as surname as “ Maneckji, Maneckjian, and Maneckjipour.” If it was not for his dedication and selfless efforts, perhaps the Zoroastrian religion had vanished in its country of origin. If we believe in the word “saoshyant” as benefactor, isn’t he the one who saved the Zoroastrians of Iran from extinction?[24]

Now, after centuries of suffering, the Zoroastrians began to enjoy the breeze of relative freedom and even under the unequal opportunities they proved their talents and abilities. One businessman, Jamshid Jamshidian known as Arbab Jamshid founded a trade center in the capital city of Tehran. He was well respected for his honesty and success even by the Qajar Kings. The notes of Jamshidian center generally were regarded and accepted as bank notes. Another Zoroastrian family, Jahanian, established a business center in Yazd. They expanded their business and even opened a branch office in New York. The public also accepted the notes of the Jahanian Center as bank note. The five brothers were planning to found the first Iranian National Bank. But the assassination of one of the brothers, Parviz, forced them to abandon the plan. Iranian public, generally held the British responsible for the assassination, believing that they did not want the Iranians to establish and own banks. Due to the unstable national economy, the two business centers at the end went bankrupt.

The revolution for the establishment of constitutional monarchy took place in 1909 A.D.

And the Qajar King (Mohammad Ali Shah) was ousted and his young son, Ahmad Mirza was installed King by the revolutionaries. The Zoroastrians were active in this revolution and one of them, Fereidoun Fereidounian was martyred. The new constitution officially recognized the Zoroastrians as a minority entitle to one Parliamentary deputy. The first elected deputy was Jamshidian, who after one term, voluntarily withdrew and the next deputy, a young energetic politician named Keikhosrow Shahrokh was elected who was trusted and respected by the Moslems as well as Zoroastrians. Shahrokh many times reminded the people “Although I have been elected by the Zoroastrians, but in the Parliament I am a representative of the whole nation.” Once a deputy name Modarres, who was a powerful clergy said, “ If I can name one true Moslem, that will be Arbab Keikhosrow,” Because of his honesty, during the famine he was appointed as the director of the central silo. In this capacity he encouraged all the landowners to sell their crops at a reasonable price to the silo. When Ahmad shah asked for an unreasonably high price, Shahrokh reminded the king: “His majesty, do you recall what you said when you took the oath of office at the inauguration of Parliament? That you always think and act for the welfare and prosperity of the nation?”

Pahlavi Era

Shahrokh was an active member of the Majlis during the events that led to the accession of Reza Shah to the Persian throne. Reza Shah a true nationalist picked up “Pahlavi” as the dynasty’s surname and emphasized the Persian nationalism. The pre-Islamic history, Keyanian, Pishdadian, Achaemenian, Parthian, and Sassanian were taught in the schools and Iranians were given a new sense of identity and a fresh direction. The Persian vocabulary was refined from many Arabic words and replaced by pure Persian vocables. Schools, roads, national railroad, factories and universities were built. The first chair of the Avestan studies was established in the University of Tehran, school of literature, under the directorship of the late Professor Pour Davoud who reintroduced the Avesta to the Iranians and after him one of his students the late Dr. Bahram Fravashi chaired the section. When Professor Pour Davoud passed away, a Tehran newspaper wrote: “the service of the professor to the nation is not less than that of Yaghoub Leisse who defeated and forced the Arabs out of Iran.”

Shahrokh remained a trusted confidant of Reza Shah. When the building of Iranian Parliament was consumed by fire, Reza Shah looking for an honest and trusted man to carry out the enormous project of reconstruction, appointed Shahrokh for this task. On the inauguration of the new building, Reza Shah was so much impressed that he told, “Arab Keikhosrow” although Arbab is redundant (He did not like titles), but Keikhosrow let me tell you, that destruction was well worth this construction.” After Shahrokh, Mr. Rustam Guiv was elected to the parliament and later to the Iranian Senate, whose generosity has enlightened many Zoroastrian communities around the world. Next deputy was Dr. Esfandiyar Yeganegi an economician and founder of an irrigation company who was respected by the whole nation for his generosity and charitable works.

In 1932 a Parsi delegation met with Reza Shah and expressed their appreciation for all the achievements, he replied “all that you have said is correct, whatever I have done is for my country, but you tell me what can you do for your original homeland.” The Shah invited Parsis to come and settle in the country of your ancestors. We will welcome you with open arms. Parsis at this time founded two high schools (Anoushiravan Dadgar for girls and Firooz-Bahram for boys.) These schools have graduated many Iranian scholars, professionals, leaders and statesmen who always have cherished their memories of studying there. Parsis also contributed to founding schools in the Zoroastrian Villages of Yazd. They also established clinics and dispatched Parsi physicians. The reason was not only to treat the patients who suffered from endemic diseases and malnutrition, but because the Zoroastrian patients even in medical fields were regarded as impure and untouchable and were mistreated by the crew. Actually some medical facilities did not accept Zoroastrian patients, consequently in their own homeland they were alien and ailing, and died young because of bigotry. The Parsi-founded clinics, however, delivered service equally to all patients at need regardless of religion. They remained in operation until Goodarz Hospital was founded by the Goodarz (Jahanian-Varza) brothers in Yazd and employed European and Iranian physicians. Later Laal Maternity Hospital and a nursing school were annexed to it. During the Iran-Iraq war, Goodarz Hospital delivered a great service by treating the wounded Iranian soldiers. Once the hospital became operational, the Parsi clinics were transferred to the Red Lion and Sun organization. The late Peshotan Marker is to be mentioned who founded Marker (known as Markar) Foundation that includes boarding schools. These schools were managed and directed by the late Soroush Lohrasp who recently passed away. The number of other students in the Zoroastrian schools surpass far beyond the Zoroastrians. Meanwhile, the community under the unequal opportunities resorted to education so much that the illiteracy rate among the Zoroastrians is almost zero while the national illiteracy rate approaches forty percent. The proportion of Zoroastrians with a university degree is the highest among the nation. They have founded schools, hospitals, industries, business centers and charitable organizations. Zoroastrians founded the first modern city in Iran at the Tehran Suburb. The community has produced physicians, engineers, professors, teachers, professionals, industrialists, and army generals. They have held important governmental positions up to the acting finance minister and deputy prime minister. Two Mobeds educated from Cama Athornan Madressa, exercised an effective role in the religious leadership and education of the community.

The Zoroastrians are well recognized as the genuine Iranians and respected for the reputation of scrupulous honesty. In 1972 I met an Iranian who complained of governmental corruption in Iran. But he admitted that when Dr. Farhang Mehr was the acting finance minister, no one talked about bribe. In response to my inquiry he added, “When people at the top are honest, the subordinates will watch.” These words were particularly rewarding because by his own admission he was at odds with Dr. Mehr. In 1971 a young Parsi in Iran told me that he had applied for several jobs. The Presidents of the companies had informed him that they had other applicants but because he was a Zoroastrian, they were giving him priority. In 1953 Tehran was under curfew. Dr. Sarfeh in an editorial wrote: on his way to visiting a patient, he was stopped by a soldier and as he did not carry his I.D. card, was taken to a military station. The officer in charge asked his name and then allowed him to go free and be escorted. When Dr.Sarfeh asked, don’t you want me bring my I.D? He responded it is not necessary, because your name indicates that you are a Zoroastrian and we trust and respect you. In 1963, Iran was facing a meat shortage. The Iranian government looking for a trusted and honest man to handle the crisis, appointed general doctor (Mobed) Jahanguir Oshidari as the director of “The National Meat Company.” In a matter of two months the crisis was over. Later General Oshidari “currently the president of council of Mobeds in Tehran” confided to his friends “people were offering me personal favors, but I rejected with anger. That is why the crisis was over soon.

At the turn of the recent revolution many scholars of the Zoroastrian studies suffered physical, psychological and financial punishments. Some were arrested, jailed and beaten. Others lost their jobs and even suffered the loss of a dear one, yet they pursued. These men have long foregone material interests and for the love of Zarathushtra put their families in distress. Their service to Zoroastrianism is beyond description.

Dr. Ali Jafarey, Dr. Bahram Fravashi, Dr. Hussein Vahidi, Hashim Razi and Dr. Ahmad Tafazzoli are to be named as examples. We must dedicate our love and heartfelt thanks and gratitude to these men whose devotion has brought us closer to the message of Zarathushtra than ever before. Today many Iranians in search of their national identity and original roots are looking into Zoroastrianism. Although currently in Iran many discriminatory laws are practiced and Zoroastrians as other minorities are not employed by the government, nevertheless they enjoy the public trust and respect as the people regard them as genuine Iranians who morally and historically represent their ancestors. The Zoroastrians in spite of all the hardships and indignities suffered by their ancestors will always remain patriotic to Iran. It is interesting that the Parsis of India even after a thousand years living in India look toward Iran as their true homeland. Iran is the birthplace and homeland of Zarathushtra, our beloved prophet and we are connected to our motherland by profound religious, cultural and historical roots.

By reviewing the history of Zoroastrians after the Arab invasion, one may conclude that it was a miracle that Zoroastrianism survived the harsh treatment of history. As once Dastoor Bode said, “ so many religions and nations have become part of ancient history. There must be a reason why Zoroastrianism survived.”[25]


NOTES:

[1] Gergie Zeidan, History of Islamic Civilization, 3rd volume p 42-47; Persian translation of Kashf el Zonoun- Eben-e Khaldoun, by Haj Khalifeh, preface.
[2] Abu Rayhan Birouni, Athar el Baghieh
[3] Ebn-e Esfandiar, Tārikh-e Tabarestān, 1320 Sh. (1941) p 120.
[4] Abdollah Mehdi el Khatib, Dolat-e Bani Omayeh dar Khorrāsān (The Umayyad Government in Khorassan), p40.
[5] Ebn-e Balkhi, Forsnāmeh 1313 SH. (1934), p116-135.
[6] Abu Hanifeh Dinouri, Akhbār el Tavāl, 1960 (Cairo) p141.
[7] Shojaeddin Shaffa, Tavalodī Dīgar, p443, third edition.
[8] Mohammad ibn-e Jarrir Tabari, History of the nations and the kings, p171, 1831, quoting Soleiman ibn-e Abdolmaleck
[9] Agha Khan-e Kermani, Nāmehā.
[10] Mohammad ibn-e Jarrir Tabari, History of prophets and the kings, 1358 AH, (Cairo) p414, (8,9,10) Quoted from Jenāyat va Mohāfat by: Shojaeddin Shaffa
[11] Abdul Hussein Zarrinkoub, Do Qarn Sokūt, p85, third edition.
[12] Translation by Seyyed Hussein Nasr
[13] Inauguration of the Zoroastrian congress in Bombay, 1963
[14] Estimated by Zabih Behrooz- Jean Chardin, a French tourist who visited Iran writes: %40 of the Iranians (or estimated four million) remains Zoroastrian.
[15] Rashid Shahmardan, Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, p176-177, quoting Jean Chardin
[16] His letter dated: December 8, 1617
[17] Bahram Fravashi, The marvelous letters (Persian translation from French) p108-109
[18] -- Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, P 177
[19] Jonas Hunway, Journal of the travels of revolution of Persia, Volume 11, p 153, 195, 208
[20] -- Tārikh-e Zartoshtoān, p125
[21] Ibid. p126
[22] Ibid
[23] Dr. Adharbad Irani, in his informal visit with the Iranian delegation to the second Zoroastrian congress, Bombay 1963
[24] Khosrow Bastanifar, At last I return to Yazd, in Persian
[25] Framroze Ardeshir Bode, Informal conversation in Tehran, Iran 1963

@Shapur Zol Aktaf @aryobarzan @Bahram Esfandiari @Dariush the Great @Cliftonite @Xerxes22 @Cthulhu @925boy @Baibars_1260 @SalarHaqq @Sam. @Chhatrapati @-=virus=-

@Bahram Esfandiari this is especially for you.

Cheers, Doc

@padamchen I thank you for posing this history brief which I will read in full tonite..I lived for few years in Iranian city of Kerman when I was at high school ..Kerman had/has a good size "Zartosht" population and it is a desert city close to Yazd where the last "atash" is..The "Zartoshti" community was very well respected by others and I recall my mother always reminded us of how clean and tidy the front doors of Zartoshtis were and she would tell us about the reason of being pure elements of the nature sacred to the faite "fire, Water, Earth and Air " (some thing for today's environmentalists to think of!!) There was also an ancient "tower of silence" ruins that I would bicycle to from time to time. I did not know what it was until years later when I read about it.