>>78039 >The Zoroastrian afterlife is determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts of the whole life. For those whose good deeds outweight the bad, heaven awaits. Those who did more evil than good go to hell (which has several levels corresponding to degrees of wickedness). There is an intermediate stage for those whose deeds weight out equally. What's so bad about that?
Zoroastrianism's afterlife had nothing to do with it.
Converting to Islam gave you a shit-ton more legal rights and you didn't have to pay nearly as much money in taxes. A lot of professions, especially artisans who worked with fire, were also considered 'unclean' so they really didn't have any incentive to stick with it once the Mussulmen rolled in.
Even then, Zoroastrianism survived for centuries after the Muslim conquest, and even those who 'converted' often just directly translated their Zoroastrian beliefs over into Islam (see: Qarmatians and Khurramites).
Zoroastrianism really began to decline at the mid-to late Mughal Empire. It was replaced to easily with Islam because the first Muslim converts were warrior bedouins with the mentality of "covert or die," much like today
>>78265 >determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts >determined by the balance of good and evil thoughts >determined by good and evil thoughts >determined by evil thoughts FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
>>77864 Islam was Persianized, and by a class of converts that were free of the old social divisions of Zoroastrian society. The Arab nobility also Persianized, while the old Persian aristocracy converted and promoted Islam themselves.
That basically ended urban Zoroastrianism. The countryside was probably very Zoroastrian for a long time until the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks.
>>82446 That's questionable. The group that has the big deal about not converting anyone are the Parsis in India, and the mythical "reason" for that is a promise they made with the ruler to not proselytize in exchange for safe haven.
>>77864 Zoroastrianism did not have the support of aristocracy outside of Persia. When Persia was invaded by the Muslims, the aristocracy either converted to Islam or rebelled and were executed or driven into the desert.
A similar but better question is why did Manichaeanism decline. This was a religion that was spread from France all the way to China, and who had patronage of Persian, Uyghur and Roman(?) kings. Now there's barely a trace.
>>77864 >Why did Zoroastrianism decline Because it wasnt an organized religion. Every settlement had its own flavor, and nobody was enforcing it. >and why was it replaced so easily with Islam? Islam is much more complex, and thus seems like a more plausible explanation of how and why things work. You have to remember, religion was the science of the day, and Islam was a flashier, more advanced science. You didnt understand either completely, but you could tell Islam has more depth, being much more official and organized. So people just upgraded to what seemed the more advanced view of how the world works, and since it was more useful to the new government, it was enforced as well.
Zoroastrianism is an innately elitist religion of the upper class. It never endeared itself to the masses. Islam was more populist and had broader universal appeal. Same reason Christianity trumped the majority of Pagan religions.
Everyone is equal in Islam and Christianity, or at least that was the ideal.
>>81749 Manicheanism has already influenced Christianity loads, with the disgust towards the flesh, abstinence, a guilt of being alive, etc. If you want to read a vituperation on this, see M. Axworthy's chapter on it in ''Iran: Empire of the Mind''.
>>82047 The "good" parts include active fighting against evil. Zoroastrian priests were commanded to actively kill animals that were considered evil, and killing the ones who were good for no reason was diesngouraged or even punished.
You were good because being good was the way to defeat Ahreman, and you wanted to go to heaven because that puts you on the good side in the final battle. Zoroastrianism is the more "us vs them thing" to ever exist.
>>82446 That's false, only indian parsis follow that rule. It's directly linked with the fact that they're hosts on a foreign land. Iranian zoroastrians can convert people, they're just not allowed by muslims in the middle east.
That said, when correcting this, people on this board often forgets to mention on this board that Parsis are the majority of zoroastrians in the world in 2015.
>>87083 This man is the right. Sassanid zoroastrianism had a lot of complex and pretty stupid rules and the zoroastrian priestly hierarchy was the best supporter of a very stratified and unfair system, close to the castes of India. Islam on the other hand preaches a message of equality inside the umma (it wasn't that good on reality, but that's another issue).
Zoroastrianism was, by no means, simple. But the lower classes were not supposed to understand it, their believes were closer to iranian paganism without most elements of zoroastrian complexity.
Anyways, centuries of islamic rule were needed to make Iran a muslim nation. And they still have a lot of zoroastrian festivities, disguised as national ones.
Thread replies: 49 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 69576
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.