51 Comments

1. 

   rustom jamasji on February 11, 2007 at 3:49 PM

   During bombay riots Agaiaries were the only safe place of worship due to our non interfering nature and the fact that rioting/other communty members not being present in the premises of the agiary.

   A state in India has passed a bill yesterday to employ Shariat law since the majority there wants it. This will certainly anger the saffron brigade as they will ask others to follow the saffron hindutva dictate in other states as they are in majority elsewhere.
   Riots such as the one in Gujarat and it having atleast some lay man support show that the mood within the majority community is rather that of insecurity due to convertions and changing the culture of the land by other religious comunities and so such hatred. While the mood and religious sentiments of common people swing like a pendulam, it is small communities like ours that will be ignored by the majority in their delima to save themselves and we will be wiped out in a single large scale riot.
   We also do not have a strong world body like the Vatican that flexis its muscles when Christianity is in danger.

   Residential societies in Mumbai deny membership to other communities and some communties arn’t allowed to purchase flats depending on its food habbits. A locality in south Bombay had to close down all non veg hotels since the majority there seemed it not fit. In most religious based colonies , one cannot purchase a flat if he does not belong to that community.If you are a spouce then you must convert to the religion of the resident colony.ie your partners religion. No I am not speaking of the ‘Parsi’ colonies but of some Islamic and Catholic colonies and Jain ones do not allow non veg residents. All this is done so that in case of riots, the society will not be caught
   in cross fire due problems between other communities.Isnt this a show of different communties protecting their identity

   During Mumbai riots , we Parsi’s still felt safe as we are known as a peacefull NON CONVERTING comunity. Parsi’s marked their shops as Parsi business.

   But now we have the ‘do gooders’ who apart from closing the dongerwaadi want to open up the agiary. How come the hollier than thou Parsis turn blind to the communalism around them yet call the Orthodox Parsi a taliban. Their common sense doesnt prevail and they seem to fuse the taliban and a orthodox parsi though the taliban/rioteers destroys other religion’s beliefs while a Orthodox Parsi tries to save his culture from dissapearing from the hands of ‘Close the doongerwaadi,- open up the agiaries and colonies’–do gooders’

   About the doongerwaadi, Aviary projects which are taking sucessfull shapes around India and world were and are mocked by men who want to open up our agiaries and colonies.
   The saying that it is better to have a wise enemy than foolish friends seems apt for those who want to ruderlessly change Zoroastrianism for the sake of change.

2. 

   omid Azardoost on February 12, 2007 at 9:39 PM

   well, keep your beliefs for yourself, and let me tell you that, unlike what you might be thinking, there is no religion whatsoever as Parsiism, it’s called Zoroastrianism mate. Parsi is a race whereas zoroastrianism is a religion. I myself am a convert and proud of being so, no one can stop me from what I believe in. and no one can force me out of this beautifl religion of my forefathers. leave it or love it. totally up to you. the fact that zoroastrianism is a universal religion is inevitable and you can’t make it otherwise.

   Ushta,

   Omid Azardoost

3. 

   rustom jamasji on February 13, 2007 at 9:33 AM

   Dear Omid.
   Yoe say you are a convert yet you say that Zoroastrianism is a religion of your forfathers.Isnt that contradictory.

   Secondly your dillussion to differentiate between Zoroastrianism and Parsism arrises either from wrong Propoganda or your ignorance of history or both.Parsism has neither to do with race as it has nothing conceptually nothing to do with differentiality of religion.

   The word Parsi is derived and got from the term Farsi. We are callled Parsi’s in India since the The Gujarat King knew of Iran , Fars and its people since Persian Zoroastrians had trade relations with Gujarat, Punjab etc, especialy during the Sassanian Dynasty. In fact Indian Coinage started with silver got from the sassanians and the stamp were those of Sassanian dynasty with fire alter that eventualy gave shape to Indian motifs.

   When the Zoroastrians came from Iran to take refugee in Gujarat there was no Parsi religion nor is there now as you rightly say and nor was there a Parsi race as you try and wrongly potray. It was the Zoroastrians that came and as the language was known to the people of the new land as Farsi our religion was fused with the term.
   If you go to Egypt as an Indian today , you will be termed ‘Hindi’though Hindi is and necer was a religion.But the language identifies you.

   It is like calling someone from Utar Pardesh a ‘Bhaiya’ which has nothing do with Hindu religion.Or if I speak Tamil nor do i become a TAMILIAN nor not a Zoroastrian.
   When The term Parsi is mentioned, it is basically referred to the language and since Zoroastrians spoke that, we were identified by it.Its like the term you use’ mate’ being widely used by australians and Brits navy personell , yet if one uses it profusedly , he might be thought to be a one but could not be one.
   So you can try and justify your means by excuses and rake this ill concieved half truth segmentations of Parsism and Zoroastrianism.
   In fact if you were a zoroastrian by your forfathers claiming to be one at a time , then why did they change their religion. And would you give credit to the fact that the so called Parsi race have maintained Zoroastrianism thru time and torture, seeking new lands and re-establishing ourselfs and Zoroastrianism so that it can continue.
   The new cult then has an odacity to change Zoroastrianism AND TELL THE ONES THAT SAVED zOROASTRIANISM FROM DISSAPEARING WHAT zOPROASTRIANISM IS ALL ABOUT.

   But you can have your beliefs and convert others without insight nor forsight of the change nor political situations in India or abroad . After all we have the ‘Gatha alone’ cult which mocks the Khordeh Avesta ,and fals ratu’s that preach a mutilated version of Zoroastrianism. and till recently its leader was potrayed as an intelligent man, till the Zoroastrians of America were fused with drug addicts of probaly mexico.Ignorance is trully not Bliss!!!!

   As far the term mate.

4. 

   Zand on March 14, 2007 at 5:29 PM

   Dear Rustom Jamasji
   “Farsi” is Arabic conversion of word “Parsi”.
   I have a question, if no one can convert to Zoroastrian would you please tell how the hell you(or your fathers) became Zoroastrian. I have read your opinions in a petition about 300 movie, insulting Iranian people. If your (and our) fathers were such faithful people how the hell you got to India. Your fathers should had stood and fought. I am sorry for what had heppened in history to Zoroastrians, but it is not right to be a racist. Be rational or become extinct. I liked Zoroastrians so much but your oponions are disgusting.

5. 

   rustom jamasji on March 16, 2007 at 8:39 AM

   Dear Zand

   1) I will tell you how we are Zoroastrians. By birth.One should know certain facts before picking up an argument.Zarathushtra revived the Mazdayasni religion ,since the Mazdayasni’s were being impressed by basically devyasni.The sudreh and kusti were not his invention but were present from the time of Jamshed Padshah. So me nor my fathers ever converted to Zoroastrianism, we were and are mazdayasni Zoroastrians.

   My petition never insulted anyone least the Iranian people. What hurt you was the basic truth of what the forfather of present Muslim Iranians did to the first monothetist religion of the world. The Muslims Iranians that claim to be Persians did infact burn down Agiaries , lay down special taxes on Zoroastrians and the tax coincided with Zoroastrian (not islamic) festival of Navrooz.

   2) You ask why we did not fight on.Well that is irrelevant here but i shall explain . We are in India since the ones who defeated us where not as magnanimous as the Zoroastrians when they defeated others. We were forced into convertions , our ladies children were killed and whoever escaped the persecution , their lives were made miserable!

   The Zoroastrian Persian empire weakened during the Parthian dynasty when the Parthians allowed( like all Zoroastrian or real Persian rulers) religious freedom to others too. This was the time when Christianity wasnt welcome in Rome and the Christians were persecuted there.The Christians after seeking refugee in Parthian Persia, started their tactics of convertions in Persia which led to infighting. The Sassanians(Zoroastrians again – dont fuse them with Islamic culture too) overthrew the Parthians and for the first time in Zoroastrian history was the law interweaned with Zoroastrian principles. The sasanians especially Ardeshir and Bahman fought and defeated Many Romans and greeks including King Valerian. During this time Rome was almost Christianised by the ChrisTian missoneries.

   The battles against Zoroastrianism and thus Persia took a religious turn. Before this, battles were fought not to conquer religions but land.The arabs that were mainly situated in the desert also took advantage of the battle of religions and let Persia and Zoroastrianism weaken. When Zoroastrian lands started falling to Christian forces anD when Zoroastrian were at their last straws, the arabs hit the iron on the head at the right moment. You can safetly say that the Zoroastrians are in India due to betrayal from those who sought refugee in Zoroastrian land and then by the Arabs.

   Zand you will not like what I have said, you might not even acknowledge it , but one has to realise history , so as not to repeat it. Otherwise there will be no difference between the arrogant west and you. The talliban banned navrooz since it is actually a Zoroastrian festival. Most of you you guys have Zoroastrian names , Zand is one,you are proud of Shahnemah , the Zoroastrian epic, but then why was Zoroastrian historty, culture and mythology allowed to be wiped oout!. Even in the last century ,the Zoroastrians paid a special tax in the land of their forfathers. I acknowledge that the Zoroastrians lost and hence we escaped to India , but will you acknowledge that what you seem to be proud of was destroyed, mutilated by you guys! About being ratinal or extinct, i wonder if that is a veiled threat from you?

   Bush doesnt know Zoroastrianism, nor can hollywood be expect to know about it, so it is easilly misinterpreted by them as Islamic culture, but why are you guys claiming Zoroastrian heritage, Sasanian architectural beauty , the deeds of Darayus and Cyrus as a part of a culture that actualy destroyed it.Its like saying Alexander was a Zoroastrian.

   Zand I also do not have any ill feeling for a person due to his opinion nor his religion and I have no ill feeling for you,I only wish as your friend that history however bitter should not be treated as disgusting.

   Rustom

6. 

   zand on March 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM

   Dear Rustom
   Thanks for your extensive reply, thanks a lot, but what you have said in the last argument was not history.
   1. I want you to know that I am angry about your way of addressing us as one nation and yourself as another one. It is true that I am not a zoroastrian but I am not a muslim too. I know all the bad deeds done to Zoroastrians. I saw myself on your side, but your racist opinions is turning me back.
   2. “Be rational or become extinct” is not a threat from me, it is a threat from nature and natural selection law. You know that zoroastrian people are less that 200000 in all the world and their number is decreasing. I dont want to see this beautiful, orthogonal, logical, divine laws to die with you guys(you arrogants who do not let others to join)
   It is not rational to bind a person’s race to his religion. Zoroasthra never banned other people from joining his religion and zoroastrian religion was extending toward west in Acamenid Persian Empire.
   3. Racist opinions are disgusting from anyone.

7. 

   Fariborz on April 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM

   I write this article in a very simple and plain english which even a kid could understand.

   This is in reply to all who thinks zoroastrian religion belongs to a specific race and they got it from the prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) in ancient Iran approximately 3500 years ago.

   Quiet a thought, huh?!!

   Let’s take a look at the history and then we’ll pick up the facts, what do you say?

   “Zoroaster was born in Northeast Iran or Southwest Afghanistan. He was born into a Bronze Age culture with a polytheistic religion (the worship of many gods), which included animal sacrifice and the ritual use of intoxicants. This religion was quite similar to the early forms of Hinduism of the Indus Valley.”

   So at that time people had other religions. Fact 1: Zoroastrian isn’t the first religion in the world.

   “When Zoroaster was thirty years old he had a divine vision of God and his Amesha Spentas during a ritual purification rite. This vision radically transformed his view of the world, and he tried to teach this view to others.”

   Fact 2: So when he tried to teach his view to others, it means people tried to listen to new religion at that time.

   “Zoroaster believed in one creator God, teaching that only one God was worthy of worship. Furthermore, some of the deities of the old religion, the Daevas (Devas in Sanskrit), appeared to delight in war and strife. Zoroaster said that these were evil spirits and were workers ofAngra Mainyu, God’s adversary.”

   Again, we can see people had other religions before.

   “Cyrus the Great was relatively liberal. While he himself ruled according to Zoroastrian beliefs, he made no attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people of his subject territories”

   Assumption 1: it might be some zoroastrians made attempt to impose Zoroastrianism on the people which we will find out.

   “Zoroaster’s ideas did not take off quickly and at first he only had one convert: his cousin Maidhyoimanha.”

   Fact 3: so there were no such genetic religion :) somebody started to convert :))

   “The local religious authorities opposed his ideas. They felt their own faiths, power, and particularly their rituals, threatened, because Zoroaster taught against over-ritualising religious ceremonies. Many ordinary people did not like Zoroaster’s downgrading of the Daevas to evil spirits.

   After twelve years, Zoroaster left his home to find somewhere more open to new ideas. He found such a place in the country of King Vishtaspa (in Bactria).

   The King and his queen, Hutosa, heard Zoroaster debating with the religious leaders of his land, and decided to accept Zoroaster’s ideas and made them the official religion of their kingdom.”

   Fact 4: So Zoroaster same as all prophets were looking for people who listen to his ideas.

   “The unrecorded centuries
   Very little is known of the time between Zoroaster and the Archaemenian period except that during this period Zoroastrianism spread to Western Iran. By the time of the founding of the Archaemenian Empire, Zoroastrianism was already a well-established religion.”

   Fact 5: Zoroastrianism was spread like other religions, after the prophet died. so actually who they converted to zoroastrian they spread this religion.

   “Alexander of Macedonia defeated Darius III in battle in 331BCE. Within five years he had conquered most of the Persian territories.

   Zoroastrianism received a savage blow. Many priests were killed and texts destroyed. Much was lost forever, but the core of the religion – recorded in the Gathas – survived.”

   Fact 6: They had priests to what?! To teach Zoroastrian religion to people and praying and so on.

   “The Seleucids (311 BCE – 141 BCE) and Arcasids (141 BCE – 224 ACE)
   The Seleucids were Greeks and took power after the death of Alexander. Zoroastrianism became regionally autonomous under the Seleucids. The Parthian Arcasids overthrew the Seleucids and ruled for a much longer period than the Archaemenian, but their rule was less centralised.

   The gathering of Zoroastrian texts from the provinces started under the Arcasids
   The Vendidad, or ‘Law against Demons’ (a text concerned with purity rites) is considered to have been compiled at this time
   The Arcasids generally kept to the tradition of tolerance towards other faiths and were known to govern within the Zoroastrian law of asha (truth and righteousness), like the Archaemenians”

   Assumption 2: Even it’s considered The Vendidad, or ‘Law against Demons’ (a text concerned with purity rites) is compiled much much longer than by prophet himself. Actually his believers compiled it centuries later.

   “The Sasanians (224 CE – 7th Century)
   The Sasanian, Ardashir, was an unknown who had succeeded to the usurped throne of a Persian vassal king. He rebelled and overthrew the Arcasids. This caused shock and resentment throughout Iran. However, Ardashir was a great politician and used religious propaganda to assert his authority. He cleverly based one of his claims to the throne on Zoroastrian orthodoxy, stating that the Arcasids were not orthodox Zoroastrians.”

   Fact 7: Welcome to politics. so Ardashir used orthodox Zoroastrian to assert is authority.

   “Important developments during the early Sasanian period were:

   A single Zoroastrian church was created under the control of Persia
   A single canon of Avestan texts was compiled by Ardashir’s chief priest and religious propagandist, Tansar
   The Gathas was still central to these texts and remained unchanged
   The reformation of the Zoroastrian calendar
   The old calendar had 360 days split into 12 months of 30 days. A thirteenth month was added every six years to keep the dates in line with the seasons.
   The new calendar was a 365-day calendar. It kept to the same pattern as the old calendar with the exception of five days added at the end of the year.
   This caused many problems that still, to this day, have not been fully resolved. The Zoroastrian festivals are celebrated twice or linked together by six days so they can be celebrated on the traditional day as well as the implemented one.
   The use of images in worship was banned
   Fire Temples were promoted
   The traditional tolerance towards other religions was abandoned”

   Fact 8: Zoroastrian Church under control of Persia! you know what happens if religions rule by government, right? if you don’t know, I could give you contemporary example.

   Fact 9: Even another book developed at this time, after centuries.

   Fact 10: “The traditional tolerance towards other religions was abandoned”!!! what?! it simply means zoroastrians wanted other religions to convert to Zoroastrian without tolerance.
   (reason: Fact 8 and proving Assumption 1)

   “Important developments in the later Sasanian period were:

   The development of the Avestan alphabet
   The core of the Avesta could now be written down
   An extension of liturgies
   Further texts, such as the Bundahishn and the Denkard (concerned with history, myth and laws of the land) were written.

   The periodic persecution of Christians and Jews”

   Fact 11: Even Avestan alphabet, developed centuries later after Zoroaster.

   Fact 12: “The periodic persecution of Christians and Jews” so at that time, zoroastrians ruled by government started persecution of other religions.

   “By the end of the Sasanian period the authoritarian Zoroastrian church-state was immensely wealthy. This had positive and negative effects on the religion.”

   Fact 13: so zoroastrian church and priests got the money.

   “The umbrella of the Persian church kept Zoroastrianism dominant in Persia. This meant Zoroastrianism stayed free from the influence of other religions becoming popular at the time (Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism etc). However, Zoroastrianism became more ritualised and oppressive under this church, demanding a large amount of time and money from ordinary Persians.”

   Fact 14: so Zoroastrianism is started to bully who their didn’t choose zoroastrian as their religion.

   “Zoroastrianism in Persia at the end of the Sasanian period is considered to have been as ripe for reform as Christianity was in Europe during the Middle Ages.”

   Fact 15: They are mature now. kinda

   “The Arab Conquest – The Caliphs
   In the 7th century the Islamic Arabs invaded and conquered Persia. The disastrous effect this had on Zoroastrianism surpassed that of Alexander. Many libraries were burned and much cultural heritage was lost.

   The Islamic invaders treated the Zoroastrians as dhimmis (People of the Book). This meant that like Jews and Christians, they could retain their religious practices, but must pay extra taxes. There were also many other laws and social humiliations implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam. Over time many Iranians did convert and Zoroastrianism became a minority religion in Iran.

   Some important developments under the Caliphs
   The first Islamic dynasty was the Caliphs. They were Shia Muslims.

   The Arabic language and script was imposed on the Persians
   The Zurvanite heresy appears to have died out by this period
   Invasions of the Turks and Mongols
   Zoroastrianism suffered again at the hands of the invading Turks. Even more damaging were the Mongol invasions which destroyed more religious texts. This time Islamic texts also suffered irreparable loss.

   Within half a century of the conquest, Gazan Khan converted to Islam and Zoroastrianism dwindled even further through renewed persecution.”

   Fact 16: So Zoroastrianism were started to shrink. and even many Iranians did convert to Islam from zoroastrian.

   Fact 17: If they had power so far, all of us (from Iran) were Zoroastrian believer!

   At the end, please just put Facts together and look what you see.
   This is a simple fact that every religion has a start and an end. Religion begins with new ideas and dies with prejudice, ignorance, foolishness, unfairness, (leadership) corruption and so on. which it happend to Zoroastrianism.

   So now that minority Zoroastrian believer are living with the last inheritance of corrupted Zoroastrianism. If these left over Zoroastrian believer had wisdom and they truly believed in Zoroaster, they couldn’t act like what they are acting in the mean time. You can’t blame somebody without wisdome, can you?

8. 

   rustom jamasji on April 6, 2007 at 4:22 PM

   Fariboz . lets take ure point number wise
   1)U say.”Fact 1: Zoroastrian isn’t the first religion in the world.
   Nobody denies that , infact those who continously defend convertions and neo zoroastrian practise use this as if its something astonishing and others are oblivious. However your point of Zoroastra converting his cousin and others or saying the sassanians took the liberty of restricting religous freedom to convert others to zoroastrians is divorced from reality and history.It is basically warped!

   Zarathustra never invented the sudre and kusti , he never invented the mazdayasni laws, navrooz celebrations and Mzadayasni celebrations predated zoroaster.So what did zoroaster do and why. As u rightly say that there were many gods and daevas worshipped during those times . Infact the fight of mazdayasnism and devyasnism also predated zoroaster , if u study King Jamsheeds rule.
   All Zoroaster did was to try and repreach mazdayasnism to Mazda worshippers and ask them not to get swayed by powers potrayed by deavs.
   In the Jasemeavenghe prayer , we say ‘mazdayasno ahmi , mazdayasno zarathushtris.
   Your ‘fact no 2’ again has misinterpreted truth. Zoroastrian religion is the same as mazdayasni religion and all he did was repreach it . So the idea of a ‘new religion’ is quite misplaced.

   Now how many times has this been told and retold to all those who try and manouvere all sorts of excuses so that they can bend zoroastrians principles.
   In fact King Vishtaspa whom all the neo zoroastrian philosophers give example of, already was a mazdayasni , belonging to the Kayanian dynasty , whose forbearer was Shah Lohrasp. Now all you guys claim to talk about facts , but convieniently leave this one out whilst talking of vistaspa embracing zoroaster. The fact is ,there were mazdayasni’s who where impressed by devyesni and so zoroaster re chanellised the faith. Again Because of chaos during Vistaspa rule in respect to spiritualism , Vistasap thougth and put zoroaster behind bars as he believed at first that zoroaster was preaching devyasni . Only when zoroaster expalined his preaching as those of Mazdayasni was he released.
   2)During Sassanian times when the religious freedom was restricted ,it was not due to Ardeshir wanting to convert others. You would have known why this was done if you go back a dynasty before the sassanian and look at the times of the Parthian dynasty and ofcourse study those times.
   Christians took refugee in Parthian Zoroastrian Persia.During that time buddhism was also spreading its wings. Once the christian missoneris had a foothold in Persia they started converting the local population. This once again gave way to Zoroastrianism which was allien to convertion falling into chaos.Though the Jews never accepted Christ as a saviour , the missoneries started propogating his teachings. Pontious Pilot asked the locals in Rome if Christ was to be set free or someone else. The Jews asked for someone else and christ was given the Punishment given to anyone who had an armed struggle against rome and that was crucification.
   But slowly Rome was Christianis , Constatine converted to 5 religions not knowing where he would stand to gain and loose. Once Rome was Christianised , Battles against Persia and Zoroastrianism took a religious turn for the first time. The Zoroastrian empire weakened by convertions by missoneries internaly and externally by aggression from Greece and Rome which attained more fervour due to religious agenda atached to it.
   Ardeshir Papakan rose and he overthrew the Parthians as he thought , they( The parthians) had acted and were acting ‘ hollier than thou’ and therefore the Persian empire had stronger Buddhism and Christian Missoneries than Zorastrian principles.After owerthrowing the Parthians and sitting at the helm of Zoroastrian Empire, he took his battles against Valerian , Morris and other Greek and Romans emperors.He once again wanted to reestablish Persian Zoroastrian dignity and foundations which had weakened due to convertions by outsiders!

   3)AS OF WRITING BEING COMPILED DURING SASSANIAN TIMES , IT IS PARTLY TRUE.
   Our prayers or scriptures are rythemic and poetic form. This is because they were established much before the art of writing. SO to make it easier for it to be passed on from one gen to next everything was poetic and thus orally transmitted.When the art of writing was estalished , tings were compiled .Infact Cyrus’s manifest was also compiled.But the Great Alexander burnt down what he could match in building. It is a fact that Fires were restarted more than once to burn down persepollis.Things were lost.
   With the advent of Christian missoneries and their thirst to convert , they came prepared and started handing out books and propogated miracles thru christianity to impress the locals. Marespand Aderbad a priest, then is supposed to have poured moulten iron on his chest with the yath ahy prayer to prove the prayers of mazdayasni prayers.Tansir or Kartic were instrumental in fusing the laws of the land with zoroastrian laws because it was being adapted every where else. In Rome and europe, christian laws prevailed , in the lands of Hindu (no india at that time), hindu laws applied and so it was sought after looking at history and the particular current period, it was imperative that Zoroastrian lands had zoroastrian laws.
   So idea that the Sasanian wanted to convert however ingenious to you is a warped one fariboz!

   Again I shall fast forward and explain why the hindu King, on zoroastrians arriving in India putconditions,
   3 main rules i.e ceremonies after sunset, adapting their language,wearing their attire. Because as Zoroastrianism , hindism is also allien to convertions.Yet with the advent of convertions of europe and middle east they were vary of the people from there. As Gujrat and hindu counties or states were at that time fighting against invading muslims who converted whatever ground they had, the hindu king was apprehensive that we were the same. Since hindu’s never converted either , they wanted us to keep our distance yet to protect the lands identity , made us adapt certain of their customs.

   As far as “that minority Zoroastrian believer are living with the last inheritance of corrupted Zoroastrianism” you act like the Judge, Jury and the Executioner by this claim.I have only one thing to say, that this forum , you, I and all other zoroastrians exist because Zoroastrianism exists.And it existes only because the Zoroastrians of India preserved what was told ,their culture , principles foundations and philosophies. It existes becaue they were not swayed by warped ideas like segmenting Mazdayasni from Zoroastrianism and Parsi’s from Zoroastrianism as the noe philosophers do. Zoroastrianis would have not existed if those you claim follow corrupted Zoroastrianism had distorted history that is divorced from reality.
   The so called hollier than thou zoroastrians that want to start converting and those from outside who want to convert to Zoroastrianism belittle those who have preserved Zoroastrianism,out of their arrogance and ignorance.

9. 

   Fariborz on April 8, 2007 at 12:54 PM

   Rustom,

   In reply to your reply, I will write down all facts once again down there then answer to your reply.

   (If you’re new here, please check my past article to study reasoning for following facts)

   Fact 1: Zoroastrian isn’t the first religion in the world.

   Fact 2: So when he tried to teach his view to others, it means people tried to listen to new religion at that time.

   Fact 3: so there were no such genetic religion :) somebody started to convert :))

   Fact 4: So Zoroaster same as all prophets were looking for people who listen to his ideas.

   Fact 5: Zoroastrianism was spread like other religions, after the prophet died. so actually who they converted to zoroastrian they spread this religion.

   Fact 6: They had priests to what?! To teach Zoroastrian religion to people and praying and so on.

   Fact 7: Welcome to politics. so Ardashir used orthodox Zoroastrian to assert is authority.

   Fact 8: Zoroastrian Church under control of Persia! you know what happens if religions rule by government, right? if you don’t know, I could give you contemporary example.

   Fact 9: Even another book developed at this time, after centuries.

   Fact 10: “The traditional tolerance towards other religions was abandoned”!!! what?! it simply means zoroastrians wanted other religions to convert to Zoroastrian without tolerance.
   (reason: Fact 8 and proving Assumption 1)

   Fact 11: Even Avestan alphabet, developed centuries later after Zoroaster.

   Fact 12: “The periodic persecution of Christians and Jews” so at that time, zoroastrians ruled by government started persecution of other religions.

   Fact 13: so zoroastrian church and priests got the money.

   Fact 14: so Zoroastrianism is started to bully who their didn’t choose zoroastrian as their religion.

   Fact 15: They are mature now. kinda

   If you accept Fact 1 which you did it, it shows Persians (and others such as other ares) before Zoroastrianism had other religions
   (or nothing) so when Zoroaster introduced zoroastrian to people they gradually started to convert from their old belief. it shows that all zoroastrians which right now they claim their first ancestors where zoroastrians is not correct, because your ancestor’s ancestors, they were paganisms and they lived and behaved like animals (because it was no such civilization and people in the world used to worship animals and things).

   So your race is like the others in the world, it’s a mixed and open religion. But after Zoroastrianism got corrupted and leaders lost their influence, the other religions which they had new ideas (which old religion couldn’t support new ideas and persuade people) and trueness than a corrupted zoroastrian, people started to convert from zoroastrian to new religions. so new zoroastrian’s leader tried to save themselves from loosing those left over fans :) so they started to rule out new rules.
   They banned any conversion from
   zoroastrian to other religions (which at the first people could join or leave because people could accept based on their freewill). it’s a final result for a corrupted religion like zoroastrian.

   My finall word with you (who stick to their foolish idea), open your mind and listen to the world. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that you convert to other religion, I am saying what religion you have, save it with open mind and stay away from superstitions.

   Let me make it crystal clear for you, I don’t want to convert to zoroastrian and I won’t be a worshiper of a religion who’s going to die because of their religious leader’s foolishness (not prophet, religious leader’s are after prophet). so what I wrote and am writing here, is just because I study religions and I see people like you, just trying to fool people without any logical reason.

10. 

    rustom jamasji on April 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM

    Fariboz you keep saying the same thing again and again . And again they are devoid of facts. As I said your ideas however indegenoius to you are at best fictional.
    Why is so difficult to understand that zoroaster repreached mazdayasnism . I even gave you a phraze from a prayer which is basicaly an oath, i’ll write it down again , jameaveghe mazdayasno ahmi , mazdayasno zarathushtris.
    Fariboz , stop listening to me , if you like , read Mary boyce, read kotwal , now they are recognised worldwide , they are affiliated with universities like cambridge , colorado and others.
    As i said king vistasap was a mazdayasni , from the kayanian dynasty , he never gave up mazdayasnism and was anti devyasnism , whats so difficult to underdtand.
    AGian you talk about sassanian dynasty wanting to convert , now just because you have thought of this , it does not become true, it is still warped and devoid of facts.
    You also have a determination og as i said being a judge , jury and executiner all in one belittling people. Let me telll you , whoever you are weather you want to coonvert or not, that small minorities are always protected due to maintainence of their identity. In the state of himachal and kashmir in India, no non himachali or kashmiri can buy property there , reason because people ubndertsand that to protect their identity , they have to preserve their culture from being owerwritten by the majority’s. Again their are tribe in the andaman that have not vansihd and are only in their 1000’ss and thay have not amalgamated by other main Indian cultures since they have also not mixed around.
    Did you ever sudy the amalgamation of Zoroastrians that were in China and europe. Do you study the political situation of today in the world!
    Anyway its sound ironical that people like yo who have little knowledge historically of zoroastrianism find faults with a system that saw zoroastrianism thru time and torture, raising itself like a phoenix wfter arrival in India. The zoroastrians I must add fought Islam invaders in gujrat repaying depbts to the gujarat king and once again saved the hily fire in the caves at bahrot for 12 years. We became one oft he most respected and strong community even in a foreign land. Our fore temples were once again established and so were are dokhma’s and our principles and culture rekindled. And you mock the principles of those who over saw this.
    Now would I be wise to follow you o0r to follow who rekindled zoroastrianism, would i be wise to listen to someone who after being gioven facts from prayers and hisotry chants his own theory. And ofcourse the one who thinks himself above history and others as you maintain al sorts of things like us being wiped out.

    I shall give you another live example of arrogance and ignorance.The turmoil that faces zoroastrianism is because as said earlier is due to intermarriage and the foreign spouce exerting his values on the zoroastrian partner. This also was aided with zoroastrians being void of their history and myhtological knowledge of their religion. Other communit8ies continue to exolt presure for someone to continue like we have tday god and miracle tv or q tv for islam.
    Now we reap our harvest , intermarried want to change zoroastrianism to suit their tastes. 5 years ago a vision for an aviary was brought up to the BPP. Mr Tamboly one fo the trustees , on my question to himfor trying it out said to the crowd , it is not pragmatic . Today there are 6 aviaries functioning in India, we are 5 years late especially with the BPP trustees in hybernation for 10 years in respect to vulture decline.
    So my friend , your concern for zoroastrianism dissapearing in quite welcome, but to change rudderlessly for the sake of change ,for the sake of personal taste especially a small community lke ours would be detrimental.
    As far as history is cocerned about mazdayasnism zorastrianism or parsism , its all the same , mazdayasnism predated zoraster and we follow mazdayasnism. Vistaspa followed mazdayasnism and continued to do so after meeting zoaster. Zoaster was a mazdayasni and continued to be a mazdayasni.
    As far as superstition is concerned , it arrises from lack of knowledge, and today;s nouveau zorastrian philosopers lack basic foundational knowledge of zoroastrianism. They then ponedr of ways to get answers that suit their judgement.
    Its like archemedes , he ran naked since he found answers , today the nouveay zoroastrians who claim that orthodox zoroastrians arent modern or changing run naked to find answers.

11. 

    rustom jamasji on April 8, 2007 at 4:35 PM

    thats non himachali and non kashmiri cannot buy property there, sorry for the typos in the earlier message

12. 

    Fariborz on April 9, 2007 at 10:18 AM

    You don’t read carefully, so let me make it simpler for you.

    The first tribe or people who accepted Zoroaster as a prophet and made zoroastrian their religion, they had another religion which we call it Mazda (Mazdayasna), people before Mazdayasna, they were all had other religions or non. what I am saying is there is no such blood or race, which was born to be zoroastrian.

    So simply, it is not true (foolish arguments) which you are trying to say, your race had this religion from their first blood :) which is ridiculous.

    so stop to tell people we are a race that have had this religion from the first blood and who was born in this race was zoroastrian and no one else. it is bullshit.

    give it a mind and think about it.

13. 

    rustom jamasji on April 9, 2007 at 2:13 PM

    fariborz , ure so caught up in your own web of this warped thinking.
    You dont even want to know, infact you act like a horse with blinkers, that does not want to see anything else except your own funda which sadly arrise from your arrogance and your ‘self appointed judge’ attitude.
    Anyways this is not gonna lead anywhere intellectualy.
    Infact if someone with a different opinion debates with historical facts or from translations then it leads to intellectual stimulation and widening of ones mind, but with you it leads nowhere because it is so divorced from history mythology or philiosphy.
    I think since you are from the coterie of people who did not succeed to even convince yourselves on the ill concieved idea of segmentation between Zoroastrianism and Parsi’s. Then you give warped idea of Zoraster converting Vistaspa , which again is proven wrong, and it boils down to you not accepting that Zoraster preached mazzdayanism even after giving you scriptural evidence.
    So run around in cirles and desperatley find excuses , but you are not fooling anybody not even yourselves.
    As far as I am concerned my debate is open to anyone with historical backing and not with armchair pondering over zoroastrianism like you do!

14. 

    Fariborz on April 10, 2007 at 5:22 AM

    There is an old saying which describes your argument instead of answering to what I wrote, but provind bullshits, “A bad excuse is better than none”. Actually, you have been fooled yourself and trying to fool others! which the above replies so far has proven that nobody but foolish people are sticking to foolishness without just using their minds :)

    The foolish part of your writings, besides the racism part against Persians (which I don’t defent it because you’re points are invaluable), is the idea of a race was born in zoroastrians or any other religion (you name it)! now “As you make your bed, so you must lie upon it”. :)
    Also An argument without reasoning and without supporting of majority is nothing, which we call it democracy.

    In addition, everyone can brag about himself and says I am blah, blah, blah…but what it makes your thoughts something to think about, is the logical foundation of your thoughts.
    otherwise bragging endlessly doesn’t change your wishes to facts but make you an empty vessel.

15. 

    rustom jamasji on April 10, 2007 at 6:24 PM

    Fariboz as i said you live in a fictitous paranoia world.
    Now when did i make racist comments against Persians?
    In fact I am a proud of my continuing Persian lineage as all Mazdayasni Zoroastrian are.Infact Darayus the great also was one.So where did the racist remark you talk about come from.
    Yes we Persians had to leave Persia and in fact Persia broke up due to the thirst of Christian missoneries who even after seeking refugee in Persia and the same thirst of Islam which had taken shelter in Persia, both destroyed were in competition to convert. They mutilited, and destroyed Zoroastrian Persian books, Agiaries,libraray , torched villages and raped and butchered the Persians to force them to convert.In short they tried their best for Zoroastrianism to cease to existence. But the Persian gene being strong and Zorastrian Mazdayasni faith saw them thru.
    The result is Persian lands are still a battle field by you guys.
    If that is difficult to swallow, so be it, but its the truth. You can for your sake mutililate history like the movie makers of 300 or accept history as it it, thats ur choice.
    The irony of all this is those who claim to be persians of Iran today, their roots arrise from either their forfathers being converted to Islam/ christianity or were the ones who mutilated Zoroastrianism and looted Persia.
    And to top it up you want to teach practising Zoroastrians, the originals Persians who stood by their faith what Zoroastrianism is all about.!

    Again all those who have replied to my comments on the original topic here, replied about the universal fire temple have not actually replied on my stating that
    ‘Agaiaries were the only safe place of worship due to our non interfering nature and the fact that rioting/other communty members not being present in the premises of the agiary.’
    And that we have prospered and respected as the majority has never felt threathened by Zoroastrianism nor is it aggrieved by convertions taking place in a land where Christianity and Islam were given shelter by the Hindu’s.

16. 

    Fariborz on April 11, 2007 at 8:27 AM

    As you tend not to understand my plain english statements, should I write in Hindu?

    so here it goes, if you can answer, come up with logical one else don’t give me zoroastrian’s popular fallacies :)

    There is an old saying which describes your argument instead of answering to what I wrote, but provide bullshits, “A bad excuse is better than none”. Actually, you have been fooled yourself and trying to fool others! which the above replies so far has proven that nobody but foolish people are sticking to foolishness without just using their minds

    The foolish part of your writings, besides the racism part against Persians (which I don’t defend it because you’re points are invaluable), is the idea of a race was born in zoroastrians or any other religion (you name it)! now “As you make your bed, so you must lie upon it”.
    Also An argument without reasoning and without supporting of majority is nothing, which we call it democracy.

    In addition, everyone can brag about himself and says I am blah, blah, blah…but what it makes your thoughts something to think about, is the logical foundation of your thoughts.
    otherwise bragging endlessly doesn’t change your wishes to facts but make you an empty vessel.

17. 

    rustom jamasji on April 11, 2007 at 12:39 PM

    What are you talking about fariborz.Do u even know ureself
    You keep harping on the same thing without answering and now you have deviated from the original topic of agiaries being the only place of worship not affected by riots and that the majority respects us as it does not feel threathened by islamic and catholic convertions , and the same they did to Persia.
    I think the crux of your problem is you guys though evolving from the roots of those who either gave up Zoroastrianism or tried to destroy Persian heritage and Religion , defiled the agiaries and the dokhmas and mutilatd anyone who did not convert, AND NOW TO ENHANCE WORLD RECOGNITION IN YOUR FAVOR AND AND TO SHOW THAT YOU HAVE AN EMINENT LINEAGE ,CLAIM THAT YOU GUYS ARE THE FRUITS OF THOSE WHO BUILT PERSIAN GRANDEUR!YOU GUYS WANT PERSIANISM TO BE DISSASSOCIATED FROM ZOROASTRIANISM SO THAT IT CAN BE POTRAYED AS BEING A PART OF RELIGIONS ASSOCIATED ACTUALLY WITH THE DESTROYER OF AND ZOROASTRIANISM & THUS PERSIANISM.
    You talk oF me giving excues , what excuse have i given.Yes the quatotions from prayers and history may seem excuse to you cause it may be difficult for you to swallow.AS YOU WANT IT TO BE TO SUIT YOUR TASTE.You even want history to be so that it keeps ure ego intact.

    You talk about me being racist againts Persians!. It may be due to you comprehension of English, which is not a fault.
    How can I be racist against who I am,Since like all Mazdayasni Zoroastrians,I too am proud of my Persian Lineage AND RELIGION and more proud since I am the fruits of those who fought against the butchering of Islamic and Christian missoneries who in their thirst to convert the world tried and to a point succeded in destroying the Persian Religion and culture.You guys are still doing that, diplomaticly now though.
    You may keep Zoroastrian Persian names and celebrate our festivals but that does not make you a Persian nor a Zoroastrian.History stays intact and though it may be bitter ,the fact is that though many in Iran claim to be True PERSIANS,like you, THEY evolve from roots that either gave up zoroastrianism or from the ones who butchered Zoroastrianism , raped and maimed those who did not convert, extinguish holy fires and defiled the dakhmas and the agiaries. Now if that is what bothers you, thus you turn a blind eye and also dont want the world to think otherwise! You are free to mutilate history like the movie makers of 300.
    Ironically you guys out there have made Persian lands, a continous battlefield by youR fighting. !
    And all along you put fatwas against Zoroastrians , taxed them and even collected Tax on Navrooz day , the holy day of the Zoroastrians!The taliban even banned navroz celebrations as it is a Zoroastrian festival.
    Infact Zoroastrianism is in more danger from this facade, since as you have all along mutilated history mainly by force , cohersion and numbers,ZOROASTRIAN CULTURE IS MISINTERPRATED BY OTHERS AS BEING of the ones who actually tried to extinguish the Zoroastrian flame.zOROASTRIANS IN TURN SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THEIR HISTORY so that the unwise or the ones with a agenda cannot chanellise us to chaos!

18. 

    Fariborz on April 12, 2007 at 12:55 PM

    You should know by now, I am not others that you can write me bulls and I get play with them :)

    If you can’t sallow following facts, try harder :)

    Fact 1: Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion.

    Fact 2: All persians they were not Zoroastrians or whatever that you think. some of them even didn’t have any religin.

    Fact 3: what Persians did before not make you or any other person in current world, associate to them.

    Fact 4: There is no such true .

    Based on above facts, when you talk about Persian, you’re talking about race, not about religion. you can not associate race with religion which you are trying to associate to do that, it makes you a racist.

    Persian race was not Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion. they have worshiped, different gods and have had different religions and even nothing at all. so nothing in the world can associate Persian race to any religion.

    Actually people like you who are trying to associate Persian religion to a race, make a racist world which is not right. even back then we had this freedom to accept a religion or not. we were a civilized emperor. (even it doesn’t make me proud because I didn’t make it. whatever I make it, makes me proud :) )

    But after Persian emperor there was not such freewill anymore, so the bad part of story is here which is not and was not part of my debate.

19. 

    Fariborz on April 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM

    by the way, I do not have a problem with the 300 which it is a fictional animation movie. I have seen lots movies that people have been made so far and it is not based on true history and there were no such attack to movie makers like what I see from you guys!!!! :)

20. 

    rustom jamasji on April 12, 2007 at 4:46 PM

    FARIBORZ YOU SPEAK FOR UR MISINFORMATION ANd WARPED FUNDA’S YOUrSLEF.
    As i said the crux of the matter with you is that you want your religion to be associated with Persianism!
    Persia was very big and in later stages involved lands with different religions. But that does not mean that Perisanism is not fused with Mazdayasnism .Infact just like the period of zoraster when mazdayasni’s were being mislead by everything spiritual there was anohter such period in mazdayasni history.Thats the period that gave rise to Mani’ism or mancheism. Now the same thing happened here , mazdayasni’s after being in close touch with people of distant lands had mazdayasni rituals a bit fused with others. That gave rise to such pagan beliefs.
    As far 300, of course its a fictuional movie BUT ITS Based on a real character. I am not aware if you know but thats the reason why you have a disclaimer in movies so that they cannot be fused unintentionally with a real character. Now the battle between Xerxes and the spartans took place. If you mak a movie on that , and then fictionalise, i think theres a problem. And again please be in tune with the hapening of the world , the world body comprising of many nations and cultures took an objections to that.
    It might wake you up to know that the general responsible for stopping Xerxes later took refugee in Persia though they were arch enemies.
    Of your statement’But after Persian emperor there was not such freewill anymore’ i think that stems out of christian school of thought since the sassanian put an end to christian missonery’s trechory and treason!

21. 

    zand on April 14, 2007 at 1:15 PM

    Hi again,

    I have two different replies to note here:
    1. reply to Fariborz having no problem with 300 movie:
    I think Rustom is right. If you want to make a fictional movie you should not use historical names and even you should not make the movie such that the characters resemble some actual (historical) characters.

    2. Reply to Rustom believing Parsi and Zoroastrian are one thing. I think Fariborz is right here. Followings are my reasons:
    If you think Parsi = Zoroastrian is true (not considering historical facts) some not answerable (or very hard to answer) questions will arise:
    1. If above assumptions is right (and if Zoroastrian is the true religion), God has selected a nation to give them the true religion and letting other people to destroy themselves in darkness. Is your God something like that? A racist God?
    2. When was the first Zoroastrian burn? If he/she was the first human, then all the people of the world have the same heritage.
    3. Considering Alexander the Savage action burning Zoroastrian scripts in 333BCE and recollection of Avesta by Ardashir in 230CE how do you know your Zoroastrian religion is true? How can you reference a book collected from memories after 550 years? Is such a reference valid?
    If you ask me so why I like the Zoroastrian religion, It is for its core idealogy and its simple structure(complexity is product of misunderstanding therefore God’s words can not have complexity).
    4. How can you speak for all Zoroastrians? How do you know they are on your side? It is a mistake all hardline religious people take and they have a circular reasoning for that. They tell themselves any true believer thinks as me and anyone else is a nonbeliever or a with misunderstanding.
    5. How do you know you are a Zoroastrian from blood and your fathers did not convert to Zoroastrian for profits? How can you prove that? Do you have your family tree for 5000 years ago?

22. 

    rustom on April 15, 2007 at 10:19 PM

    Hi Zand , nice to hear from you again.

    Well about you saying God being racist if he did not allow convertions, its one way of seing it.
    The other way is like Parents are not chosen by children and nor are children chosen by parents, so is religions.Also in ancient times, weather you were a follower of Hinduism or Mazdayasnism , or from the Inca’s , there was simply no ideology as convertion of ones to another race.One can say basic convertions took hold when Christ said he was the saviour of the chosen people, him refering to the Jews. The Jews never accepted him as saviour and the jews were shuned because of this.And then it was taken up by the missoneries to convert others. Now let me put your question to you , is God racist or arnt the convertionist acting in a racist manner by converting a person to say christianity , is it because christianity sees the other religion as something lower than it?(HERE I AM JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE OF CHRISTIANITY)

    Does christ or the trinity see Ahura Mazda as a lesser God so that zoroastrians should convert. This logic stands in vice versa too.
    As of how i know Zoroastrian religion is true since Ardeshir or the Sassanians complied everything. Well simple , Cyrus’s statement, Darayus statement predates the sassanian and they talk of Ahura Mazda!In fact have a look at nakshe rustom. Also avesta predates even these. Our Shahnameh talks of Mazdayasni mythology! Even YOU GUYS HAVE ZOROASTRIAN NAMES!!!!

    How do i know my forfathers did not convert to Zoroastrianism for monetory gains you ask!
    WelL give me an example of Zoroastrians converting for money or anything else , also convert from what. Christianity and islam were are young religions, the ancient ones like the hindus or the inca’s or from the african continent did not convert , the jews kept to themselves. So if my roots had to be a convert i.e from elsewhere , it had to be from either christianity or islam, And both christians and islam did everthing in their power to convert Zoroastrians to their folds.So that fundaOF ME CONVERTING FROM EITHER CHRISTIAITY OR ISLAM TO ZOroastrianism is again a warped one and also wud not be feasable.

    And now an you prove that i am not by blood or anything else a mazdayasni zoroastrian ,of the same lineage as the true Persian , from the ones that saved Zoroastrianism from the blunders and massacres of religions who took shelter in Original Persia!Prove to me that I am not from the same lineage of those who came to gujarat since mazdayasnian faith was in danger in their homelands.
    And hey , im not a hardliner at all, i think i want to preserve and thats the nodern mantra, weather its my agiary or my roots or my system of dokhmenishini , i wanna preserve it , so that like generations before me , and my generation, Zoroastrianism continues as it should be for the comming generations.It shud not change for those who have their armchair funda and fund’a rising from them being hurt from what history is.
    And the main thing Zen is that i want to preseve my faith and culture without harming anyone else , without disrespecting anyone else, without teling some christian or muslim or jew that his religion is not as good as mine. Thats how magnanimous zoroastrianism is, but even there people want to change that to suit their pur[pose even after seing how convertions have led to ONLY disheartening of different people and thus STRIVE and war .Infact because of this thrist to convert others, religion itself has got a bad name. Infact hardliners are those who either tell opthers to convert to what they believe like the converting ones and the ones who destroy other faiths.
    So Zen if you convert someone else, either diplomaticaly or forcefuly or by both , then there is no bigger racist than you cause then what you are saying is that what you fiollow is beter than what i follow or that the philosophy of the religion you follow is better than the philosophy of the religion I follow.Its like saying your parents are better than mine , convertions basically takes away the spirit of tolerance, the spirit of respect to others and their faith.
    Zenh i add here that my examples with the term’you; doesnt mean you personally but just refering it as to make it simplier, so no offence.

23. 

    Fariborz on April 16, 2007 at 12:23 AM

    I am back again, long holiday :)

    Let’s back to where we were and don’t give me a paragraph of some words next to each other, just tell me about which fact you have objection and what is your objection, then I will reply you one by one. (what we have here, is a discussion, so if you are really interested to do it logically, I would be happy to have a good discussion based on known rules and logical ones, so come up with answers to each of following facts

    Fact 1: Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion.

    Fact 2: All persians they were not Zoroastrians or whatever that you think, some of them even didn’t have any religin. (Simply it means nobody can associate any religion to whole people living in Persia in that era.)

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, don’t make you or anyone in current world, proud!

    Fact 4: I don’t have Zoroastrian name, it’s just Persian name.

24. 

    Fariborz on April 16, 2007 at 12:24 AM

    I am back again, long holiday :)

    Let’s back to where we were and don’t give me a paragraph of some words next to each other, just tell me about which fact you have objection and what is your objection, then I will reply you one by one. (what we have here, is a discussion, so if you are really interested to do it logically, I would be happy to have a good discussion based on known rules and logical ones, so come up with answers to each of following facts

    Fact 1: Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion.

    Fact 2: All persians they were not Zoroastrians or whatever that you think, some of them even didn’t have any religin. (Simply it means nobody can associate any religion to whole people living in Persia in that era.)

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, don’t make you or anyone in current world, proud!

    Fact 4: I don’t have Zoroastrian name, it’s just Persian name.

25. 

    rustom on April 16, 2007 at 8:02 AM

    Hey Fariborz,again you are all mixed up.
    Let me start with what u call facts are basically again ure armchair pondering so lets call it fiction.

    ofcourse all the people in Persian lands were not zoroastrians or mazdayasnis’s. Persian Lands stretched frOM Persia to what is now India , infact there are some artifacts recovered in China. And when did i tell you that all the people in Persian lands were mazdayasni’s orzoroastrians? Even the jews were inhabitants of Persian lands .Remember History , Cyrus liberated the Jews and reubuilt their temple.
    Its like saying that UAE OR Dubai OR Muscat or saudi arabia had nothing to do with Islam just because it had other religious population too!The Dubians or the Muscatees or the Kuwaitees are Islamic, the same way the Original Persians are and were Mzdayasni’s.I dont see whats the conflict here.
    So here we have erazed you fiction no 1 and 2

    Fiction no 3 .On what basis do you say that what the persians did dont make anyone proud in the current world.This initself shows you are divorced from history, it might just waken you up that the first human charter was fromed by Mazdayasni Cyrus the great , Its manuscript is in the Smitsonian museum if I am not wrong.
    The first roadways and postal service were initiated by Darayus the great.The term Dinar is derived from this.
    The hanging gardens of Persia was buit by Persians again it is a wonder of the world.
    Now of you are so oblivious to these things , you might not be proud of it as a human , or mabe since it does not suit your taste since you were on the other side of history , you would like to close your eyes to it , just like in the case of your previous fiction theorey.
    Well you do inact have a Zoroastrian or a mazdayasni name , like it or not, there was no difference between Zoroastrian and persian names, just because the invaders and the mauraders and the converters adapted Persian as their language , it does not mean that Persianism has changedThosw ho dstroyed Persia and Zoroastrianism and butchered its people were so jealous yet so mysteied by Persia that they adapted what they wanted to destroy.The other reasom that you have a zoroastrian/persian name is that maybe up the line your forfathers converted out of Zoroastrianism to whatever you are today.
    Faribrz , close your eyes shut as much as you want to , act like a cat with a bowl of milk, thinking no ones else is loking or think like a frog in a well ,but history wont change to suit you

26. 

    Fariborz on April 16, 2007 at 9:44 AM

    Finally, you talked a little bit, although you struggled all the way and even at the end of your last article, you messed up. you should just write your reasons, not your fantasies :)

    As you accepted Fact 1 & Fact 2 (although you called them fiction, but you accepted them :) so it is a fact that even you couldn’t deny them)

    So All Persians were not Zoroastrian.

    it means any persians ancestor could had another religion.

    it means, your forefathers might just worshiped nature or nothing at all which it can be true. So nobody can tell exactly how and what their ancestor was in that era, even you can’t be sure about past 300years ago! :)

    The other simple thing is, even your ancestors had ancestors, so even if your ancestors in Persian era they were Zoroastrian, and before them Mazdayasni, how about the older ancestors?!! what they had?

    So Nobody can claim that we were Zoroastrian from our ancestores.

    (Please don’t give this bulls to people, they laugh at you if they just think about what are you saying

    I asked you because of two reasons:

    1. You claim to be a persian and you make yourself happy and proud to what not belong to you, but you don’t have such basic common knowledge to think and talk logically.

    2. You claim to be worshiper of a religion (whatever it’s, it doesn’t matter) which have been saved humanity or did lots of things, but the way that you present yourself or that religion, just make you stupid and it has negative impact even for that religion.
    )

    I accept Fact 3, wasn’t a fact, it was a mistake. actually I wrote it a way wrong so I am going to correct it.

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, won’t bring to contemporary persians Happiness, Prosperous and Success. So contemporary Persians they don’t have to work hard to bring back that proud

    About Fact 4, Come on now, even you don’t read what you wrote!!!!
    in above you accepted Fact 1 & Fact 2, which tells us Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians so how can even on the earth can you argue that my name is Zoroastrian name?!!

    maybe my ancestor at that era, even didn’t accept any god and they had just fun, can you prove they were Zoroastrian or Mazdayasni?!!!

    As you accepted, Persian Empror was an enormous area and lots of people with different religion or no religion at all, lived there, so just write me with what argument you associate my name to Zoroastrian or Mazdayasni religion?!!

    (Note: Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say, Zoroastrian religion is a bad religion, not at all)

    Facts that we refer to them:

    Fact 1: Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion.

    Fact 2: All persians they were not Zoroastrians or whatever that you think, some of them even didn’t have any religin. (Simply it means nobody can associate any religion to whole people living in Persia in that era.)

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, won’t bring to contemporary persians Happiness, Prosperous and Success. So contemporary Persians they have to work hard to bring back proud to their current life.

    Fact 4: I don’t have Zoroastrian name, it’s just Persian name.

27. 

    Fariborz on April 16, 2007 at 9:46 AM

    (The above post has a mistake, so I corrected in this one)

    Finally, you talked a little bit, although you struggled all the way and even at the end of your last article, you messed up. you should just write your reasons, not your fantasies :)

    As you accepted Fact 1 & Fact 2 (although you called them fiction, but you accepted them :) so it is a fact that even you couldn’t deny them)

    So All Persians were not Zoroastrian.

    it means any persians ancestor could had another religion.

    it means, your forefathers might just worshiped nature or nothing at all which it can be true. So nobody can tell exactly how and what their ancestor was in that era, even you can’t be sure about past 300years ago! :)

    The other simple thing is, even your ancestors had ancestors, so even if your ancestors in Persian era they were Zoroastrian, and before them Mazdayasni, how about the older ancestors?!! what they had?

    So Nobody can claim that we were Zoroastrian from our ancestores.

    (Please don’t give this bulls to people, they laugh at you if they just think about what are you saying

    I asked you because of two reasons:

    1. You claim to be a persian and you make yourself happy and proud to what not belong to you, but you don’t have such basic common knowledge to think and talk logically.

    2. You claim to be worshiper of a religion (whatever it’s, it doesn’t matter) which have been saved humanity or did lots of things, but the way that you present yourself or that religion, just make you stupid and it has negative impact even for that religion.
    )

    I accept Fact 3, wasn’t a fact, it was a mistake. actually I wrote it a way wrong so I am going to correct it.

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, won’t bring to contemporary persians Happiness, Prosperous and Success. So contemporary Persians they have to work hard to bring back proud to their current life.

    About Fact 4, Come on now, even you don’t read what you wrote!!!!
    in above you accepted Fact 1 & Fact 2, which tells us Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians so how can even on the earth can you argue that my name is Zoroastrian name?!!

    maybe my ancestor at that era, even didn’t accept any god and they had just fun, can you prove they were Zoroastrian or Mazdayasni?!!!

    As you accepted, Persian Empror was an enormous area and lots of people with different religion or no religion at all, lived there, so just write me with what argument you associate my name to Zoroastrian or Mazdayasni religion?!!

    (Note: Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to say, Zoroastrian religion is a bad religion, not at all)

    Facts that we refer to them:

    Fact 1: Persian is not equall to Zoroastrians or Mazdayasni or any other religion.

    Fact 2: All persians they were not Zoroastrians or whatever that you think, some of them even didn’t have any religin. (Simply it means nobody can associate any religion to whole people living in Persia in that era.)

    Fact 3: What Persians did in that era, won’t bring to contemporary persians Happiness, Prosperous and Success. So contemporary Persians they have to work hard to bring back proud to their current life.

    Fact 4: I don’t have Zoroastrian name, it’s just Persian name.

28. 

    rustom jamasji on April 16, 2007 at 4:37 PM

    fariborz do u read at all
    i said all people in persian lands were not Zoroastrians or mazdayasni’s.This is so because persians lands comprised of jews,babylonians, buddhist, chinese and later stage christians and muslims.It is because since Prsian lands stertched to egypt and elsewhere , it comprised of many races being involved. The other races also like the jews or the egyptians etc were and are not persians. Do the original dubains or kuwaitis or sauds belong to another religion other than islam just because there are hindu’s christians etc in the middle east?

    It does not mean original persian ancestorial had another religion.well even the example of dubians or kuwaities or sauds did not get thru you eh? If I as a zoroastrian or an non muscatian could get a citiizenship of Muscat, would that change that muscatians are not islamic?
    Is it geting to you or are you on purpose as you have done before, not wanting to see what u dont like or dont want to hear things that are not exactly what is porayed to you by your peers!You are infact taking the sweetness of the persians into their weakness , if for example th persians kicked out or never took under their wings as citizens, the christians or muslims like the rule in the middle east then perhaps you wouldnt have had room to manuilplate this.
    About your name ,If it makes you and your peers happy , well u can claim whatever to you name,it still wont change history, im glad atleast itll make u happy.
    As far as your excuse of being proud of what my ancestors persians did , i think you once again have got cught in your own web , so i will not go furher on that.
    And please in an debate do not twist what others say.

29. 

    rustom jamasji on April 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM

    Hey farobrz and others
    Not once have you guys stayed on the topic of discussion, i.e universal fire temple.
    Again not once have you guys stayed on my original point of Agiaries being the only place of worship untouched by rioteers
    Not once have you guys stayed on the point of replying on the point of Zoroastrians did not have to worry about rioteers targetiing our colonies and fire temples. Infact even Zoroastrian business’s marked their place as Zoroastrian business.Our cars were mrked and our sudreh kusti and our ethinicity kept us out of harms way.
    After taking on your armchair fiction based philospohy of zoroastrianism and then having countered your tactical manouveriong of Persian History to suit yourselves, i once again ask you guys to now counter recent history of rioting and Zoroastrians not oinly being respected but out of harms way
    Infact now woth all this hasty knee jerk decission to opn up our agiaries and close dokhmenishini, we aid ourselves to fuse with others and convertions would only hasten and increase fervour of the majorities wrath as they are hurt by blatant disregard of their religion by those who want to convert their followers.
    Again you guys have proved only what i said. That as you guys fuse Persianism with something else, like the movie 300 gfused Persians and Xerxes who was a mazdayasni zoroastrian as something else and thus potrayed our ancestor as a barbarian.
    Again islam is being fused with perisanism only because it occupies lands that were of the Mazdayasnis Zoroastrians and thu8s we a small comunity is misinterpreteted as something else.
    So you guys have only strenghten what i say, we are being fused and tghus our history is getting murkier and distorted.Ofcourse this suits many for their personal taste and many who still wish away zoroastrianism

30. 

    Fariborz on April 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM

    Is it hard for you to accept everything have had a start and an end?

    There is no such original race in the world! but all dead :)
    even your stupid example about in here about dubains or other Arabs shows that you have no understanding at all. Islam started in about past 1400 years ago, before Islam most Arabs even didn’t worship any god but their hand-made gods.

    I am sure you have problem with english language. Please ask me to write you in your own language, if you don’t understand plain english. otherwise you could conclude by now, people are not

    Finally, I hope your capacity of the mind to perceive and understand is enough to get to know the facts and don’t stand for your fanatic idealogy.

    one obvious rule in a debate is, you correct your mistakes and accept your faults. which is hard for you, huh?

    (no offence to Arabs or any race in the world, just I highlight some part of history, my writings doesn’t review whole history.
    In my personal opinion human are all the same and earth is a nation)

31. 

    Fariborz on April 18, 2007 at 1:44 PM

    Is it hard for you to accept everything have had a start and an end?

    There is no such original race in the world! but all dead
    even your stupid example about dubains or other Arabs shows that you have no understanding at all. Islam started in about past 1400 years ago, before Islam most Arabs even didn’t worship any god but their hand-made gods.

    I am sure you have problem with english language. Please ask me to write you in your own language, if you don’t understand plain english. otherwise you could conclude by now, you can’t easily feed people with your manipulative and wrong approach to history and religion.

    Finally, I hope your capacity of the mind to perceive and understand is enough to get to know the facts and don’t stand for your fanatic idealogy.

    One obvious rule in a debate is, you correct your mistakes and accept your faults. which is hard for you, huh?

    (no offence to Arabs or any race in the world, just I highlight some part of history, my writings doesn’t review whole history.
    In my personal opinion human are all the same and earth is a nation)

32. 

    Fariborz on April 18, 2007 at 2:03 PM

    In reply to your second post, I should write this is the net. The obvious feature of the net is, if you write something , it will pop up in search engines. so you should be careful after this.

    You can’t ask somebody not to write against your craps. it is another nature of the net. and people like me, never stand still and let fanatic minds like you, enjoy this space.

    I proved that you are wrong with simple facts and can’t even argue with them rationaly.
    Actually, your second post, is just a run away because you can’t come up with rational reply. I caught you in the corner :)

    I wrote my idea about 300. it’s intact. If you or anybody have a problem, just try to make a new movie better than that.

    This topic is open as long as you stop writing or provide apology to people that you were trying to give them your primitive and false history understandings. thank you.

33. 

    Fariborz on April 18, 2007 at 2:05 PM

    In reply to your second post, I should write this is the net. The obvious feature of the net is, if you write something , it will pop up in search engines. so you should be careful after this.

    You can’t ask somebody not to write against your craps. it is another nature of the net. and people like me, never stand still and let fanatic minds like you, enjoy this space.

    I proved that you are wrong with simple facts and you can’t even argue with them rationally.
    Actually, your second post, is just a run away because you can’t come up with rational reply. I caught you in the corner

    I wrote my idea about 300. it’s intact. If you or anybody have a problem, just try to make a new movie better than that.

    This topic is open as long as you stop writing or provide apology to people that you were trying to give them your primitive and false history understandings. thank you.

34. 

    arZan on April 18, 2007 at 7:29 PM

    I would request all commenters to please maintain a certain level of decency and respect while posting here. No personal attacks on people are allowed.

    If I see anymore comments that attack any other person/commenter on a personal level, I will delete it.

    Thank you all who have been active on this post. You have provided a lot of “food for thought”.

35. 

    rustom on April 18, 2007 at 10:18 PM

    Fariborz
    What are you on about, again.
    The reason i said to stick to the topic of this duscussion is as basic as sticking to the topic of discussion. Of course it is the net but maybe in your wisdom you would like to talk about vegetables when one is talking about agiaries being away from harms way since we are recognised as a peacefull comunity away from convertions.
    Again i write that the reason i asked to stay with the topic of discussion was after i wrote against armchair fiction and self judge jury and exectuioner policy you inherit in your theiroies.
    As far as Dubians or the Kuwaitians example i provided and you couldnt fathom the similarities with what we were debating , i wont add further as you have proven about your knowledge of policitcal situations. I dont know what difefrence it makes if Islam started 1400 years ago? It still remains that no one except the original Muscatian and kuwaiti and a saudi can claim citizenship to the respective country..This is rightly done to maintain their identity and ethnicity especially when they have hoardes of migrants. It wudnt mater even if the migrant is a muslim , you have to be an original muscatee or a saudi to be a citizen.Hey Persia even stretched to egypt..now in ure theory the egyptians also become persians.
    What astonishes me is that with complete devoid of mazdayasni faith and its knowledge you agued about mazdayasni being different from zoroastrianism Then you talked about humans shud not be proud of persian hisory, and then gave excuses to manouvere yourself out of it.I talk about Persian stretching in terms of land( due to expansion for economy) and thus you wud have buddhist , christians etc in Persia and on this you claim everyone was persian. That wud mean that even a buddhiust is a persian since he was in persian lands or lands under persian control.Its like saying a muslim or christians in india are Hindus since the majority in india are Hindu’s.
    To make it simpler i gave you an example of the middle east, asgain you brought in the age of Islam!!!?!#$
    You give excuses for not staying on the subject of topic. U give excuse not to counter a valid of point of agairies being not seen as a worship place disliked by others.
    Yeah i do think you are fighting now to save your pride and ego.If my appolgising helps to quench the pain of ego then i dont mind , especially since weather i appologise or not ,weahter you tell yourself that u have proven me wrong to make your self happy, weather you potray another theory, whatvere, Hisotry remains the same and those who want to change history or forget it are bound to repeat it.
    AS FAR AS THE DEBATE GOES ,AS I SAID EARLIER, you have just strenghtened what i said and that is Perisan history being misinterprated is due ti it being misrepresented. And the same goes for The original Perisans.

36. 

    Fariborz on April 19, 2007 at 1:21 AM

    To arZan:

    I didn’t know that there is an admin exist here. Finally you respond, Thank you.

37. 

    arZan on April 19, 2007 at 1:49 AM

    Fariborz

    I read every comment posted on this site. And as author of the post, I did make my point right at the start.

    I generally don’t jump into a conversation unless I have something to add. Therefore I was keeping quiet in the background.

38. 

    Fariborz on April 19, 2007 at 4:26 AM

    Oh, so you are talking about reason?!! strange, if you wanted to stick to topic, at the first place, you shouldn’t respond to Omid Azardoost’s post!! so actually you drive this topic in a wrong way. again it is your fault. Admit it!
    and I found this topic while I was googling.

    Again you’re applying your understanding of contemporary citizenship of some contemporary countries to 6000 years ago?!!!

    First, at that era when a tribes attack another one, mostly females got rape and they had kids (no matter what their mother had a different religion or race) from attackers, which persians were good fighters and they got many victories and so on.

    Second, Persians have migrated to many countries even in that era. Also they were and are in Kuwait and UAE (your samples) and right now, they are original citizen in those countries. (in following a definition of Persian and list of countries which Persians can be found easily at the meantime)

    Third, The citizenship law that you are talking about, applies to now, not to that era, even not past 500 years ago!

    Fourth, at that area, when an emperor, like Persia or Rome, occupy a land and people, they used to consider new land and people under same name (Persia or Rome) and they were exchanging traditions and they were marriages and so on. so the Persian (or Rome) race and heritage, spread in occupied lands.
    so even they were and are Persians by race in those occupied lands, not just in Iran

    These are history and actual events in history which no one can change it, no matter you like it or not.

    So Persian race, spread all over the world since Persian emperor era by now.

    Persians (definition):
    Persians are the main ethnic group of Iran and are the majority and dominant ethnic group of Iran. They also inhabit in neighboring countries particularly in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan and in these countries they are usually thought of as sub-groups. Significant numbers of Persians also reside outside of these countries, with the largest communities found in the United States, Germany, England, Israel, Canada, Kuwait, France, Italy, Turkey. Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, and the UAE also have large populations of Persian descendants, referred to as Ajamis. Smaller communities are also found in surrounding countries and the Arabian Peninsula.

    Persians can also be found outside of Iran and include the Tajiks and Farsiwan who can be found in Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and the Xinjiang province of China. Another group called the Tats lives mainly in the Caucasus region concentrated in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Russian Dagestan. The Parsis, a small community in India, are also largely descended from Persian Zoroastrian refugees who fled from Persia following the Arab conquests. The Iranis, another small community in western India, are descended from more recent Persian Zoroastrian immigrants to the subcontinent.

39. 

    Fariborz on April 19, 2007 at 4:35 AM

    I understand for you to admit, you’re wrong because you have been lived with this theories since childhood and you never ever pushed yourself to study truth and think outside of your religious accustomed which in your understanding, it covers whole history that era.

    Again, I make it simple for you. just simple give me a date for following question, ok? please just date, no explanation.

    1. When did Zoroastrian (Mazdaism) religion start?

    Then I will get back to you and analyse again all your claims in the first postings (to me).

40. 

    rustom on April 19, 2007 at 8:51 AM

    Fariborz , again you go off on an tangent.
    You jump 6000 years back take a part of that which suits you in the argument and leave the rest.
    Weather Kuwaiti Or SAUD HISTORY is 1400 years or whatever really does not make a difference.Since the point im making here is that just as you have christians and all in Saudi or Hindus in Musat they do not become saudis or muscatees.The same way we had Buddhists in Persia who came from what is now India , we had christians that migrated to Persia during the Parthian era from europe since they were persectted by Rome.We had egyptians and Persian culture was even studies by the Greeks Now accotding to your theory , the buddhist should claim to be Persians,so shud the egyptians, so shud the greeeks since the christians that took refugee in Persia according to your theory shud be encompased in ‘Persian’.
    As of your statement of Persian being the main ethnic group of Iran today. Weel many may have the same lineage as their forfathers gave up Zoroastrianism due to convertions by diplomatic christian missoneries and by forced convertions of Islam. Thenthere are many others whose lineage goes to the roots of those who tried to christianise Persia, that is those who took shelter in Persia and then turned against the religion of persians i.e zoroastrianism and most whose lineage goes to those from islam that tried to islamise zoroastrianism.
    As far as after the arab conquest , it is a fact that zoroastrians or the originals persians fled their homeland to many places. Gujrat was one since trade relations were established to a certain extent during the sassanian era. Infact early coinage of gujrat had sassanian motifs. The groups that went elsewhere have fused and the Zoroastrians or original Persians that migrated to india survuived since it maintained its ethnicity.
    Now that u have made progres by understanding that Persia stretched rigth to Punjab from the urls and caucasias and the caspian , it was but natural that it comprised of many tribes and cultures.This is again shown by the carving of Darayus , Cyrus ,Xerxes etc.And in most if not all, the magnanimoity of the Original Persian zoroastrian goes to show that they always helped other cultures to thrive under their wing as the original persian’s religion of AHura Mazda respected humanity. Not one evidence shows that they have converted the others. Now if you go on and say since Perisan lands had a piece in Mangolia , thus mangolians are Persians, it shouws your maturity. Of course as i said if this had now become an ego battle then we cud cry hoarse till the cows died and you’d claim that Persians are greeks just because Alexander conquered Perisa and had Pesian land and Persian people under him.
    I think you are hurt faribiorz. Since what had been preached to you is that you are a Persian. History as you have protrayed is mutilated to suit you has been comming down thru generations since yo guys dont want to look at the wrongs done by your forfathers. Now when you get a bit of resistance about the ill deeds done by the refugee seekers to the religion of the people who gave them refugee, it becomes unswalloable.Its like Francis Pizzero and his Inca conquest.Destroy what cannot be yours and then claim its magnaniity.Basicaslly to do away with proof that makes one’s deeds look miserable. And to claim what others have achieved as ones deeds, history has to be mutilated.
    So as i said fighting on an ego level, you believe what you want, but i promise , the more you run away, the faster history catches up.
    Hey fariborz wud you like to read Prof Mary Boyce’s work. The world recognised her as the most learned historans with respect to mazdayasnism zoroastrianism and its poeple the persians. You could also read Dr Kotwals or Jamasapas on this subject.
    But i promise you that you might have an internal conflict that will then make you either rubbish their work or accept what you have been runing away from!.

    The irony again is that you keep arguing on the same thing by skirting the real isue and degressing when it suits you but again in every feable try you make , you only end up strenghteing what i say, as yo rightly pointed out that persia encompassed of tajikistan , ajerbaijan etc. Today both are islamic, will you go and say that the original persians were islamic?
    Hey Darayus and xerxes went to Egypt and Greek , wud you say that Darayus was egyptian or the egyptian were persians.Proof existes that he was a Zoroastrian and proud if his lineage. If you want see the carving in Iran, if you want ill send the translation across. Yaeh but then if you say that he was a christian or since bla bla then i dont have time for that.
    Fariborz you wants to desprately be included in ‘Persianism’ due to the splendour of Persia and its people the mazdayasni zoroastrians. But you do not want to accept the brutality and treachory it did against it. So the next thing is to do away with parts of history.Like the TAliban who banned navroz since they say it brought in unislamic culture in theirs. Tell me why do the muslims celebtrate Navroz. It is a mazdayasnian festival. It is a fstival of those people whose religion was destroyed by islamic thirst to convert. Then why celebrate something that belong to a culture you destroyed. Isnt navroz now being seen a festival of muslims since the number of muslims celebrating it out numbers the whole original persians to whom the festival is associated with in roots!
    Again the fusing of navroz has left it being misrepresented.
    The Persian names you claim belong to the ones that followed mazdayasni zoroastrianism, which was destroyed by people that now claim the names associate them with their lineage!!!!!.Again this could nt be helped as the few persians cannot stop people from having names , yet it is a fact that now as afriborz or rustom or nariman, it cud be associated with cultures that destroyed the cultures of fariborz , rustoam and nariman!.
    Again it boils down to maintinaing our ethinicity ,all your examples show how by fusing one thing with another,ethinicity gets diluted. 300 fused Xerxes and Persian culture since the west sees persianism as it is potrayed today by majority occupying Persian lands.As per your theory Persianism shud include everything as many cultures were present and allowed to be practised when the Persians were in power.
    Hats off as you are nly turn the deeds of Persians and their religion of Ahura Mazda and their sweetness into its weakness. Yes the remaining few Persians have finally reached a stage where they are in danger of being fused.

41. 

    Fariborz on April 19, 2007 at 10:51 AM

    First of all, we are talking about Persianism in that era! so I don’t jump into the past, you never keep track of what you wrote in past post.

    I can easily say, if somebody in past 500 years ago, (with whatevr religion that you name it which it doesn’t matter) travelled to Suadi they became Saudis. because they mix and there have mixed kids and so on. All of them became Saudis. The restriction and thought of that a human can’t be part of a race, is called racism. (which I refered to you in my early posts that you are racist, just because of your thoughts).

    Because of mixing Persians with people, with different religions and different cultures from different part of the world in that era, doesn’t allow anybody to say, they are not persian. the new generation, was persian and is persian.

    As much as Persian race spreaded in the world, the other races spreaded too. it is obvious. for example, inter-tribal marriage, inter-country marriage was a custom to make better bonds. it was a nature of human being, to learn, to teach and most of all, to evolve.

    (for example, I know there were egyptian race in Persian and nowadays in Iran but we call them Persian we won’t call them Egyptian. also other races)

    This is part of your post:
    “Then there are many others whose lineage goes to the roots of those who tried to christianise Persia, that is those who took shelter in Persia and then turned against the religion of persians i.e zoroastrianism and most whose lineage goes to those from islam that tried to islamise zoroastrianism.”

    So what? If you want to live with this obsession that other religions destroyed Zoroastrians, I am gonna tell you, you can keep blaming others but the reality is not what your ancestores wrote for you, the reality is The Zoroastrian religion was ruined because of religious leaders which power and money made them fool and Zoroastrians (people mostly settled in Persia) was looking for a new idea that answer to their questions and actually this need was a point to other religions to introduce themselves to Zoroastrians.
    (most of the time, samething applies to other religions which they got corrupted and their believers looking for new ideas and justice, which corrupted religion couldn’t bring it back)

    Being rational is not gonna hurt you, I am gonna ask you, yourself, I don’t want your logical mind to reply me, ok?

    If Zoroastrian religion was a powerful religion (which it was) and people love that religion, how come Zoroastrians at that time, didn’t use all Zoroastrians power and fight back against who wanted to convert them? how come?
    Don’t you think there were injustice and corruption which made people to runaway and seek for something new and real thing, at the first place? and after that the other religion missionaries brought their new idea to Persia land.

    Even if you study society at the meantime, you can tell, society will go after their needs. Power (religion or politics and etc.) can push them for awhile but not forever.

    Don’t sleep with this false information. it doesn’t matter they wrote in books or your ancestor brought to you, think about it.

42. 

    Fariborz on April 19, 2007 at 11:01 AM

    If you just think about the above post, we won’t need to debate anymore but if you don’t want to think then I can’t help you but we have to finish for what you started here.

    My debate with you started at the point that I noticed, you claimed yourself that zoroastrian religion belongs to a specific race and your ancestores all were zoroastrian and nobody can convert to zoroastrian religion. right? Let’s finish this subject asap, just answer me in a short reply,

    When did Zoroastrian (Mazdaism) religion start? .

43. 

    rustom on April 19, 2007 at 8:33 PM

    Fariborz,
    It depends what texts you look at. It also depends if you look at it mythologically. If you do go mythologicaly then you must have an open mind.Cause mytholoy of any religion can be faulted especially logically , but then the concept of god , emotions does not fit in with logic. In fact the reflection of ‘good and bad’ will be different according to logic as it would depend on what basis you judge goodness and evil ,thus concience would also have a very limited scope with logic.
    Logically the concept of Adam and eve being first man and woman to walk on earth can be faulted as Christianity came up only around 2000 years ago.
    So the answer mythologically lies in knowing when Masha and Mashyani according to Mazdayasni faith walked on earth, also to know when gayomard and fareduun walked here or when king Jamsheed ruled which was supposed to have lasted 900 years or so about 8000 years back and he fought opposing spirituality to mazdayasni .i.e devyasni. That MAY sOunds far fetched then how come we celebrate navrooz today? Im sure you know navrooz is associated with King Jamsheed and his golden era.Incedently i read somewhere that the King of AFghanistan’s pricest possession was the Shahnameh which was gold leafed.Weather the taliban destroyed it or not i’m not sure.

    Accordingly, Zoroastrian tradition and the Avesta Yashts are replete with the specific missions of the illustrious mazdayasni’s saintly kings from Gayomard, Hoshang,Tehmurasp, Jamshid, Fredun, etc, to Kaikobad, Kaikaus, Kaikhushru, and
    the saintly paladins like Kersasp, Rustom, Faramarz, Aspandiar,etc, all of whom belonged to the Paoiryo-tkaesha class.The Shahnameh talks about constant long-drawn wars between the Mazdayasnis and the Daevayasnis, which took epic proportions as described by Firdausi.

    If you go according to language , again we may come across a hurdle since avesta was spoken much earlier than it was transformed into writings.The old gathic avesta is supposed to predate vedik sanskrit.Vedik sanskrit is supposed to be the language of the harapa and mohenjadaro civilisation. That takes us back to around 2500 bc.
    According to wikipedia”Avestan is an Eastern Old Iranian language that was used to compose the sacred hymns and canon of the Zoroastrian Avesta”
    As Zoroasters birth differs according to different scholars and interpretation, so dos the dateline of oral avesta, and thus the start of mazdayasni’s.

    But again let us look at the topic of discussion here. How come avesta is associated with mazdayasnism and Zoroastriaism especially when you have formed an opinion of persianism being different from zoroastrianism and mazdayasnism being different from zoroastrianism and the rest. How come the mazdayasni saintly kings acording to firdousi wore the sudreh and kusti and spoke of Ahura Mazda if they were supposd to be different from Zoroastrianism according to you. Again you have just helped i proving what i said about mazdayasnism and zoroastrianism being same and that zarathushtra only preached mazdayasnism.This was debated by you even though i gave you proof from the prayers and the zand avesta.But as i said earlier your questions and finding loop holes take you back.
    Darayus writing about lineage i shall copy here.
    “parsa parsahya puthra arya aryachithra”, meaning, (I am) Parsi, the son of a Parsi, an Aryan, of Aryan lineage!

    Now why does he talk about lineage. Some one asked me to prove my lineage, again i ask that person if he wud see with yellow eyes darayus’s inscription!!!!

    Hey fariborz , atleast once answer my questions ,
    1) how come after all the plunders by the mauradeers, after all the texts being burnet, after all agiaries being turned over as other religious places by the dertuctive attitude by early christians to term everything else as heresy and paganism and then later by the early arabs, after the migration to a land where there wasnt a dokhma nor a agiary , we survived and our faith grew.
    2)Was it not because of the wisdom of the zoroastrians that protected it and rekidled it after their arrival in India.
    ARE YOU SMARTER THAN THEM and shud we forsake history for your philosphy. We speak about zoroastrianism because it exists, and it exists solely due to the preservation of the Zoroastrians that came to India and followed its principles thru time and gen’s Shud we give that up and take up on ure ideas? Wud ure ideas have been able to resurect zoroastrianism.
    3) Like you shud we close our eyes to The LIVE EXAMPLES of present day tribes of thr amazon ,andamans. the coorgs,and even large countrieslike Saudi , muscats and Kuwait,that folow suit so not to be fused with the philosophy of the larger population .Will it be wise for the prsent day gen zoroastrians or persians, to give that up and follow your philosophy and the attitude of’ What suits me’ type of history’
    4)Again i ask arnt the zoroastrian or the Persian place of worship safe due to our non converting identity.Isnt navroz a festival of mazdayasnis now seen as a festival of all those who now live in what was persia.

    5) Arnt mazdayasni names like Rustom , kurush, nariman , fariborz , adil etc widely used in many islamic places including egypt, showcase the misdentity and roots of the names. Arnt our identity fused by this?

    6)Wasnt Xexes misrepresented. Wasnt Xerxes, Cyrus , Darayus , Ardeshir etc mazdayasnis according to you?If you agree they were mazdayasnis then why wud u dissassociate perisnism and zoroastrianism.
    It is widely talked even on news shows that 300 was a showcase for the tensions of present day gulf scenario.Due to ignorance werent the Persians and thus zoroastrian kings being potrayed wrongly.

    On what basis scientifically, hisorically or mythologically are you potraying your ideas.
    And hey what i say is not my idea, its history written by many scholars and persens established with doctorates in the specific field. Are you right and even they wrong?
    Fariborz never once have i skirted around your questions, now atlleast once answer mine

44. 

    rustom on April 28, 2007 at 11:52 AM

    News report show that around 150000 women are held for improper dress code in Iran. Iran claims to be Persian. Whereas the lands belong to the Persians, does that make the occupiers Persians!If this is so then why are these so called Persians following things banal to Persian custom and religion.
    Also it should be remembered that when the religion of the Persians was overthrown by the convertions and religious wars by Christianised Europe and missoneries within Persia and then by Islam, the Zoroastrian women to rebell against un persian law of the veil rebelliously showed their ankles and face.

    Mazdayasni Zoroastrianism and thus Persianism is being fused by it being misrepresented. Persian names are being used by people that follow ANTI PERSIAN customs.Of course nothing can be done about this but atleast we should learn by such examples of fusing to avoid ourselves being dissolved by a larger section who may wrongly represent the term Persianism and thus Mazdayasnism.This with the lack of mazdayasni knowledge amongst the Persians of today, i.e The Parsi’s adds in us sending the wrong message to the comming zoroastrian generation. Ofcourse the Parsi Punchayat is busy infighting, Dinshaw v/s Dinshaw(remember Kramer v/s Kramer) and in being pragmatic!?* by giving up on the dokhmaneshini system and system that help us maintain our identity. For this many pseudo organistaion have risen up to open up our agiaries! Has anyone taken notice of a bill passed in India for giving travel concessions to all communtites of Inia to go on Pilgrimage , just like the muslims have when they go to Haj. Can the punchayat and the directors of this and that pay attention to such so that zoroastrian childen can be taken to the lands of their forfathers to know about Persian kjungs and their lineage before iot is too late!
    It is indeed better to have wise enemies than foolish friends. Toay we have literate doctors and lawers that after taking benefits from the goodwill of being Parsi’s want to fuse it so that Zoroastrianism changes drastically. Fortunatelu for them, te result of their deeds based on ego now will be fased not by them but by the next gen zoroastrians.

45. 

    Tara on May 2, 2007 at 10:39 PM

    Nice debate, always good to hear from passionate people. I obviously don’t share your knowledge, but from the very basic point of view of the a person who is half-Parsi (if there can be such a thing), it seems to me to be pretty disingenious to reject people from your religion who would otherwise be attracted. As the daughter of a Parsi woman and an English man, my interest in Zoroastrianism is naturally limited by what, from this point of view, is the hostility of traditionalists. I would like to visit a fire temple. So would my Dad, actually. Surely it’s the fundamental teachings and not your blood that matters? Or is this community seeking inevitable and rapid extinction?

46. 

    rustom on May 3, 2007 at 3:24 PM

    Well Tara , nice to know you are interested in Zoroastrianism.
    Now rules that sound hostile towards non zoroastrians may not be so. I agree that it sounds hostile especially if you take it when applying to an individual. Just yeterday i was talking to a memeber of a sikh community and he was telling me about the inclusion of hinduistic concepts in sikhism due to the similarities or becuse sikhism developed frioom hinduism and the efforts of the sikhs to maintain their identity different from hinsuism.Sikhism formas about 2.5% of India’s population.
    Now place the Zoroastrian community with about .01% of India’s population. Already hinduisation has crept in to Zoroastrianism to some aspect. Also if we open up completely and DO NOT STUDY and Undestand the concept of certain exclusion like thw Fubians or Kuwaitis or th coorgs or Kshmir , Himachal Pradesh etc then we will be fused witht he larger section.
    Lets take for example the Iranians of today claiming to be Persians. Well Iran has clamped down on women without the Veils or the Burkha. Now if a million people claiming to be Persians with Persian names( from the debate in this topic, –names like Faruborz and Zand) potray Persians to have a culture of thE Burka then Persianism is being misreprsented and thus is gonna be passed in the misrepresented form to the next generation. Same way if we open up the agiaries, then the people believing in idol worship banal to zoroastrianism will outnumber the zoroastrians and thus in time a demand for change in the policy will ask for idols. Alrady our jasans ae being fused with the yagnas of the hindu’s and our 5 gah’s being fused with 5 namaaz being offered by the muslims. How many times wheni travel i have been associated with islam just because my name is rustom and my dad’s parvez.
    Again politically , yesterday a tainted cop in India who is alleged to have killed a couple from a community that sometimes id fused with terrorist was garlanded by some from the majority community in India. This shows the support to comunal hatred an violence. We are away from it as w have maintained an different distinct identity of which non convertions forma an basic part.
    Agin it is argued that in the west it is different, but on actually studying the political changes and behaviour of convertions and thus comunal tensions , it does emit from the west if yuo study the propogation of christianity from the vatican and rise of asian communties in the west which makes the locals a bit sceptical.
    History shows of Zoroastrians fusing in China and Europe.
    Forget History, how many childern of intermarried zoroastrians would be able to discard Zoroastrian policies of non Idol worship , non fasting like lent,not animal godsor anti deva policy. Again it must be understood that what the traditionalist want is termed as taliban or hostile due to wrong priopoganda of those who want change. And who wants these changes, those who want to include into zoroastriansim beliefs banal to zoroastrianism!
    Now would a Zoroastrian married to a muslim who argues to change Zoroastriansim fight against Islam to allow non muslims from entering the mecca or madina . Or females to go into certain mosques. Would Zoroastrians married to christians fight the Pope to aloow giving of the holy communioum to those who have not converted to christianity. Would those who fuse hinduism with Zoroastrianism and say everything is the same and thus change Zoroastrianism fight against the non inclusio og Hindu’s in concecrated temples of Puri and orrisa!
    Taliban destroyed other peoples beleifs. Taliban wanted and poropgated Islam. Where are the Zoroastrians traditionalist fighting or being hostile towards christianity, islam , hindusim or anything else. The traditionalist Zoroastruians are not even fighting the convertions and thus disregard of other faiths. All they are saying islet the fire temples function as willed by the people that built it. Let us contuinue and strenghten Zoroastrian practises which have weakened. And if you do not want to follow it , fine , do as you please but do not dismantle zoroastrianism.

    Tara you talk about extiction.Let me ask you this, have the zoroastrians who followed intermarriage, following other beliefs etc hav they become in thei next gen non zoroastrians or at most navjoted zoroastrians or are the Zoroastrians that follow Zoroastrianism as it is become extinct.
    Do a survey of intermarried zoroastriansim. Do they follow Zooastrianism Are they not influenced by sunday mass and satsangs and just because one parent is a zoroastrian, proclaim to be zoroastrians.
    Also are the abro’s of Australia , the tribes of Amazon , the tribes of Andamans, extict? Ull find that he red Indians are extinct since they have lost their roots due to fusing!
    And if at all zoroastrians becomes extinct would you want it to be remembered or studied as a wonderfull mazdayasnian religion or would you want banal beliefs an a mixture of things that wud go against mazdayasnism to be represented as zoroastrianism just as the burka is wrongly being potrayed as part of persianism and like Xerxes was wrongly potrayed as barabarian!

47. 

    irandoost on January 11, 2008 at 8:54 PM

    i just want to say, as just another persian, it’s problematic now with the regressive archaic islam, religion of savage desert dewelers and their barbar turk successors, to go back to religion of Ashu Zartosht, but one day we will go back, i’m sure , as many of us Iranians live and feel inside as followers of holy Zartosht through our customs and beliefs, no mater what has happened to us 1400 years now, and I believe that Parsis are just another lovely part of this Iranian spirit of good faith and resistance.

    so all arguments here better be put aside and just try to spread the words of Ahura-Mazda’s prophet.

48. 

    Ramachandran on March 3, 2008 at 9:12 PM

    what is the impact of the cultural relation from olden days between South India and persia (Iran)? in the present day???
    [email protected]

49. 

    lavlesh on February 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM

    i would like to join the comunity bcoz i hav desire and curosity about the comunity as these people are very kind and well mannered please reply me as soon as possible as iam very exited about it and can try a lot for the devlopment of comunity.

50. 

    puff on February 23, 2010 at 8:55 PM

    lavlesh,

    Welcome to our group. Some narrow minded bawas are bound to raise objection, since you have brought up this 3 year old topic now. They will label you with all sorts of adjectives.

    Get ready for an attack from Dhongidox and his bandwagon.

51. 

    piloo. on February 24, 2010 at 12:27 AM

    Pity the soloist indulging in cacophony.
    That someone who talks of BANDWAGON is unable to see the strength of the Bandwagon on current post about Parsis storm Zoroastrian College.
    Uttering Adjectives is the prerogative of “BROAD MINDED” the word BROAD being redefined.