Why none of the Persian dynasties restored Zoroastrianism after breaking out of the Caliphate? It seemed logical up until 10th century or so, when Zoroastrians still were the majority of the Iranian plateau.
This is in stark contrast with Muslim Iberia. When Mudejars (native-Iberian Muslims) rebelled, they often returned to Christianity.
I remember reading about a Persian vassal of Tabaristan that was zoroastrian, he nearly conquered enough land to try and convert Persia to Zoroastrianism but died
The Tahirid dynasty was still part of the Caliphate, but they were autonomous. It was beneficial to them to convert.
Also, Zoroastrianism is simply a shit religion when compared to Christianity or Islam, there's not incentive to convert back, and there are many not to convert (i.e. your taxes become higher).
Christianity on the other hand is at least morally equal (actually superior) to Islam so converting is not crazy. Also, Iberia was a frontier of the Caliphate and Islamic expansion at large, Persia is in the middle of the Islamic world.
>>1124368
Because iran became a massive muslim majority by the time it broke out of the caliphate,you have to be retarded to think that it's a realstic option to attempt to convert that percentage to an old dead religion,or christianity like this larper here
>>1124384
Also mudejars didn't ''return'' to christianity they usually forced to convert or leave after islam was banned by Portugal by 1497,the Crown of Castile by 1502,and the Crown of Aragon by 1526.
>>1124404
>Also mudejars didn't ''return'' to christianity they usually forced to convert or leave after islam was banned by Portugal by 1497,the Crown of Castile by 1502,and the Crown of Aragon by 1526.
There were rebellions by Mudejars throughout 8-10th centuries and they then often reconverted.
You confuse Mudejars with Moriscos (Muslim diehards in post-reconquest Spain).
>>1124410
Mind giving me a few examples then because from what i'm reading here mudejars is a term used for muslims that stayed after christian rule but were not converted.
>>1124415
Not him but mudejars were muslims conquered by Spanish kingdoms that were given basic religious and communal autonomy in exchange for taxation. Basically a Christian adaptation of the dhimmi system which started fairly early in the Reconquista and which was mostly practical (the Norman Sicilian kings did pretty much the same thing).
Moriscos referred to muslims who converted to christianity and their descendants. This was mainly the result of the conquest of Granada and hardening of religious policies by the Catholic Monarchs, who gave the muslims the choice to convert or fuck off. The vast majority were forced to convert and remained christians in name only, which was obvious enough that the Spanish monarchs never really trusted them and ultimately expulsed them all around 1600.
>>1124384
>Zoroastrianism is simply a shit religion
>Christianity on the other hand is at least morally equal (actually superior) to Islam
Yeah and who decides that? A fatass that cant get out of the basement?
>>1124521
>A fatass that cant get out of the basement?
Depends, do you have any other credentials?
The fact that Zoroastrianism in its essence doesn't allow for conversions is enough to make it morally corrupt and fundamentally shit.
>>1124384
Silly moral debates aside. Persia was at the edge of the Islamic world for a good long while itself.
>>1124567
It does allow for conversion. It's only the parsi community that started that trend. And that was mainly political because Indians didn't want them to grow.
>>1124404
>an old dead religion
There are still Zoroastrians today in Iran and their numbers were still as high as about 40% of the population up until the Safavids converted the countryside to Shiism en masse.
