Why did Zoroastrianism decline, and why was it replaced so easily with Islam?
>>77864
>Why did Zoroastrianism decline
Mainly legal laws which favoured Islam. Causing all but the most devout to convert to gain advantages.
>and why was it replaced so easily with Islam
It wasn't. Zoroastrianism was the majority religion of Persia until the first millenium.
Islam was just more memetic.
Literally.
Only aggressively viral ideas spread and dominate human minds.
>>78039
>The Zoroastrian afterlife is determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts of the whole life. For those whose good deeds outweight the bad, heaven awaits. Those who did more evil than good go to hell (which has several levels corresponding to degrees of wickedness). There is an intermediate stage for those whose deeds weight out equally.
What's so bad about that?
>>78265
Nothing, he just gave a meme reply.
>>77864
they weren't dhimmis
>>78265
it's not 72 virgins
>>77982
How's that Reason Circle going for you Dawkins?
>>78039
>>77906
Zoroastrianism's afterlife had nothing to do with it.
Converting to Islam gave you a shit-ton more legal rights and you didn't have to pay nearly as much money in taxes. A lot of professions, especially artisans who worked with fire, were also considered 'unclean' so they really didn't have any incentive to stick with it once the Mussulmen rolled in.
Even then, Zoroastrianism survived for centuries after the Muslim conquest, and even those who 'converted' often just directly translated their Zoroastrian beliefs over into Islam (see: Qarmatians and Khurramites).
The muslims defeated them militarily and then imposed a tax on non-muslims. People converted to islam to avoid the tax.
Zoroastrianism really began to decline at the mid-to late Mughal Empire. It was replaced to easily with Islam because the first Muslim converts were warrior bedouins with the mentality of "covert or die," much like today
>>77864
A lot of the Zoroastrian church was killed by the invading Arabs, and they're too tolerant and non-proselytizing of a religion to spread extremely effectively
>>78927
No they actually didn't want them to convert, because converting meant less taxes. IIRC they actually made some restrictions on who could convert
>>77864
Sassanids were getting very corrupting, persecuting minority religions left and right. Even other sects of Zoroastrianism like Zurvanism and Mazdakism was persecuted.
Also, Islam gave more value to scientific study compared to Zoroastrianism.
>>78982
getting very corrupt* damn typos
>>77864
Islam was and still is spread by the sword
What I really want to know is if Manicheanism could have overtaken Christianity if it faltered in the early years.
>>78265
>and thoughts
I'm fucked.
>>78265
>determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts
>determined by the balance of good and evil thoughts
>determined by good and evil thoughts
>determined by evil thoughts
FUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCKFUCK
>>77906
>legal laws
as opposed to what kind?
>first millennium
The first millennium AD started 600 years before the founding of Islam and ended 400 years after. Could you be more specific?
>>77864
Islam was Persianized, and by a class of converts that were free of the old social divisions of Zoroastrian society. The Arab nobility also Persianized, while the old Persian aristocracy converted and promoted Islam themselves.
That basically ended urban Zoroastrianism. The countryside was probably very Zoroastrian for a long time until the Turkic Ghaznavids and Seljuks.
>>78265
I can see why people didn't like this idea, it wasn't a Us vs Them thing, it was just being good.
>>82000
He clearly meant the end of the first millenium.
I'm high as fuck and I caught the jist of what he was saying. Don't argue semantics of grammar structure when the statements themselves are fine.
No one seems to be bringing up the fact that you can't convert to Zoroastrianism- you can only be born into it. That puts them at a disadvantage from day one.
>>82446
That's questionable. The group that has the big deal about not converting anyone are the Parsis in India, and the mythical "reason" for that is a promise they made with the ruler to not proselytize in exchange for safe haven.
>>82446
How does that work? Do your parents have to be practicing Zoroastrians or something?
>>82446
Judaism is the same yet there seem to be a lot of jews...
>>82716
No you can still convert, it's just rare because
>cutting your dick to join
>>77864
Zoroastrianism literally does not proselytize. At all.
In fact if you tell a Zoroastrian that you want to convert to his faith you'll get the polite version of 'fuck off we're full'
that's why.
>>82716
That has nothing to do with the exclusivity of the religion, not counting people like Ethiopians, Yemenis, and Romans converting
>>82776
It's also going extinct. Has more to do with the way Zoroastrian (Parsee) has become primarily an ethnic group in India.
But back in the day it must have proselytized heavily, how else would it have gotten so many adherents.
>>78982
Wasn't Mazdakism the sect that tried to overthrow the aristocracy and institute literal communism?
>>77864
Zoroastrianism did not have the support of aristocracy outside of Persia. When Persia was invaded by the Muslims, the aristocracy either converted to Islam or rebelled and were executed or driven into the desert.
A similar but better question is why did Manichaeanism decline. This was a religion that was spread from France all the way to China, and who had patronage of Persian, Uyghur and Roman(?) kings. Now there's barely a trace.
>>77864
>Why did Zoroastrianism decline
Because it wasnt an organized religion. Every settlement had its own flavor, and nobody was enforcing it.
>and why was it replaced so easily with Islam?
Islam is much more complex, and thus seems like a more plausible explanation of how and why things work.
You have to remember, religion was the science of the day, and Islam was a flashier, more advanced science. You didnt understand either completely, but you could tell Islam has more depth, being much more official and organized.
So people just upgraded to what seemed the more advanced view of how the world works, and since it was more useful to the new government, it was enforced as well.
>>82776
This. It's literally impossible to convert to.
Zoroastrianism is an innately elitist religion of the upper class. It never endeared itself to the masses. Islam was more populist and had broader universal appeal. Same reason Christianity trumped the majority of Pagan religions.
Everyone is equal in Islam and Christianity, or at least that was the ideal.
>>87083
>Zoroastrianism is an innately elitist religion of the upper class. It never endeared itself to the masses.
What.
You just need a few sticks to light a fire and look into it while you sing your prayer.
Basic Zoroastrianism is pathetically simple. If anything, its simplicity was its undoing.
Because post-Artaxerxes II Zoroastrians corrupted the original monotheist religion of Mazdaism, first by exalting Satan into an anti-God , then worshiping angels as gods
Of course Ahura Mazda redeem the Aryans by sending revelations over to the barbaric desert dwellers, what else?
>>77864
Because it was akin to our modern day political democracies.
>>80823
No , they conquered, and initially only replaced the ruling classes. Actual conversion of the conquered people's took centuries, using taxes on non muslims.
>>82446
Wrong.
The Parsis don't allow converts as the King of Bombay forbid it in return for being Allowed to settle there
>>88272
Being taxed for not being muslim was only for people of the book, christian and jews. Zoroastrians where just forcefully converted.
>>81749
Manicheanism has already influenced Christianity loads, with the disgust towards the flesh, abstinence, a guilt of being alive, etc. If you want to read a vituperation on this, see M. Axworthy's chapter on it in ''Iran: Empire of the Mind''.
>>86807
>islam is more complex
lol
>>82047
The "good" parts include active fighting against evil. Zoroastrian priests were commanded to actively kill animals that were considered evil, and killing the ones who were good for no reason was diesngouraged or even punished.
You were good because being good was the way to defeat Ahreman, and you wanted to go to heaven because that puts you on the good side in the final battle. Zoroastrianism is the more "us vs them thing" to ever exist.
>>82446
That's false, only indian parsis follow that rule. It's directly linked with the fact that they're hosts on a foreign land. Iranian zoroastrians can convert people, they're just not allowed by muslims in the middle east.
That said, when correcting this, people on this board often forgets to mention on this board that Parsis are the majority of zoroastrians in the world in 2015.
>>88870
yeah exactly. iranian imams have been complaining of conversions as of late.
>>87083
This man is the right. Sassanid zoroastrianism had a lot of complex and pretty stupid rules and the zoroastrian priestly hierarchy was the best supporter of a very stratified and unfair system, close to the castes of India. Islam on the other hand preaches a message of equality inside the umma (it wasn't that good on reality, but that's another issue).
Zoroastrianism was, by no means, simple. But the lower classes were not supposed to understand it, their believes were closer to iranian paganism without most elements of zoroastrian complexity.
Anyways, centuries of islamic rule were needed to make Iran a muslim nation. And they still have a lot of zoroastrian festivities, disguised as national ones.
