Posted on 04/14/2016 4:02:54 AM PDT by Cronos
When Parsi Zoroastrians, having fled Persian persecution, arrived on Indian soil sometime between the 8th and 10th centuries, the story goes, an Indian ruler sent a cup full of milk. The intention, clearly, was to convey that India was filled to the brim. The Zoroastrian king inserted either sugar—or in some tellings, a ring—and sent the cup back to suggest that not only was there room for his people, but they would also enrich Indian society if permitted to settle.
Certain restrictions curbed the private and communal lives of the Zoroastrian asylum seekers, but they were largely allowed to thrive in India. Roughly a dozen centuries later, many Parsis have settled in the diaspora, where they’re encountering a different challenge: assimilation and a not-too-distant scenario in which, some worry, there will be no Zoroastrians left in the world. Sugar has a tendency to dissolve in milk.
..Unlike, say, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Zoroastrianism calls for individual rather than communal worship services in its houses of worship, called fire temples, and it prescribes “good thoughts, good words, good deeds” rather than the plethora of positive and negative rules that govern other religious traditions. Zoroastrianism does have holidays and rituals, and adherents go through an initiation rite, which some people compare to a bar or bat mitzvah, called “navjote.” Although it might appear to outsiders as though fire is worshipped in the temples, Zoroastrians say that fire is a symbol of the divine, due to its warmth and light, rather than the divinity itself. Parsis, the descendants of the Zoroastrians who fled Iran for India, represent the largest portion of the Zoroastrian population globally; the other portion lives in Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
So??? Anyone who comes to our shores wishing to do good and enrich our society is welcomed. Gimmedats and terrorists wishing to destroy are not.
“When Parsi Zoroastrians, having fled Persian persecution, arrived on Indian soil sometime between the 8th and 10th centuries...”
Persian persecution? Why would Persians - who were Zoroastrians - be persecuting Zoroastrians???
Come on, you gutless cowards, it was MUSLIMS! They were Arab MUSLIMS who were persecuting the Zoroastrians.
You can’t say “Islam” or “Muslim” in reference to anything bad, even if it is true. It is like the name that cannot be spoken - Voldemort.
Those are the PC liberal house rules.
“Come on, you gutless cowards, it was MUSLIMS! They were Arab MUSLIMS who were persecuting the Zoroastrians.”
Exactly correct. Political correctness now requires that we rewrite history to make Muslims to be innocent bearers of goodness and civilization, rather than rapists and conquerors who converted with sword and fire.
Murray Head:
There’s a god in every golden cloister...
And if you’re lucky then the god’s a she...
Ahab, the White Whale hater was a follower of Zoroastor, having been brought into the religion by his hidden harpooners on his ship.
His Persian harpooner was the one who “beckoned” them on after becoming entangled in the harpoon ropes.
In the book, not the 1956 movie.
Background Zoroastrian culture’s the only force strong enough to save Iran from the evils of Islam... or maybe just flat out save Iran...
“Correct except that Persians are not Arabs”
They were not Persians. They were Arabs who were in charge in Persia after the Muslim conquest. This is true again after the Islamic Revolution in Iran: The Supreme Leader of Iran is expected to NOT be a Persian with only roots in Persian ancestry. He is expected to be a descendant of Muhammad, a “Sayyid” - hence the black turban as opposed to the blue or white. All of that means he would be an Arab in ancestry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid#Sayyids_in_Iran
It sounds like you are versed on this. The reason I responded as I did was because of the Iranians I went to prep school with in 1979. They were secular Muslims, basically non-practicing. Some were okay, most of the males did not do anything except smoke hashish. Those guys hated America. They REALLY hated black people, but that’s another story.
Anyway, a number of them made it clear that they were NOT Arabs, that they were persians. Skin tone was a bit different face shape was different. But I don’t know. From what you describe it reminds me of those Mexicans who insist they are 100% Spanish.
“From what you describe it reminds me of those Mexicans who insist they are 100% Spanish.”
Yep. And most Persians will say they are Persians. Some might say they have some Arab ancestors. This “I’m really an Arab” thing is taken to an extreme in Pakistan where the population has been taught that they are descendant from Arab Muslims and not ethically/racially the same as Indians (which is the actual truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Xqy_sHVWE
Aside from religious / sectarian differences, the persecution was also very much tied to differences in race/ethnicity, history, language, literature, culture, and ultimately, self-perception based on all the aforementioned.
The Iranians in the Arab world have been known as "Ajami" (derogatory) because of the different language they spoke / speak. And, how they revived it to be the national language once again, after 2 centuries of being forced to speak Arabic soon after they were conquered.
The same goes for the Kurds. The Kurds by majority are Sunni like most Arabs, but do Not identify themselves as Arabs; they know they are ethnically Iranic. A significantly contributing factor to their persecution even during Saddam's secular rule. As well as a reason the Turks, as a rule, don't like them.
"From what you describe it reminds me of those Mexicans who insist they are 100% Spanish."
I see what you mean; your comparison is interesting.
Though Mexico and Spain share the same language, mostly same racial background (not counting indigenous people in Mexico before the Spanish conquest), and are both predominantly Catholic.
The Mexicans who want to be perceived as Spanish are the ones typically in the USA, where 'Mexican' does not necessarily have positive connotations compared to being "Spanish".
Iran's "indigenous" population, however, has always been Iranian, with different ethnic (Iranian) groups - Persians being the largest ethnic group, followed by Azari (Iranian), as the second largest one.
The Iranian-Arabs (who live in Iran) are overall an ETHNIC minority. But they are also linguistically, religiously, and culturally, much more Iranian than 'Arab'. From what you describe it reminds me of those Mexicans who insist they are 100% Spanish.
"The Supreme Leader of Iran is expected to NOT be a Persian with only roots in Persian ancestry. He is expected to be a descendant of Muhammad, a “Sayyid” - hence the black turban as opposed to the blue or white."
Spot on!
Might add the current Supreme Leader is ethnically an Iranian-Azari. Not to criticize Azaris; just a fact --- btw, I've never seen a mullah wear a blue turban :-) - only black (Seyyed) and white (for not).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.