Posted on 12/22/2011 6:43:15 AM PST by Cronos
Some Middle Eastern governments often use religion as a tool to attack their opponents. In Turkey, the authorities have for long tried to portray the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) as non-Muslims in order to delegitimize their movement among Muslim Kurds and Turks.
Charging the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) and the PKK with promoting Zoroastrianism is yet another campaign by Turkey against the Kurdish rebel group.
The idea that Kurds are actually Zoroastrians is not something new. Kurdish nationalists such as the Bedirkhan brothers tried to revive Zoroastrianism and Yezidism as the original religion of the Kurds in the 1920s and 1930s. By this the Bedirkhans aimed to separate the Kurds from their Muslim neighbors and give them a glorious pre-Islamic history that had once boasted many empires.
They did not emphasize much on the Kurdish Islamic warrior Salahadin al-Ayyubi that rallied the Muslims against the crusaders in the twelfth century. Similarly, Turkish nationalists tried to promote Shamanism as the original religion of the Turks. But despite these efforts, Islam remained an important element among Kurdish nationalist movements.
It is unlikely that Yezidis are originally Zoroastrians. The Zoroastrian religion is a dualist religion (with good and evil constantly fighting each other), while the Yezidi faith revolves more around a single deity as the Satan.
>Therefore it is possible that the Zoroastrians would regard the Yezidis as devil-worshippers, just as some Muslims do.
There are still many Kurds (especially in Europe) who think Kurds are originally Zoroastrians and wear Zoroastrian symbols, even though they are non-religious and do not have much knowledge about Zoroastrianism and its rituals.
The PKK was particularly influenced by the ideas of early Kurdish nationalists. Its media promoted the idea that Kurds are originally Zoroastrians. Other Kurdish political groups also came under the same influence.
But in 1991 the PKK took a positive approach about Islam and thus managed to win some sympathy. Some say the PKK tried to merge Kurdish nationalism and Islam for its own cause.
In recent years the PKK has also used Imams, Friday prayers and Islamic language as a means to compete with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP0. In return, the Turkish government is said to have plans to recruit 1000 Kurdish Imams in its battle to win the hearts and minds of the Kurdish people.
The Turkish government and its media always depicted the PKK as non-Muslims ever since the rebel group’s foundation. But they never accused it of promoting Zoroastrianism. The use of religion has turned more serious in the recent years in Turkey. However, following the military coup in 1980 the military took an interest in promoting a mix of Islam and Turkish nationalism.
Before 2002 the PKK had almost never been associated with Zoroastrianism by the Turkish media and authorities. So the idea surfaced when the pro-PKK newspaper Ülkede Özgür Gündem published a survey in 2006 that said PKK rebels in the Qandil Mountains preferred Zoroaster and Jesus to Mohammed as their prophet.
The Turkish government didn’t miss a chance to use the findings of the survey against the PKK, especially during the elections of June 2011.
In 2011, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said, “the Kurds at Imrali are Zoroastrians. But I know that my Kurdish brothers and sisters will say they are Muslims.”
One can say that the Turkish government uses this new language of religion that emerged in 2006 to weaken the PKK’s image in the eyes of people. Since both the PKK and Turkey have started to use religion to gain popular support, it is likely that the PKK will expand its Islamic discourse to maintain the support of the oft-religious Kurdish population in Turkey.
The PKK will certainly not lose its secular and socialist outlook. It may only try to embrace more Islamic Kurds in the future. This move is also influenced by the success of political Islamic movements in the region.
It's a pity this is not pushed further. The Turkish nationalists in the 20s wanted to promote shamanism to kick out islam and the Egyptians in the late 1800s were involved in pharoanism..
It should also be noted that in the evolution of Persia, the Arabic Muslim invasion displaced Zoroastrianism, but because the Indo-European Persians intensely disliked Arabs and their culture, they embraced the Shiite version of Islam, so they would be Muslim, but “not like those guys”, the Arabs.
And the Persian upper classes rejected all of it, remaining Zoroastrian to spite the Shiite lower classes as well as the Sunni Arabs. And thus it remained until the fall of the Shah, when the Shiites took over and eventually displaced the Zoroastrians.
Even at the time of the Iran-Iraq war, there were still Zoroastrians in the military command, but the Shiites replaced them with incompetent, but loyal to the Mullahs, Shiites, who proceeded to butcher vast numbers of Iranians, stupidly, by using them as cannon fodder against the Iraqis.
The Kurds were the Medes.
The Medes had an Ancient Iranian Religion (a form of pre-Zoroastrian Mazdaism or Mithra worshipping) with a priesthood named as “Magi”. Later and during the reigns of last Median kings the reforms of Zarathustra spread in western Iran.
LONG before there was an Iran. Why they stated it this way is misleading.
Of note is the Zoroastrian tenet of not accepting converts. It’s also curious they use the term “dualistic” to describe Zoroastrians but not Christians. A true monotheistic religion would have a god which is capable of both good and evil, not a singularly good god and a singularly evil being.
well, Iran has existed. It is a derivation of the term Arya or “aryan” which means “noble one” which is what was used by primitive Aryanic peoples. That is the root of the word Eire and even “iron” and the ancient Alans (modern day Ossetians)
odds could explain that better than I could
Shed this: The Kurdish Terrorism-and-Drugs Connection
Yes, I know, but the modern Iran is a fairly recent construct. The Medes and Persians were Aryan.
You wrote:
“And thus it remained until the fall of the Shah, when the Shiites took over and eventually displaced the Zoroastrians.”
The Zoroastrians have been of little influence in Iran for the last few centuries actually. Muslims displaced them a long time ago. The “upper classes” by the way were among the first to convert. See Ricahrd W. Bulliet’s, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (1979). Look especially at page 59.
There is Absolutely Nothing "in the Zoroastrian tenet" that says or even suggests "not accepting converts". Most would know, Iranians (Persians or Kurds) weren't always Zoroastrians - they converted to Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster, himself, was, in fact, quite evangelical in his approach to converting others to Zoroastrianism.
There is a small community of Parsees (A Zoroastrian community in India), the Orthodox ones of which don't believe in conversion to Zoroastrianism, not based on any Zoroastrian tenets or theology. But, their stance is based around 2 main historical issues.
1. When these Parsees escaped to India from Iran (Persia), post-Arab-Islam invasion of Iran, when they were being killed & persecuted, a condition of entry to India & being allowed to live there was they should not proselytize.
2. Post-Islam-Arab invasion, it was found out that moslems used the practice of Al-Taqqiyah (dissimulation), pretending to be Zoroastrians, only to infiltrate Zoroastrian communities in order to wreak havoc & more..
Consequently, conversion to Zoroastrianism was temporarily discontinued. However, some *Orthodox* Parsees still stick to the old practice, as a continuation of historical conditions/necessities.
Zoroastrians in Iran & others worldwide do not disallow conversion to Zoroastrianism. In fact, it is very much encouraged, BUT, with caution, and after a non-Zoroastrian has thoroughly studied, understands & genuinely accepts all tenets & teachings of the faith, particularly has fully read the Gatha (and other parts of the Avesta), as guided by a qualified Zoroastrian priest (mobed).
It’s also curious they use the term “dualistic” to describe Zoroastrians but not Christians.
Those who loosely use the term "dualistic" to describe Zoroastrianism, are uninformed or want to be deliberately misleading. It is akin to saying Zoroastrians are Fire-worshippers, which many moslems & non-moslems think as well. Relevant questions to ask of these people would be: Are Christians Cross-worshippers? Do Jews worship the Tree of Life or the Star of David instead of Yeheva? Are moslems Rock-worshippers (referring to the Ka'ba in Mecca)?
Besides, they don't refer to Christianity as "dualistic", but moslems do not accept Christian Trinity, nor do they accept Jesus being the Son of God.
A true monotheistic religion would have a god which is capable of both good and evil, not a singularly good god and a singularly evil being.
Zoroastrianism is known and considered by those who are informed about the faith, as the oldest Monotheistic religion. It means that Zoroastrians do not worship any object or any other "God" except Ahura Mazda. Ahura means "The Lord Creator", and Mazda means "Supremely Wise".
Ahura Mazda Only does Good & represents Goodness, not Evil. Therefore, Zoroastrians are always encouraged to have Good Thoughts, Good Words & Good Deeds. Zoroastrians know & believe that Evil does exist & we must avoid it and/or fight it if necessary in all its forms (Satan in Christianity & Shaytan in Islam are personification of Evil). To a Zoroastrian it is utterly incredulous & illogical that God would even do evil! To them it would not be a God worth worshipping or following.
The dualism of Good & Evil is also as much about choices that peoples make in life, as the fact that everything has its opposite, e.g. day/night, chaos/order, lie/truth, health/illness, optimism/pessimism, winter/summer, and so on.
A very Basic Overview of Zoroastrianism & Its Concepts
As for the main article, it is quite UNsurprising that the muzzie Turks should use religion as a tool for their political attack on PKK to discredit them. Again, many would know the Turks as well as the Mullahs' Regime in Iran hate the Kurds & PKK in particular.
I was doing continued research some years ago and found one of the Zoroastrian websites and found much of the information I put in my post. From a historian’s viewpoint I developed a great respect for that religion to the point of considered conversion until I came across that prohibition. From a theological and spiritual standpoint, it makes sense. If one chooses to engage in the conflict between good and evil, it may as well be with the original.
I seek no disagreement with you regarding this religion. Again, I have the greatest respect and personally consider Zoroastrianism to be proto-Christianity, taking gnosticism and Essenaic belief into account and the single most redefining influence on Judaism.
It was during the period of Babylonian captivity that Hebrews transitioned from animistic and Earth-based worship to a more Messianic with an after-life consideration beyond Sheol.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
You’re very welcome.
If you are still interested in doing research on Zoroastrianism, I very much recommend exploring this website http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/ - it is well-researched and written by a Parsee Zoroastrian in India, but he also takes into account the Global Zoroastrian community rather than simply the one in India. The website is also continuously updated. You can also email him. Btw, my mother is an Iranian-Zoroastrian, though my father is a European Christian by birth. So I do speak from personal experience regarding Zoroastrianism as well.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah!
Right, but not in senior command ranks. Even during the Iran-Iraq war the Zoroastrians were only permitted to carry guns under Shi'ite supervision, and were disarmed out of battle.
After & since the Arab-Islam invasion of Iran, in the the 7th century AD, Zoroastrian-Iranians have only been able to hold top military ranks during the Shah (Pahlavi) era.
The “upper classes” by the way were among the first to convert (to Islam).
Correct. Most converted to save their properties, livelihood & avoid maiming & genocide committed against them, firstly, by moslem-Arabs & then by Iranians converts to Islam.
I’d have to disagree with this source, as I knew an Iranian girl, whose family is Zoroastrian, whose father was an Iran-Iraq war hero, and commander of an artillery brigade.
Her life was saved after she became gravely ill, and was refused treatment in a Shiite hospital. Her father, who was on maneuvers in the area, found out and ordered his unit to the outskirts of the city, which attracted a lot of attention.
He then showed up at the hospital to demand her treatment, which was refused. So he got a group of administrators and doctors together and told them that if his daughter died, his unit would destroy the hospital with them inside it.
And, she remarked, he meant it. As expected, the Shiites backed down, and after three days of treatment, she recovered. But at that point it was decided that it was time for their entire family to emigrate.
The bottom line was that while the top command of Zoroastrians had been purged and replaced, there were still many subordinate commanders too valuable or too respected by their units to replace.
I might also add that the statement that the Zoroastrian upper classes in Iran quickly converted to Islam, is also flawed, at least in part, because Zoroastrians have practices that tend to accumulate productive wealth, but while Muslims can become wealthy, they tend to squander it on ostentation and it rarely survives generations, except among the wiser few.
Well, “the commander of an artillery brigade” is not a high ranking military position & during Iran-Iraq war had to be a Shi’ite. If Zoroastrian, had to be under a superior who was a Shi’ite.
Zoroastrians were disarmed when out of battle or kept under supervision - that was the official mullahs’ position. I personally know Iranians who fought during Iran-Iraq war, who were Zoroastrians. As I said before in #13 my mother is a Zoroastrian-Iranian, and I have relatives in Iran who did fight during Iran-Iraq war.
What you were told, I suspect is either inflated, a misrepresentation of facts, or simply half a story (though the hospital & treatment story may well be true, but that’s something else & a different story).
Zoroastrians, even those who fought for Iran (not the Mullahs) do not officially have much say or sway in the military or gov’t positions under Mullahs’ regime. What Zoroastrians do have in IRI is a lot of platitude & window-dressing. It was a different story under the Shah.
However, the Mullahs’ regime did raise a very large faravahr in the honor of those Zoroastrians who fought for Iran during Iran-Iraq war.
On your other point, I don’t recall reading any one saying “the Zoroastrian upper classes in Iran *quickly* converted to Islam,” - Not Quickly. But, Iranians did convert to Islam, mainly, for those reasons mentioned in #14.
Also, you may be interested to know that for the past 10 yrs, the mullahs’ regime (IRI) has been trying to convert Zoroastrians in Iran to Islam by other methods. Namely about wealth, cumulative or otherwise, thru Inheritance Laws. It means, if a Zoroastrian converts to Islam then that person will be first in line to inherit any property, etc.. from the family, regardless of their Will.
Talk about a golden opportunity, eh? :’) Thanks Cronos.
Kurds, like many in the region were Zoroastrian many years ago. PKK is a sect with socialistic/communistic and to a lesser degree Islamic roots initially supported and financed by KGB.
>>>”Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan”<<<
Erdogan et al in Turkey are moslems (and Islamists) who are and were supported by the USA, and one of its money purse, fav ally, S. Arabia. The USA should not continue to spread Islamism across the world - no need then to lecture us about one or five “moderate” moslems of absolutely no consequence. As it stands the USA is the one to watch out for, for spreading Islamism around the globe. Every so often, portrayed as ‘moderates’ here on FR & by the US media. Last I heard, Fox is funded by the Saudis too.
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.