Know
About Us
Feedback
and Comments
Get
in touch
Subscribe
to JameJamshed
Advertise
Home
 |
The wait is over! After so long, two of our religious leaders have finally come forth (Acceptance / Conversion, Jame, 24 Feb 2008). Their very first point against the concept of acceptance / conversion into the Zoroastrian religion rests on the fact that there are no Avestan words 'to convert' or 'conversion' in the whole of the Avesta literature : "See K E Kanga's English - Avesta Dictionary", they helpfully suggest. Well, if such is their case against acceptance / conversion, then please refer to the same K E Kanga's English - Avesta Dictionary and you will not find mention of the word 'dakhmenashini' or 'dokhma' either! Should then therefore the system of dakhmenashini also not be observed? Skewed logic to say the least. Next point. "Importantly," they say, "there is no ritual referred to in Zoroastrian scriptures for admitting juddins (persons of other faiths) into the Zoroastrian religion." May I remind them that the whole ritual is explained - in detail - in the Rivayats. (The Rivayats constitute specific answers from Iran to specific questions of the Indian Parsis "for proper guidance in matters religious", between the 15th and 18th centuries). I quote Darab Hormuzyar's Rivayat brought out by M R Unvala : "If slave boys & girls have faith in the good religion then it is proper that the kusti should be tied, and when they become intelligent, attentive to religion, and steadfast, they should be given Bareshnum". Kamdin Shapur further explains how a female prisoner of war bought of another can be given a Bareshnum & then married! That, therefore, converts were indeed existing at all times in our past is established clearly: in Iran, as well as, India! In fact, answers as to how Bareshnum ought to be administered to one of foreign faith who has come into contact with 'nasa' & wishes to be purified is also given. And here's an absolute topper to quote : " Can a grave-digger, corpse bearer & a 'darvand' (one of foreign faith) become Behdins (i.e. be converted in the Mazdayasnian religion)?" The answer is clear & forthright: "If they observe the rules of the religion steadfastly & (keep) connection with the religion, and if no harm comes on the Behdins (thereby), it is proper and allowable"! (Lithographed edition of Hormazyar's , brought out by M R Unvala, quoted by Ervad B N Dhabhar in Persian Rivayats, pages 274-275, also giving reference in case to Vendidad's 8th Fargard). Case closed. This certainly sets as a lie that "during our one thousand years of history in India conversion / acceptance of non-Parsi / Irani persons has never been promoted or, indeed, implemented." Next point. As far as "exhibiting complete ignorance of Imperial Zoroastrian history", we can only pray : pray for at least common sense to prevail to all concerned if they cannot comprehend history. This was an age when a king would gather his army to attack & conquer neighbouring countries and through bloodshed & loss of lives, on both sides, he would establish rule over them. Then he, along with his loyal nobles & coterie, would command, guide and control the country's growth. In this situation, it seems completely within the scheme of history that the conquered peoples would either be entirely impressed by the new king's and people's customs, laws & religions and would mingle or even adopt their ways, culture & religion. As this natural sociological phenomenon plays out (as any historian will eagerly show to be proven amongst all situations of subjugation) it seems silly and illogical to expect that inter-marriage amongst the two people did not occur. On the other hand, to think that the conquering race remained for years and years to stay as a completely isolated race, surrounded by the locals on all sides, definitely strains common practical and historic sense. And if the later Achaemenian kings after Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes did not convert by sword, surely during the Sassanian period one has to admit forcible conversion was more a rule than an exception : their own inscriptions hewn in stone 1000-years-plus ago boast of it! Truly an exhibition of a complete & absolute ignorance of history! In an article where one expected solid facts --- whether historic or scriptural --- we read instead that "ethnic dilution or assimilation will not in any way strengthen the Zoroastrian faith… the reverse will happen, as it will weaken our community base". Our Good & Holy Prophet Zarathustra must surely wonder why & how the Good Religion he propagated whilst being called Good & Best by the Parsi community, can also be spoken of as a reason for weakening the community : surely wherever the Good Religion goes a community can only be better strengthened. A sad regrettable comment by two learned High Priests. As for the complete absence of any scriptural reference whatsoever being quoted in the comments by the High Priests, one could not agree more with the Editor's own observation, "We are disappointed that two learned High Priests have not provided any scriptural references to justify the advice they have given." Perhaps there is none to quote. |
