| This article is of a series on |
| Criticism of religion |
|---|
By religious figure |
Bibliographies |
| Part ofa series on |
| Zoroastrianism |
|---|
 |
Divine entities |
 Religion portal |
Criticism of Zoroastrianism has taken place over many centuries not only from the adherents of other religions but also amongZoroastrians themselves seeking to reform the faith.
In the early 19th century, a Christian missionary based inBritish India,John Wilson, claimed thatZoroaster never had a genuine divine commission (or ever claimed such a role),[1] never performed miracles, or uttered prophecies and that the story of his life is "a mere tissue of comparatively modern fables and fiction."[2][3] Others assert that all the available Zoroastrian sources regarding Zoroaster only provide conflicting images about him,[4] especially between earlier and later sources.[5]
Jean Kellens criticized the Zoroastrian tradition regarding the history of theAvesta, describing it as insufficiently documented. He pointed to historians' statements about theMagi, stating that they did not have a holy book, in addition to the fact that writing was not widespread among theAchaemenids, and the scarcity of written documents. He added that recent research has proven that the Avesta was not written during theParthian Empire, and that the available manuscripts indicate that it was written during the Sassanian era. He pointed out that the Zoroastrian tradition regarding the composition of the Avesta dates back to its emergence as a competition withBuddhism,Manichaeism, andChristianity, which rely on their own holy books.[6]
TheDasatir-i-Asmani, while being accepted by Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India as genuine, especially by theKadmi, it is generally believed to be a forgery.[7]
Wilson argued that theAvesta could not be divinely inspired because much of its text was irrevocably lost or unintelligible[8][9] andMartin Haug, who greatly helped the Parsis of India to defend their religion against the attacks of such Christian missionaries as Wilson, considered theGathas to be the only texts and only authoritative scriptures that could be attributed to Zoroaster.[10]
John Wilson attacked the Zoroastrian reverence of theAmesha Spenta andYazatas as a form ofpolytheism, although the Parsis at the time immediately refuted this allegation and insisted that he had in fact addressed theBundahishn, a text whose relevance to their practice was remote.[11][12] Critics also commonly claim that Zoroastrians are worshipers of other deities and elements of nature, such asof fire—with one prayer, the Litany to the fire (Atesh Niyaesh),[13] stating: "I invite, I perform (the worship) of you, the Fire, O son of Ahura Mazdā together with all fires"—andMithra.[14]Jean Kellens says that Zoroastrianism as it appears in the ancient Avesta, should be defined as the belief in an unstable polytheism.[15]
Some critics have charged Zoroastrians with being followers ofdualism, who only claimed to be followers ofmonotheism in modern times to confront the powerful influence of Christian and Western thought which "hailed monotheism as the highest category of theology."[16] Critics insist that the monotheistic reformist view is seen to contradict the conservative (or traditional) view of a dualistic worldview most evident in the relationship betweenAhura Mazda andAngra Mainyu[17] arguing that Zoroastrians follow a belief system influenced byhenotheism. Other Western scholars such asMartin Haug, however, have dismissed the concept of theological dualism as a corruption of Zoroaster's original teachings, gradually added by later adherents of the faith.[18] Critics add that the fact that such differing views have proliferated is a sign of the enigmatic nature of the Zoroastrian beliefs regarding the divinity.[19]
Zoroastrian reformers, such asManeckji Nusserwanji Dhalla, have argued that literary precedence should be given to the Gathas, as a source of authority and textual authenticity. They have also deplored and criticized many Zoroastrian rituals (e.g. excessive ceremonialism and focus on purity,[20][21]using bull's urine for ritual cleansing,the attendance of a dog to gaze at the corpse during funerary rites, the exposure of corpseson towers [for consumption by vultures and ravens]")[22][23] and theological and cosmological doctrines as not befitting of the faith.[24] Thisorthodox versusreformist controversy rages even on the internet.[25]
Divisions and tensions also exist betweenIranian andIndian Zoroastrians and over such issues as the authority of ahereditary priesthood in the transmission and interpretation of the faith, ethnicity and the nature ofAhura Mazda.[26] Historically, differences also existed between the Zoroastrian branches ofZurvanism,Mazdakism andMazdaism.[27]
Soli Dastur, an member of the North American Mobid Council (NAMC), criticized the belief of the majority of the Zoroastrian community that all parts of the Avesta were written by Zoroaster, describing this belief as false, as evidenced by the difference in the language of writing, and considering the to be the only part of Gathas Zoroaster's writing.[28]
Cyrus Niknam,denies the existence ofa bridge and considers the idea to have come from other religions in theSassanian era and he considers it an invention of the authorBook of Arda Viraf.[29]
Dr.Ardeshir Khorshedian, the head of theMobidan Association of Tehran, described the idea ofSaoshyant as having been developed by the Zoroastrians and that the idea that Saoshyant is the promised one came from the Jews, but with the Islamic conquest of Persia the idea became more widespread among the Zoroastrians.[30]
Also Cyrus Niknam, aMobad, writer and researcher of ancient Iranian culture, says that the idea of a savior is a wrong interpretation by the priests of theSassanian era and that in reality there is no savior but rather a correct interpretation of the word Saoshyant is the useful from the sacred.[31]
Also Cyrus Niknam denies the existence of aChinvat bridge and considers the idea to have come from other religions in theSassanian era and e considers it an invention of the authorBook of Arda Viraf[32]
Much like the question ofwho is a Jew?, Zoroastrian identity, especially whether it is adopted through birth or belief (or both), "remains a cause for tension" within the community.[33][34] Reformers have criticised the orthodox refusal to accept religious converts as one reason for the communities' declining population.[35]
Zoroastrians have been criticized by Muslim authors for their rejection ofpredestination.[36][37] This follows a famoushadith ofMuhammad in which he negatively associates theQadariyah Islamic sect with theMagians.[38][39]
Zoroastrianism has been criticized for the perception that it promotes apatriarchal system, expressed through such avenues as an all-male priesthood.[40][41][42]