“The duty of every…”

In my considered opinion, religion is a matter of faith, belief, customs and traditions. To a believer, no explanation is necessary. To a non-believer, no explanation is possible. To debate upon or to argue upon a matter of religion or to scrutinize its historical truth or untruth tantamounts to an act of stupidity and not that of human intellect, as called upon by Jamsheed Kanga ("The duty of every Zoroastrian…” Parsiana, March 21, 2006).

The scriptural evidence provided today of our sacred Zend Avesta written some thousands of years ago, through the medium of translations by the so-called modern scholars, mainly of foreign origin and that of Christian background, can hardly be accepted as the "realm of truth” since each translation by each of these so-called scholars on the same matter is different and contradicts the translation presented by the other. This is mainly because these translations are based upon assumptions and presumptions as found prevalent in philology considered to be the science of languages. Unfortunately, this may be the reason why our own scholars have been unable to answer Kanga’s questions.

However, referring to this most ridiculous proposal of conversion by Kanga, I would like to present a wonderful story which appeared in the Reader’s Digest some years ago, alleged to be a true story of an incident that took place during the famous Gold Rush period in North America.

People from all over Europe and also some from other parts of the world who were the early migrants to North America were madly caught up in this Gold Fever.

People, by the thousands, were arriving in caravans, trying to explore gold mines and put their claims to it.

In one such convoy, there was a Chinese family facing great hardship due to lack of support from the other travellers and was totally isolated mainly because of their ethnic origin. The Christian missionaries, seeing this poor Chinese family suffering, came to their rescue. They offered free shelter, food, medical help and children’s education, provided the Chinese family converted to Christianity. Obviously, the Chinese family, having no other option, accepted the offer.

The missionaries laid down conditions which the Chinese family was expected to follow:

Thou shalt only believe in our Lord, Jesus Christ, and no other; thou shalt attend Sunday mass with your family; your children will attend Sunday school, etc.

The Chinese family accepted the conditions and agreed to live by them. Within a few weeks of this arrangement, the missionaries noticed that only a few members of the Chinese family were attending the Sunday Mass. After a few more days, the entire family was absent and even the children were conspicuous by their absence from the Sunday school.

Of course, to the benevolent Christian missionaries this was clearly a breach of trust and so they decided to pay a visit to the Chinaman and his family in the nice mobile caravan donated to them by the church.

The following conversation took place:

Missionaries: "What’s wrong, Mr Chinaman, why is your family not coming to the Sunday mass and your children not attending the Sunday school, as agreed?”

Chinaman: "No need, Masa (master). We have a beautiful photograph of our Lord Jesus Christ right over here; we have a cross and we have the holy Bible, so we all p(r)lay in our caravan and we teach our children from the holy Bible, the same as you do. So you see, Masa, no need to come anymore.”

Missionaries: "Be that as it may, but do you know what day it is today?”

Chinaman: "Yes, Masa, it is Flyday, today.”

Missionaries: "Rightly so, then why, as a Christian, are you eating a leg of pork, when today, you can only eat fish?”

Chinaman: "No, Masa, this is no pork, this is fish.”

Missionaries: "How dare you lie as a Christian! You promised only to speak the truth when you were converted to the Christian religion.”

Chinaman: "No, Masa, I no lie, I speak the truth – this is no pork, this is fish. You see, Masa, you put holy water on me and make me Christian, I put holy water on pork and make it fish.”

The moral of this story is that by merely putting on a sudreh and a kusti around a donkey, he does not become a Parsi Zoroastrian. No man is ever capable of changing or converting the origin of creation as constituted in nature. At best, he can mix, adulterate, contaminate, genetically manipulate or dilute the essence of the origin but can never convert because if he could do so, he would be considered as the creator and not the created.

Conversion is a myth and an illusion conceived in a profoundly arrogant and an ignorant mind. Please note there is no concept of conversion at all in the Mazdo-Aryan religion (Zoroastrianism). Nor is there any conversion in the Indo-Aryan religion (Hinduism). The concept of conversion only exists, if at all, in the three Semetic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Lord Jesus Christ was born a Jew and died a Jew. He had said, "I have come for the Jews.” Conversion to Christianity did not begin with Jesus but St Paul, the Apostle. Even Mo­hammad, the Prophet of Islam, told his followers to convert only people "not belonging to the Book” i.e. not having a religion. He specifically asked his followers not to persecute Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. The adoption of the concept of conversion in these three Semetic religions and race is mainly to facilitate and accommodate the shame and insult brought upon by the disgrace of inter-religious and inter-race marriages.

Inter-race and inter-religious marriages are not only forbidden in these three Semetic cultures, but in all religions and by all civilized races of our time.

The above fact becomes quite evident when those born into these three Semetic religions and race are not allowed to convert themselves into any other religion or race, as this is considered as apostasy — a cardinal crime and an unforgivable sin. In Islam, such an act is punishable by death. Just as one has no choice in determining the parents from whom one will take birth, one has no choice in determining the race or the religion in which one is born. Spiritual genetics and physical genetics are predetermined by nature, prior to birth upon this planet by the mechanics of creation and therefore, not convertible by any means of "conversion.”

One cannot challenge Kanga’s knowledge on matters of drainage and sewers since he was an ex-municipality officer but with respect, he is most certainly out of his depth on matters of religion — religious matters being matters into which he should steadfastly desist from meddling.

ERVAD DARIUS N. SETHNA

What provoked Ervad Nadirshah Un­valla to write "So what Alexander the Great or the Arabs could not do, Kanga tries to do – convert others to our holy religion” ("The duty of every…” Readers’ Forum, Parsiana, June 21, 2006)?” I therefore re-read Jamsheed Kanga’s article, "The duty of every Zoroastrian,” (Parsiana, March 21, 2006). Kanga’s article appears as a studied opinion and a serious attempt to understand rationale and a sincere search for scriptural facts. The rejoinder, one would have hoped from any learned or spiritual guide, would be a point wise reply to dispel doubts and elucidate equally clearly the scriptural exhortations and obligations. Sadly, instead, we get obfuscation and no direct scriptural fact to contradict Kanga’s clear assertions.

Kanga very clearly delineates the manner in which he has examined this contentious issue. He asks valid questions, begs scriptural references wherein Zarathushtra has forbidden conversion or even implied it – or if, on the contrary, he has in fact exhorted and enjoined all Zoroastrians to actively spread the Good Religion! Kanga begins by quoting, point wise, what he has gleaned from "old records” and at pertinent points later, clearly mentions the source/scholar quoted. Unvalla cruelly misquotes this by saying "he himself admits that… he has written his article from old records” effectively insinuating that Kanga has based his article on questionable material rather than solid scriptural texts. Quoted by Kanga are Dastur J. Minocherji Asa, Ervad (Dr) J. J. Modi (author of The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of Parsis), Dastur Peshotan Sanjana, Dr K. R. Cama (including two High Priests) – each one an erudite scholar, who give, along with their own justifications, a clear, categorical mandate as spelt out by our scriptures: not only should converts be acceptable, it is, indeed, the duty of a true Zoroastrian to thus spread the Zoroastrian religion! In reply to this not one scriptural text is quoted contradicting Kanga’s assertions. Unvalla only triumphs in the fact that the "so-called converts withdrew their case.”

Unvalla advises Kanga (now retired after completing his full term in the Indian Administrative Service) that "he should know that law is a two-sided blade” – not giving any elaboration as to which pertinent law quoted can be manipulated to whose disadvantage. Obfuscation, at best!

Unvalla proceeds by asking an upfront, clear question: Have any of the converts taken/given Bareshnoom? The answer, perhaps, maybe an equally clear ‘No.’ But is this the point at issue? In fact, it provokes another interesting question — Were the converts to ask for this Bareshnoom, is a priest within the spiritual tenets to perform one, to initiate and thereafter officially admit the convert into the community? (Certainly the Riyavats unequivocally advise us that it is permissible.)

And this is exactly what Kanga desires clarified. If there is no scriptural text to the contrary, nor is it a tradition of our Iranian ancestors, why are a motley few hell-bent on doing exactly the contrary – going absolutely against what the scripture specifically enjoins us to do? Kanga therefore desires an examination of our stand with regard to non-acceptance of converts in a sociological backdrop since the religion by itself clearly enunciates that it is indeed acceptable. It is, he argues, for the intelligent polity and persons of our community to then decide whether the guidance given is based truly on intelligent thought and deduction or, for that matter, whether at all it is in line with the prescribed religious tenets. If the belief is contrary to scriptural texts we have examined and mere vague pronouncements are being parroted, is for us to studiously and emphatically reject nonsense.

Unvalla’s last paragraph states, "No human being of the present age has got the power to amend the holy scriptures which are known as Sanatan Satya.” But he has not quoted one single line of the Sanatan Satya to refute what Kanga has succinctly served before us in his article. Furthermore, for that matter, not one amendment to any holy scripture is recommended in Kanga’s article. So to imply this motive to Kanga is at best reprehensible, and at worst, false.

My case is not that conversion should, or should not be acceptable. The thrust is towards stirring up the intelligent reading masses of our community, who, so far, for the sake of amity and harmony do not wish to disturb the existing order by questioning. Indeed if Zarathushtra were to have been so acquiescent in his time then there would have been no Zarathushtrian religion existing now which we so hope to serve. He dared to question the then existing order and religion, he dared to amend and he dared to strike down druj (the lie) as he saw it and thought fit. This last is to give comfort to those of us who wish to read, study and question – and not for us to be defensive against those who rant and rave against any individual study and the subsequent doubts and queries that are raised.

This logically leads me to reinforce the line of questioning Kersee Kabraji considers all through his article, "On what authority (Parsiana, June 7, 2006).” On what authority are fantastic religious tenets and assertions made? From the importance given in time and effort, it would seem conversion and dakh­menashini are the two facets primary to our religious tenets. From reading Kanga or Kabraji we find that, indeed, it is not at all any part of the religion! Why, then, are our elders not able to give a clear-cut direction on so many issues besetting us? What is the complication and hesitation on quoting scriptural tenets and obligations? Why are certain books quoted on some occasions but the inconvenient bits not followed? Ofttimes the silence can be deafening.

S. SUNAWALA

Bangalore