A tradition of acceptance - III

Ancient and modern opinions

Most, if not all high priests in India have expressed the opinion that conversion is forbidden by the religion. But the fact that they say so, does not make it so. They have to cite chapter and verse, and this, to date, they have not been able to do — not a single ancient text, prayer, law or tradition.

A corollary to the practice of non-acceptance is the treatment of Zoroastrian women who have married non-Zoroastrians. According to the high priests of India, they are no longer considered Zoroastrians, cannot enter a fire temple and their children cannot be admitted to the religion. In support of this practice, some priests have cited Chapter 18, verse 62 of the Vendidad which (according to them) "prohibits union between a Mazdayasni and non-Mazdayasni [as per Dastur (Dr) Firoze Kotwal’s letter to the Bombay Parsi Punchayet (BPP) regarding the late Roxan Shah in 1990].” However, this verse of the Vendidad which is in the Younger Avestan language, does not refer to interfaith marriages at all. Verses 61 and 62 state that Mazda is caused grief by a courtesan (jahi), regardless of whether she sleeps with a Mazda worshipper or with one who is not a Mazda worshipper (Darmesteter’s translation). The Pahlavi translation of the Vendidad, in its commentary on the verse, translates the word ‘jahe’ as adulteress (Behramgore Anklesaria’s translation). An adulteress is a married woman who sleeps with someone who is not her husband. And the Pahlavi version likewise condemns the act, regardless of whether she sleeps with a Mazda worshipper or with one who is not a Mazda worshipper. So this verse has nothing to do with interfaith marriages. It speaks against prostitution (according to the Avestan text) and against adultery (according to the Pahlavi commentary).

The Council of Mobeds of Tehran has expressed a very different opinion from that of the high priests of India. In the early 1980s an American, Joseph Peterson, after long study, first by himself and then under a Zoroastrian priest, concluded that he wanted to become a Zoroastrian and wished to have his navjote done. An Iranian mobed, Behram Shahzadi of the US wrote to the Tehran Council requesting guidance. In an official written opinion (No. 466 issued in May 1983) the Council states (in English translation): "Let us glimpse through Zoroastrian scriptures and find an answer.”

After quoting from the Gathas the opinion notes: "The above stanzas show that Asho Zarathushtra does not advocate force to spread the religion, but has kept it open for all…He has never reserved it for the Aryans or for a particular caste of people. Yasna 46.12 shows that the religion had spread into the Turanian lands during Asho Zarathush­tra’s lifetime. Because he praises Friyana, a Turanian chief who supported Mazdayasna.”

After citing later texts it concludes: "The above citations show that the propagation and promotion of the religion is a meritorious deed…If we Zoroastrians believe that our religion is one of the great living religions of the world and that it is beneficial to all the people of the world, we…must accept persons who want to embrace the Zoroastrian religion.”

The opinion also cites the ancient text called the Aerpatastan and Niran­gastan which takes for granted the right of a non-Zoroastrian to convert to Zoroastrianism and focuses on prohibiting forced conversions. It states that a man who converts to the Zoroastrian religion should not force his wife to convert. He should not strike her, or stop supporting her or "forsake her treacherously,” nor does she "pass from the condition of being his wife” because she refuses to convert (S. J. Bulsara’s translation).

On various occasions over several centuries Zoroastrian priests in India sent emissaries to the Zoroastrian mobeds of Iran to get answers to their questions. These written questions and answers are preserved in texts called the Rivayets. In 1478 Nariman Hoshang brought back the opinion that slave boys and girls in Zoroastrian houses in India could be initiated into the religion with sudreh and kusti, and when they became intelligent, attentive and steadfast, should be given barashnum, the cleansing ritual. In 1599 the Kaus Mahyar Rivayat gave the opinion that even non-Zoroastrians who perform burials and cremations should be allowed into the religion provided they were steadfast and occasioned no harm to the faith.

Finally there is the Itthoter Rivayet of 1773. Here 78 questions were prepared by the priests of Broach and Surat answered by nine Iranian dasturs and nine religiously versed behdins. The question whether the remains of deceased servants who had been converted to Zoroastrianism could be placed in the dakhma received a unanimous affirmative. They also state regarding refusal to convert servant boys and girls: "We have heard… that several dasturs, mobeds and behdins across most of the country (Hindustan) stand in the way…and have agreed not to teach those youngsters the Avesta and not to convert them to the din-i beh-i Mazdayasnan. This is unreasonable and alien to the tradition. …In the second fargard of the Jud-div-dad (Vendidad) the Creator of the righteous material world has ordered the honorable Zaratusht Esfantaman anushe-ravan to lead all men to the din-i beh-i, to the main path, to edify His joy, His glory and His honor…those who hinder this and are against it are not even aware of the origin and of the other world (Vitalone and Ervad Shehryarji Bharucha translations).”

One can only feel deep respect, admiration and affection for these nine dasturs and nine behdins of 18th century Iran, who lived with severe persecution, and yet signed their names to this document expressing opinions which could have earned them death, but which were nevertheless true to the teachings of Zarathushtra and the traditions of the religion.

Ancient traditions, laws and practices

We all cherish the many things that give us a sense of community identity. But the things that generate this feeling of ‘community’ are shared experiences and a state of mind.

One has only to look around a room full of Parsis to appreciate that we could not possibly have come from one racial stock. In skin color, height, hair, bone structure and physiognomy we are too diverse. The same racial diversity is apparent in the friezes at Persepolis and Susa, and hundreds of years after Zarathushtra, in the proselytizing traditions of the Aerpatastan and Nirangastan where it is written: "When a slave professing any other creed comes over to the Good Religion he then becomes a direct subject of the King of Kings who shall give his price… (Bulsara’s translation).” In those (post-Achaemenian) days, slaves were often people from other nations who were not Iranian.

While the Shahnameh may be more legend than history, some of our most famous ancestral heroes were children of ‘mixed’ marriages like the saintly warrior King KaiKhosrov and Rustom, the quintessential Persian champion. Those who favor exclusionary rules argue that such rules have always been a part of our tradition. If this were true, then King KaiKhosrov and Rustom (among others) would not have belonged to the community of our ancestors.

It is interesting, is it not, that we have used this man-made custom of non-acceptance as a survival mechanism, but, being contrary to Mazda’s teachings, it is not helping us to survive — not as a community, and not as a religion. The late and much beloved Dastur N. D. Minochehr-Homji of Bombay once said in his Chicago lectures: A person who withholds the light from others will be the first to stumble in the dark.

Our religion is exquisitely in tune with the wonders of our universe, and with the quest for truth which motivates scientific discoveries. It integrates the spiritual, the mental and the material components of our existence in a way that satisfies our minds, our hearts and our souls.

We need to rediscover the teachings of our religion ­­— not just on the issue of conversion, but in all its beauty and glory and fulfillment. If we do, survival will not be a problem. The choice is ours.

Edited and abridged from the speech by Dina McIntyre at the Homi J.H.Taleyarkhan Hall, Bombay, on February 10, 2007.