PDA

View Full Version : Zoroastrianism Information



Saif ad-Dhib
2009-10-23, 17:12
"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith." - Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979, p. 1)

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence.... - Mary Boyce, Op. Cit. p. 29.
-----
http://www.avesta.org/
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Zoroastrianism/index.html
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Zoroastrianism/

Nephilim
2009-11-20, 05:28
The religion of Zoraster was original monothestic in the start. In fact its belived to be the first monothestic religion to appear. It also had concept of heavean and Hell. Zoraster began to recive revelations from God from the age of 30 and he began to preach to the locals, but they did not listen. Thus one of the kings did. However by the time of the Sassanids fireworship and dualism became important aspect of the religion. The battle of between good Ahur Mazda and evil Ahiraman the evil, light and darkness.

Zorasterians also belive that those who end up in hell will become purified and will enter into heavean.

Servia
2009-11-20, 07:02
You muslims should convert to zoroastrism imo! :p

It's better and more peaceful than islam.

Zarathustra was his real name* And he lived in modern day Turkmenistan then under Persian influence.

kiwimac
2010-06-15, 18:55
I recently penned an article on Zoroastrianism. I consider that it is germane to this discussion. If the mods / admins feel it is not please free to move / delete.

What is Zoroastrianism?

Simply put, Zoroastrianism is the name given to the religion and beliefs based on the teachings which are attributed to the Persian religious leader Zararthushtra ( in Greek Zoroaster, in later Persian Zartosht). Mazdayasna (worship of Ahura Mazda) is the name of the religion that recognizes the divine authority of Ahura Mazda, the creator who Zarathushtra discovered by studying nature and who was proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God). "Mazdaism" is a transliteration of Mazdayasna, which means " Worshipper of Mazda."

Most followers of Ahura Mazda call themselves Zoroastrians or Behdini (followers of
the Good Religion.)

Who was Zoroaster?

Zoroaster is generally accepted as an historical figure, but dating just when Zoroaster lived is fraught with difficulty. The most widely accepted calculations place him near to 1200 BCE thus making him a candidate for the 'founder of the earliest religion based on revealed scripture' while there are other estimates that date his life anywhere between the 18th and the 6th centuries BCE.

The Gathas and the chapter known as Yasna Haptanghaiti are all written in Old Avestan and the language used in these passages is much older than the language used in other parts of the Zoroastrian writings which are called the Avesta and which are written in what is called Young Avestan.

Old Avestan and Vedic Sanskrit are both descendants of the Proto-Indo-Iranian language and the Gathic Old Avestan is still quite close in structure to the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda in language usage. However the Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda is somewhat more conservative in outlook and structure than the Avestan of the Gathas and so, based on the changes in the languages, scholars date the Gathas to around 1000 BCE, give or take a couple of centuries.

** But note also that the issue lies with how old is the Rig Veda, which no one seems to know with anything approximating certainty. There are also those who think the Gathas are older than the Rig Veda, Dastur Dhalla, and some other linguists see the Gaathic language as more complex and archaic. Most of what we know about Zoroaster comes to us from a variety of sources, the Avesta, the Gathas, Greek historical works, archaeological evidence and oral history.

Zoroaster was born on the cusp of history, at a time when societies were shifting from being mainly nomadic to a more settled agrarian lifestyle. He lived in an area of the Middle East then known as Chorasmia ( An area roughly occupying present day Northern Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) He was married, he had three daughters and three sons and it was at 30 that he received enlightenment. He preached for many years before his wife and children converted with the first convert being a cousin. These statements are all based on legends that have been woven in traditions.

They probably contain some truths and facts, but there is no way of ascertaining them and thus cannot be taken as historical. The later Avestan writings make Zoroaster a kind of 'superman', wrestling with demons and being tempted by Ahriman. The Gathas, however, show him an ordinary mortal, perplexed by his call, utterly certain of Ahura Mazda and bewildered by his lack of success. Eventually he converted King Vistaspa who reigned in eastern Iran and with the king's conversion, Zoroastrianism became a force in the region and there, as well in India among the Parsees, it still survives.

Who is Ahura Mazda?

For Zoroastrians, God (called Ahura Mazda) , is the beginning and the end,the creator of everything visible and invisible. Although it is recognized that the concept of "God", like many others, is slightly different in Zarathushtrian thought.

Zarathushtra might best be considered, if we are to use modern terms to describe his doctrines, a Panentheist, that is he perceives a Supreme Being Thus this Creator is immanent in Creation but also transcends it. In fact as has been said one can see Mazda Ahura as containing creation in a way.

Moreover, the very concept of Lordship and Sovereignty are different, Ahura which is often translated as lord was the name of a set of old arya Gods which were totally abstract lacking any form, they can best considered as energy since they have no body, yet they are personal. In addition Mazda does not into impose Her/His will but rather teachs, persuades etc. Thus Mazda's relationship with mortals is one of a partner, an ally, a friend and even a soul mate ) This being who is source of all that exists. The name Ahura Mazda contains both masculine and feminine elements. (Ahura, the Lord, is masculine while Mazda, Most or Super Wise or Knowledgeable, and Most or Super Giving or Generous One, is feminine.)

Ahura Mazda, according to Zoroastrian belief, is the Eternal, the Pure and the only Truth. In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts in Zoroastrianism and which are considered to have been written by Zoroaster himself, the teacher gives devotion to no other divinity besides Ahura Mazda.

What are the Gathas?

The Gathas are considered scripture and are written in an ancient Indo-Iranian verse form. Gatha means 'Song.' There are 17 Gathic hymns, they exist both on their own and as part of the much larger Avesta. They are the earliest of the Zoroastrian writings. What about Dualism? Perhaps the most well-known of later Zoroastrian doctrines is the doctrine of Dualism or Ditheism. This posits that Ahura Mazda has two 'emanations' called Spenta Mainyu (Good Mind) and Angra Mainyu (Bad or Evil Mind.) These became in later Zoroastrian belief Ormazd and Ahriman.

This doctrine, however, is purely a product of later thought. In Zoroaster's revelation,there is only Ahura Mazda who will ultimately triumph over the 'lie'(Yasna 48.1.) But not here and not now. For now human beings must choose which of the two 'forces' they will serve, Truth or the Lie, this choosing is a life-long affair but righteousness begins by making the first choice for Ahura Mazda and for the Truth.

Quote:"…Listen to the best things with your ears, reflect upon them with an unbiased mind. Then let each man and women for him or her self choose between the two ways of thinking. Awaken to my doctrine, before this great event of choice comes upon you…" [Avesta: The Gathas: Song 3:2 (FreeTranslation)]

What about Converts?

There are two main groups who can be considered 'cultural' Zoroastrians, they are the Zoroastrian community in Iran and the Parsee community in India. The Parsees (refugees in India from the invasion of Iran by the Muslims) do not allow conversion at all. The Iranian community does but quietly and carefully for conversion from Islam is considered a crime in Iran.

But as well as these groups there are groups of 'Gathas-only' Zoroastrian converts by choice springing up throughout the world with the major centres for such groups being the US and South America. So it is indeed possible to convert to
Zoroastrianism.

See also the article at: <url>http://tinyurl.com/svs5k </url>

What does Zoroastrianism teach?

This part of the article I have struggled with, the teachings of Zoroastrianism are deep and wide but I think the following quote from:
<url>http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/universal_religion.html</url> is perhaps the best definition I have read.

Quote:"… Zarathushtra's is a message about a spirituality that progresses towards self-realization, fulfillment and completeness, as a good creation of a totally good God.

It is a message of freedom - freedom to choose, freedom from fear, freedom from guilt, freedom from sin, freedom from stultifying rituals, superstitious practices, fake spirituality and ceremonials. The God of Zarathustra, is not a God of "Thou shalt" and "Thou shall not".

God in Zoroastrianism does not care what you wear, what and when you eat or where and when you worship. God instead cares how righteous, progressive and good you are.

1. God is not about fear, guilt and Condemnation.
2. God is Wisdom Love and Logic.
3. God does not have favorites and does not discriminate on the basis of nationality, sex, race or class.
4. God treats humans with dignity and respect.
5. God is not a slave master, or despot, among his serfs.
6. God is man's Soul Mate and Partner.
7. God is not Jealous, Wrathful or Vengeful.
8. Man is not sinful, fallen or depraved.
9. God has no opponent and heaven and hell are states of mind and being.
10. Man was created to progress to God-likeness and eliminate wrong from the Cosmos in partnership with God.

The Zoroastrian Religion pictures humanity as the growing and evolving creation of a God that respects it, and wants it to collaborate in the task of preserving, nourishing, fostering and refreshing this Living World and all it offers.

A Zoroastrian is supposed to progress towards God (Ahura Mazda) by their own choices. Choosing to do good, and to avoid choosing to do wrong or evil.

Zoroastrianism is thus the first truly ethical religion of human-kind and teaches that mortals achieve their goal of god-likeness and spiritual completeness by fighting evil through good thoughts, words and deeds. …"

Iranian
2010-06-15, 18:59
I know quite a few Iranian ex-muslims who have become Zoroastrian

its become quite a trend both among Iranians living in Iran and among the expat community
those who convert in Iran do so unofficially

birko19
2010-06-15, 19:04
Holy epic bump, you guys like reviving old threads? :D

As for the topic itself, I agree that Zoroastrianism was probably the first monotheistic religion in the middle east then Judaism eventually borrowed the idea which was also passed along to Christianity and Islam.

It would be cool if modern Iran had Zoroastrianism as their national religion, I feel it has more prestige than Islam and would make them stand out more, but this is something impossible in this day and age.

asdrubal cabrera
2010-06-15, 19:39
I know quite a few Iranian ex-muslims who have become Zoroastrian

its become quite a trend both among Iranians living in Iran and among the expat community
those who convert in Iran do so unofficially

Interesting. What is the social/cultural relationship between Old Iranian Zoroastrians (whose ancestors never converted to Islam) , Modern Iranian converts to Zoroastrian from Islam, and Indian Parsees?

Iranian
2010-06-15, 19:54
Interesting. What is the social/cultural relationship between Old Iranian Zoroastrians (whose ancestors never converted to Islam) , Modern Iranian converts to Zoroastrian from Islam, and Indian Parsees?

Indian Parsis are racists; they dont accept converts and they consider Iranian persians to be somehow "unpure" which is ironic because they have been genetically proven to have large amounts of Indian admixture

Iranian zoroastrians, on the other hand, accept converts and are generally much more tolerant and accepting

I think the callousness of Indian Parsis can be largely explained by the fact that they are, by and large, very wealthy

JoshK
2010-06-17, 07:21
Indian Parsis have Gujurati admixture for the most part.

Agree with the rest of what you said, though.

Humata
2010-06-17, 07:50
Indian Parsis are racists; they dont accept converts and they consider Iranian persians to be somehow "unpure" which is ironic because they have been genetically proven to have large amounts of Indian admixture

Iranian zoroastrians, on the other hand, accept converts and are generally much more tolerant and accepting

I think the callousness of Indian Parsis can be largely explained by the fact that they are, by and large, very wealthy

The different mentality between Parsis (who are semi-Iranian Zoroastrians) and proper Iranian Zoroastrians lies in their history.

As many of us already know, Parsis largely descend from Zoroastrian Persian males (hence "Parsi") who settled in India to escape taxation and persecution. To ensure the continuation of their culture and faith, they developed strict endogamy which was otherwise unseen in the Zoroastrian world. Zoroastrianism once stretched across the Persian empires and beyond, after all, and they openly accepted converts.

Zoroastrianism in Iran took a different course. The Arab invaders considered them to be "People of the Book" despite not following the same Abrahamic edicts, and as such, their dues were equivalent to Jews and Christians in their newly-formed empire.

Zoroastrianism in Iran was in decline around Mohammad's lifetime. The Sassanid Persians were disillusioned by their faith, which had become institutionalized and highly political, much like Shi'a Islam is now today in the Islamic Republic.
By and large, most Persians converted willingly to Islam, although forced conversions existed initially. The process was a slow and steady one, with a small but sizeable proportion of Persia's population remaining Zoroastrian barely a few hundred years ago.

Iranian Zoroastrians, as far as I'm aware, consider their Shi'ite brethren to be "lost" and are very welcoming of converts. There is a common culture of secrecy in Iranian households, with many Iranians committing thoroughly "un-Islamic" acts behind closed doors. In light of that, Iranian Zoroastrians perceive this as lingering Zoroastrian influence in Iran.
They aren't far off the mark, in my opinion. When Iranians across the country flock to the streets to celebrate the Persian New Year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8GirlyR1Uw), despite the stern words of the country's "leader", that should tell you something.

Iranian
2010-06-17, 07:50
Indian Parsis have Gujurati admixture for the most part.

Agree with the rest of what you said, though.

They claim to be completely unmixed descendants of the original zoroastrians who migrated to India from Iran after the 7th century.

However, that claim is not born out by genetic testing and they have large Indic genetic influences, especially maternally

Humata
2010-06-17, 08:04
They claim to be completely unmixed descendants of the original zoroastrians who migrated to India from Iran after the 7th century.

However, that claim is not born out by genetic testing and they have large Indic genetic influences, especially maternally

If we presume Parsi males are solely the descendants of Zoroastrian Persians from the Sassanid period, then we have a very good idea about their principal Y-DNA lineages;

Parsi (Qamar et al.)
n=90
P-92R7(xR1a1a) - 26.7% (presumably other R clades such as R2)
Y*(xA,C,DE,H2,J,K) - 3.3% (potentially be G, H1, I, most likely G considering it's distribution across the Indo-Iranian world)
R1a1a-M17 - 7.8%
J-12f2 - 38.9% (probably J2 > J1 to match the trend across Iranic-speaking ethnic groups)
E-SRY8299(xE1b1a) - 5.6% (obviously E1b1b)
L-M20 - 17.8%

The frequencies would have definitely changed due to genetic drift, so a quantitative analysis of what the ancient Persians carried (i.e. "they had more L than R1a1a") is unfeasible here.

Saying that, we could therefore conclude the ancient Persians carried R1a1a (and other R clades), J and L, with residual amounts of other haplogroups that are otherwise rare in India.

JoshK
2010-06-17, 08:07
Humata, do you have any info on their mt-DNA? I would vouch for high frequencies of U7 if their admixture with Gujuratis is restricted on the maternal side.

Iranian
2010-06-17, 08:10
If we presume Parsi males are solely the descendants of Zoroastrian Persians from the Sassanid period, then we have a very good idea about their principle Y-DNA lineages;

Parsi (Qamar et al.)
n=90
P-92R7(xR1a1a) - 26.7% (presumably other R clades such as R2)
Y*(xA,C,DE,H2,J,K) - 3.3% (potentially be G, H1, I, most likely G considering it's distribution across the Indo-Iranian world)
R1a1a-M17 - 7.8%
J-12f2 - 38.9% (probably J2 > J1 to match the trend across Iranic-speaking ethnic groups)
E-SRY8299(xE1b1a) - 5.6% (obviously E1b1b)
L-M20 - 17.8%

The frequencies would have definitely changed due to genetic drift, so a quantitative analysis of what the ancient Persians carried (i.e. "they had more L than R1a1a") is unfeasible here.

Interesting. Frequencies of J approaching 40% are unheard of in the Indian Subcontinent. Paternally , they do appear to be genuine descendants of iranian zoroastrians

Do you have any data on their mtDNA distribution?

JoshK
2010-06-17, 08:14
Interesting. Frequencies of J approaching 40% are unheard of in the Indian Subcontinent. Paternally , they do appear to be genuine descendants of iranian zoroastrians
Which subclade of J are you referring to in specific?

The highest frequencies of J2 Y-DNA for any ethnic group in the world is recorded in the Vellalas of Tamil Nadu, who are a socially dominant, higher social class Shudra caste.

There is no such thing as a middle caste as such, there is upper castes and the Shudras. Outside of this spectrum are the Dalits and Adivasis, but anyhow, to quote:

Sengupta et al. (2006)

Vellalar (India, South; Middle caste; Dravidian)
9/31 = 29.0% H1-M52
12/31 = 38.7% J2b2-M241
5/31 = 16.1% L1-M76
1/31 = 3.2% Q1a3-M346
4/31 = 12.9% R1a1a-M17

Humata
2010-06-17, 08:14
Humata, do you have any info on their mt-DNA? I would vouch for high frequencies of U7 if their admixture with Gujuratis is restricted on the maternal side.

In one study on 44 Parsi's, they found the following in order of decreasing frequency;

M* - 54.5%
U4 - 13.6%
HV2 - 9.1%
T1 - 6.8%
T* - 4.5%
U1 - 4.5%
HV* - 2.3%
H - 2.3%
U7 - 2.3%

The predominance of M* is enough to confirm they are maternally more Indian than Iranian.

Iranian
2010-06-17, 08:21
In one study on 44 Parsi's, they found the following in order of decreasing frequency;

M* - 54.5%
U4 - 13.6%
HV2 - 9.1%
T1 - 6.8%
T* - 4.5%
U1 - 4.5%
HV* - 2.3%
H - 2.3%
U7 - 2.3%

The predominance of M* is enough to confirm they are maternally more Indian than Iranian.

I think it can be partly explained by the fact that men typically outnumber women in any immigrant population and so they probably filled the gender gap with local women

i think that there has also been other forms of mixing in the past few centuries

Humata
2010-06-17, 08:28
Interesting. Frequencies of J approaching 40% are unheard of in the Indian Subcontinent. Paternally , they do appear to be genuine descendants of iranian zoroastrians


Brahmins tend to have a fair bit of Y-DNA J2 (e.g. Sengupta et al. found Uttar Pradesh Brahmins to be 28.5% albeit from a sample size of 14), but it appears to be more common in the West and North, and less so elsewhere.

I think Parsis serve as a reliable proxy for what the ancient Persians carried. It's worth pointing out that the same R1a1a-L-J2-R2-G combo is carried by most other Iranian-speakers, including Pashtuns.

Further evidence of this can be seen in the isolated mountains of Tajikistan. Wells et al. tested a handful of men from several villages across the Pamir mountain range, and the results varied wildly between each.
The Ishkashimi's and Khojanti's were over 60% R1a1a-M17, Yet the people living by the Yaghnob river were 32% J2-M172 and 32% R1*-M173(xR1a1a, potentially R1b-M343 of some kind). In addition, the Bartangi's were 23% F-M89 (most probably G-M201) and 17% R2-M174. Finally, L-M20 was found at 12% and 16% in the Ishkashimi and Shugnani's respectively.
Despite the wild differences in figures, nearly all these isolated regions had R1a1a, J2, L and R2.

I'm not a believer in coincidences; couple this with the Parsi results, and we're looking at the ancestral pool of the settled Indo-Iranians. It's also no coincidence that Brahmins tend to also be R1a1a, J2, R2 and L; we even have a Brahmin R2 on this forum. :)



Do you have any data on their mtDNA distribution?

For your and JoshK's attention, please refer to one of my newer posts on this thread.

birko19
2010-06-17, 21:54
If we presume Parsi males are solely the descendants of Zoroastrian Persians from the Sassanid period, then we have a very good idea about their principal Y-DNA lineages;

Parsi (Qamar et al.)
n=90
P-92R7(xR1a1a) - 26.7% (presumably other R clades such as R2)
Y*(xA,C,DE,H2,J,K) - 3.3% (potentially be G, H1, I, most likely G considering it's distribution across the Indo-Iranian world)
R1a1a-M17 - 7.8%
J-12f2 - 38.9% (probably J2 > J1 to match the trend across Iranic-speaking ethnic groups)
E-SRY8299(xE1b1a) - 5.6% (obviously E1b1b)
L-M20 - 17.8%

The frequencies would have definitely changed due to genetic drift, so a quantitative analysis of what the ancient Persians carried (i.e. "they had more L than R1a1a") is unfeasible here.

Saying that, we could therefore conclude the ancient Persians carried R1a1a (and other R clades), J and L, with residual amounts of other haplogroups that are otherwise rare in India.

From what I read the Parsi male lineage is Iranian Zoroastrian in origin but they mixed with local South Asian women so their mtDNA is more South Asian.

My take on this is they cannot be fully Iranian from the male lineage either, they tend to have a higher percentage of R2 in them than other normal Iranian populations, we're talking about 20% and more here, in normal Iranians from what I have seen this haplogroup shows up anywhere between 1% to 5% max, some of their R2 must be from a South Asian mix while the other is surely Iranian, no?

Iranian
2010-06-17, 22:01
we're talking about 20% and more here, in normal Iranians from what I have seen this haplogroup shows up anywhere between 1% to 5% max, some of their R2 must be from a South Asian mix while the other is surely Iranian, no?

That is a valid point
I dont think 20% R2 can be found in any region that was once once ruled by the Sassanid empire

The parsis have been living in India for over a millennium and large amounts of admixture are to be expected
I would still argue that significantly more than half of their paternal Y-DNA originates in Iran

Humata
2010-06-17, 22:05
From what I read the Parsi male lineage is Iranian Zoroastrian in origin but they mixed with local South Asian women so their mtDNA is more South Asian.

My take on this is they cannot be fully Iranian from the male lineage either, they tend to have a higher percentage of R2 in them than other normal Iranian populations, we're talking about 20% and more here, in normal Iranians from what I have seen this haplogroup shows up anywhere between 1% to 5% max, some of their R2 must be from a South Asian mix while the other is surely Iranian, no?

The Parsi are a textbook example of a founder effect, which is a specific subset of genetic drift. I had described it in the past as:



Founder effect - Changes in the allelic frequency of a group that represents a splinter from the host population. The allelic frequency of the splinter group is both random and different from the host population. Another specific subset of genetic drift.


As mentioned in my earlier post, it is impossible to ascertain what the frequencies of those haplogroups in Zoroastrian Persia were because of genetic drift (quantitative analysis). Perhaps, as one would expect, R1a1a was initially higher than R2, but chance gave the R2 male(s) to procreate more for whatever reason.
The fact that R1a1a, R2, L and J2 (the common pack of lineages in nearly all modern Indo-Iranian speakers) were found at all give us a very good idea of what those Zoroastrian Persians carried (qualitative analysis).

One caveat to this is Parsis largely descend from South-Central Persians; we have no idea whether the medieval North Iranians were similar or not.

birko19
2010-06-17, 22:08
That is a valid point
I dont think 20% R2 can be found in any region that was once once ruled by the Sassanid empire

The parsis have been living in India for over a millennium and large amounts of admixture are to be expected
I would still argue that significantly more than half of their paternal Y-DNA originates in Iran

Well I'm not saying all of those R2's are Indian, but usually R2 and L in Iran and the middle east is lower than usual, anything above 10% and I'm pretty positive we're talking about some South Asian mix here, the same goes for R1a1a which is the most dominant haplogroup in India.

A good majority of them surely come from ancient Iranians, but I think some of them do come from Indian groups as well.

---------- Post added 2010-06-17 at 21:11 ----------



As mentioned in my earlier post, it is impossible to ascertain what the frequencies of those haplogroups in Zoroastrian Persia were because of genetic drift (quantitative analysis). Perhaps, as one would expect, R1a1a was initially higher than R2, but chance gave the R2 male(s) to procreate more for whatever reason.
The fact that R1a1a, R2, L and J2 (the common pack of lineages in nearly all modern Indo-Iranian speakers) were found at all give us a very good idea of what those Zoroastrian Persians carried (qualitative analysis).

One caveat to this is Parsis largely descend from South-Central Persians; we have no idea whether the medieval North Iranians were similar or not.

Well is there any place where R1a1a does not outnumber R2? That haplogroup is such a horde lol.

What's the diversity of these haplogroups among them?

Iranian
2010-06-17, 22:14
The Parsi are a textbook example of a founder effect.

haha, id forgotten about that and its been only a little over a year since i took a intro to genetics course

That is certainly a possibility; if a small but relatively significant patriarchal clan of R2 Iranians had formed a significant portion of the initial immigrants that could have created the effect we are seeing here

although i wouldn't discard the possibility of South Asian paternal genetic input

Having said that, i dont think it impossible for the Parsis to have remained , at least paternally, Iranian all this time.
Given the fact that they werent allowed by the local indians to preach their religion and the fact that they are extremely endogamous.

Humata
2010-06-17, 22:23
Well I'm not saying all of those R2's are Indian, but usually R2 and L in Iran and the middle east is lower than usual, anything above 10% and I'm pretty positive we're talking about some South Asian mix here, the same goes for R1a1a which is the most dominant haplogroup in India.

A good majority of them surely come from ancient Iranians, but I think some of them do come from Indian groups as well.[COLOR="Silver"]


As I said, the current frequency of R2 and L in Parsis means nothing. Those inflated frequencies may well be due to genetic drift, which clearly happened with J-12f2, which is slightly higher than parts of West Iran, even.

I'm dissuaded from the possibility of South Indian Y-DNA input due to the sparsity of H. If there was some subclade definition for L, we'd have a much better idea of how much Indian paternal heritage the Parsis have from the prevalence of L1 amongst them.

Nevertheless, at this point, both are equally plausible.



Well is there any place where R1a1a does not outnumber R2? That haplogroup is such a horde lol.

What's the diversity of these haplogroups among them?

R2 actually outnumbers R1a1a in the Kurmanji-speaking Kurds of Georgia. I believe they have an oral tradition claiming descent from the Arsacid dynasty that ruled Transcaucasian Iberia. The Arsacids were Parthians (Ashkanians), who probably came from South-Central Asia.

As I haven't seen Y-DNA STR's, I have no idea how diverse the Parsi lineages are.

birko19
2010-06-17, 22:25
haha, id forgotten about that and its been only a little over a year since i took a intro to genetics course

That is certainly a possibility; if a small but relatively significant patriarchal clan of R2 Iranians had formed a significant portion of the initial immigrants that could have created the effect we are seeing here

although i wouldn't discard the possibility of South Asian paternal genetic input

Having said that, i dont think it impossible for the Parsis to have remained , at least paternally, Iranian all this time.
Given the fact that they werent allowed by the local indians to preach their religion and the fact that they are extremely endogamous.

I think it depends on how their culture is, if their male lineage is very important to them the same sense Arab tribes deal with, I think it's safe to assume that most of their male lineage is indeed Iranian that married into South Asian women.

Among Jews for example the mother lineage is what matters the most, if your mother is not a Jew, you're not a Jew even if your father was the Rabbe of Satmars lol.

---------- Post added 2010-06-17 at 21:33 ----------



R2 actually outnumbers R1a1a in the Kurmanji-speaking Kurds of Georgia. I believe they have an oral tradition claiming descent from the Arsacid dynasty that ruled Transcaucasian Iberia. The Arsacids were Parthians (Ashkanians), who probably came from South-Central Asia.

As I haven't seen Y-DNA STR's, I have no idea how diverse the Parsi lineages are.

The Kurmanji speakers from Georgia are Yezidies, they are usually a very closed small community and do not accept converts, also their tradition does not say Parthian, oddly they say they migrated from India and have been living in the middle east since 2000 BC, I believe the study had a sample of 25 and these were the lineages:

R2 - 44%
J2 - 32%
F* - 12%
K* - 8%
P* - 4%

I don't think 25 people is enough, but their tradition of coming from India does aid the top three lineages if we take this sample seriously.

JoshK
2010-06-18, 04:38
I'm not a believer in coincidences; couple this with the Parsi results, and we're looking at the ancestral pool of the settled Indo-Iranians. It's also no coincidence that Brahmins tend to also be R1a1a, J2, R2 and L; we even have a Brahmin R2 on this forum. :)

So far the Brahmin samples have been taken from the poorer temple priest/pusaari classes as far as Southern Brahmins are concerned.

These make a minority in Tamil Brahmins, but are still 30% R1a, much more so than Dalit UPites or Gujuratis.

In my opinion, L is not a Y-DNA that was carried by the IndoEuropeans.

I would attribute the existence of L among these Brahmins to ancient "Brahmanized" converts, who were possibly from the socially dominant pre-Aryan, Dravidian upper classes.

The samples taken distort the results, really. The higher social class Brahmins are extremely staunch and thus the touch of scientific instruments is seen as unclean/impure/polluting by them.

Many ethnologists/anthropologists have said they faced the same very problem, thus consequently, the lower class racially mixed Brahmins were the ones who obliged to carry out the craniometric measurements, and in this present day, dna tests.

We need pan-Indian dna testing to give us the real picture, but too many damn people..

For the sake of discussion, L also seems to be a clearly Europid marker.

interstedinanthro
2010-07-25, 21:21
As I said, the current frequency of R2 and L in Parsis means nothing. Those inflated frequencies may well be due to genetic drift, which clearly happened with J-12f2, which is slightly higher than parts of West Iran, even.

I'm dissuaded from the possibility of South Indian Y-DNA input due to the sparsity of H. If there was some subclade definition for L, we'd have a much better idea of how much Indian paternal heritage the Parsis have from the prevalence of L1 amongst them.

Nevertheless, at this point, both are equally plausible.



R2 actually outnumbers R1a1a in the Kurmanji-speaking Kurds of Georgia. I believe they have an oral tradition claiming descent from the Arsacid dynasty that ruled Transcaucasian Iberia. The Arsacids were Parthians (Ashkanians), who probably came from South-Central Asia.

As I haven't seen Y-DNA STR's, I have no idea how diverse the Parsi lineages are.

Parsis settled in Gujrat and as far as I know the Gujrat-Sindh-Balochistan costal areas have the highest frequencies of R2 in the subcontinent.

Bioguy
2010-07-26, 06:01
You muslims should convert to zoroastrism imo! :p

It's better and more peaceful than islam.

Zarathustra was his real name* And he lived in modern day Turkmenistan then under Persian influence.

that just one these another is that he was from urmiye what i think is even more possible because the word Mazda was first used among meds and the region of Urmiye was former Median land.

---------- Post added 2010-07-26 at 05:17 ----------





R2 actually outnumbers R1a1a in the Kurmanji-speaking Kurds of Georgia. I believe they have an oral tradition claiming descent from the Arsacid dynasty that ruled Transcaucasian Iberia. The Arsacids were Parthians (Ashkanians), who probably came from South-Central Asia.

As I haven't seen Y-DNA STR's, I have no idea how diverse the Parsi lineages are.

Thats true. Most of Kurds from Georgia and Armenia are Ezidi Kurds and that also supports my these Ezidi kurds beeing original Parthians with mithraist religion because even today they worship the sun and a bird called Tauzi Melek. The Reason why they only found 4-5% R2 among kurds of Anatolia is because they are mostly not ezidis. The Ezidis of Gerogia and Armenia are not much more than 10-20 Thousand. In Mosul there are also like 100-150 Thousand Ezidis. in The hole World their number is like 500 thousand. But another these is that they are the indoarians of Mitanni Period.

---------- Post added 2010-07-26 at 05:21 ----------

[/COLOR]


The Kurmanji speakers from Georgia are Yezidies, they are usually a very closed small community and do not accept converts, also their tradition does not say Parthian, oddly they say they migrated from India and have been living in the middle east since 2000 BC, I believe the study had a sample of 25 and these were the lineages:

R2 - 44%
J2 - 32%
F* - 12%
K* - 8%
P* - 4%

I don't think 25 people is enough, but their tradition of coming from India does aid the top three lineages if we take this sample seriously.

Ezidis never claimed to be from India. They claim that many of Ezidis flet to india and also living their.

alfieb
2010-07-26, 06:30
Freddie Mercury was a Parsi from Gujarat and he didn't even look remotely Indian, despite his family living there for several centuries. While I'm sure there was some intermixing, I'd wager most Parsis are nearly as Iranian as their ancestors were 1,000 years ago when they left Persia.

Bioguy
2010-07-26, 06:34
Freddie Mercury was a Parsi from Gujarat and he didn't even look remotely Indian, despite his family living there for several centuries. While I'm sure there was some intermixing, I'd wager most Parsis are nearly as Iranian as their ancestors were 1,000 years ago when they left Persia.

some of them yes but the majority i don´t think so because when they flet from Iran they had no woman( because priest are male) so how could they reproduce themself without marriage with some local Indian girls:D Iam 100% sure that they mixed with femal Indian people. Thats why their mtDna is somehow more Indian than Iranian.

alfieb
2010-07-26, 06:42
I thought that the Story of Sanjan said that the local Indians required Parsi women to wear Saris if they were to stay in Gujarat. If there were no Parsi women, that would be an odd request.

Bioguy
2010-07-26, 06:50
I thought that the Story of Sanjan said that the local Indians required Parsi women to wear Saris if they were to stay in Gujarat. If there were no Parsi women, that would be an odd request.

of course there were some Parsi woman but not as much as male i think. And even when no body can tell me that they didn´t mixed with local people I don´t believe that.

But what is true for sure is that Northiranic people somehow carried Haplogroup R2. Not only Ezîdis have this haplogroup. They also found 8% R2 among the ossetians and 15% among the caucasian Chechens

Zert
2010-10-21, 23:46
Something that needs to be cleared up about Zartosht:
although he's always referred to as a Persian profet, he most likely wasn't even Persian, historically he was most often said to have been born in contemporary West Iran, the regions now mainly inhabited by Azeris and Kurds (and in those times the Medians). However, scholars these days believe that he came from the regions around East Iran/Afghanistan/Central Asia, so for all we know he may have been a Pashtun, a Baluchi or something else.

Although I think that all religions are nonsense, I do agree that it's a shame that it isn't practised more these days, it's a cultural loss for all Iranian peoples, and we probably would have been better of with this then with Islam. (With all respect, I know that in essence Islam is a good religion, but the way it was forced upon people, and the way it's practiced by many muslims is appaling)

TheHun
2012-11-25, 17:47
Yes, it is a great loss to the Iranian people. Yet, anyone who has lived in Iran—I did for only a short while before the revolution—and studied popular religion in Iran and elsewhere in the Turco-Iranian cultural zone—can tell you, Zartusht’s teachings have survived and been assimilated into Iranian Islam as it is practiced. Just think of sofreh, ziyyarat, and some of the more localized practices that are now part of Shi’a Islam.

Mellifluous
2014-01-31, 03:36
I believe the concept of heaven/hell came from Zoroastrianism.

EliasAlucard
2014-01-31, 05:50
I believe the concept of heaven/hell came from Zoroastrianism.Nah, it's certainly older. Elysium and Hades predated Zoroastrianism, and the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell may have been borrowed from Zoroastrianism, but Greek influence certainly played an important role:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Christianity

^^ Hades is the Greek NT translation for Sheol.

It was probably also a concept in Assyro-Babylonian religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell#Ancient_Near_East

alfieb
2014-01-31, 06:06
For people interested in Zoroastrianism, I recommend picking up the game Crusader Kings 2.

Playing as a Zoroastrian tribal chieftain is certainly more fun than playing as a Christian. You can have multiple wives, and if you marry your sister, you get a bonus for having a sacred holy marriage. In other religions where incest is frowned upon, you have to worry about the husband/children of your sister trying to take your stuff. Fuck that. :lol:

With the 300 prequel coming out soon, I hope the Persians and their culture/religion are depicted in a more positive light than they were in the original film.

GandharaScythian
2014-05-18, 17:39
The religion of Zoraster was original monothestic in the start. In fact its belived to be the first monothestic religion to appear. It also had concept of heavean and Hell. Zoraster began to recive revelations from God from the age of 30 and he began to preach to the locals, but they did not listen. Thus one of the kings did. However by the time of the Sassanids fireworship and dualism became important aspect of the religion. The battle of between good Ahur Mazda and evil Ahiraman the evil, light and darkness.

Zorasterians also belive that those who end up in hell will become purified and will enter into heavean.


It is a widespread myth that the ancient Zoroastrianists were monotheists.Actually they had many gods like ahura mazda,Mithra,atar,verethagna,nana,anahita,mah,Tish trya,drvaspa and other deities.Also modern Zoroastrianism has not much today with avesta and developed in western iran during the end of the sassanid empire.This radical monotheist Zoroastrianism we know today existed only in western iran during the rule of the sassanids and was very heavily influenced by christians,jews and mesopotamian people.Most people in greater iran were polytheists and had various iranian,local and foreign deities

An Shigao
2015-01-19, 22:13
It would be cool if modern Iran had Zoroastrianism as their national religion, I feel it has more prestige than Islam and would make them stand out more, but this is something impossible in this day and age.

Zoroastrians persecuted Buddhists, Mazdakists (people who followed Mazdak the Younger), and Manichaeists a lot too. Kartir Hangirpe and Bahram I had Mani killed for example.

Sufism, Zurvanism, and Manichaeism are cooler than mainstream Zoroastrianism.

evon
2015-01-19, 22:55
Zoroastrians persecuted Buddhists, Mazdakists (people who followed Mazdak the Younger), and Manichaeists a lot too. Kartir Hangirpe and Bahram I had Mani killed for example.

Sufism, Zurvanism, and Manichaeism are cooler than mainstream Zoroastrianism.

Non-Sassanian Zoroastrian branches, as those followed by the ancestors of An Shiago as an example also persecuted other religions, but of course they were more open to new deities than the Zoroastrians further west.

An Shigao
2015-01-19, 23:30
Non-Sassanian Zoroastrian branches, as those followed by the ancestors of An Shiago as an example also persecuted other religions, but of course they were more open to new deities than the Zoroastrians further west.

An Shigao was a Buddhist.

Zoroastrians were not polytheistic, especially the Sassanian ones.

evon
2015-01-20, 11:01
An Shigao was a Buddhist.

Zoroastrians were not polytheistic, especially the Sassanian ones.

The ancestors of An Shiago were not Buddhists, which was my point.. Sassanian Zoroastrianism was more rigid than the Sogdian pantheon, same with Bactrian and Tarim basin religious pantheons, but on several occasions you find discrimination also in these non-orthodox branches of Zoroastrianism...which is often called Mazdakites etc, but the names isnt important, as its all part of the same wider religious tradition..

Woin
2015-02-12, 15:32
Yes my friend you bring up very good points Grugni et al found R1b also.
Here is how they classified

Now we can have proof they have same as Yamnaya?

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252

Persians are basically just local pre-Indoeuropean people who switched to a Iranian language without getting much autosomal or y-dna from them. R1b is more common in western Iran, where steppe Iranians had the lowest genetic impact.

No Zoroastranism is post-Indo-Iranian religion and Zoroaster was a man who banned the older gods. His religion is very different from the original Iranian religion and steppe Indo-Iranians and Scythians were were never Zoroastranists at all. The closest existing religion to proto-Indo-Iranians is vedic hinduism of brahmins and they have practically no r1b

aeon
2015-02-13, 09:18
steppe Indo-Iranians and Scythians were were never Zoroastranists at all


The Avesta has the very ancient Frawardin Yasht honoring the fravashis (souls) of the early champions of Zoroastrianism which in particular says:


143. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Aryan countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Aryan countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Turanian countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Turanian countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Sairimyan countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Sairimyan countries.

144. We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Saini countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Saini countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in the Dahi countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in the Dahi countries.
We worship the Fravashis of the holy men in all countries;
We worship the Fravashis of the holy women in all countries.

http://www.avesta.org/ka/yt_mithra.htm#yt13

Aryans here are Zarathushtra's own people, Sainis are not attested elsewhere, and Turanians, Sairimyans (Sarmatians) and Dahis are steppe Iranic peoples.

That means that some nomadic Iranians converted to Zoroastrianism at a very early date.

Woin
2015-02-13, 10:21
The Avesta has the very ancient Frawardin Yasht honoring the fravashis (souls) of the early champions of Zoroastrianism which in particular says:



Aryans here are Zarathushtra's own people, Sainis are not attested elsewhere, and Turanians, Sairimyans (Sarmatians) and Dahis are steppe Iranic peoples.

That means that some nomadic Iranians converted to Zoroastrianism at a very early date.

Zoroaster was basically not different from Mohammad after him, he prohibited the older gods and started to create his own fake religion. His religion is more elamitic/Bmac than Indo-European. Vedic Hinduism is older and much more conservative than Zoroastrianism, which was even against most older traditions and removed them. No steppe Indo-Iranians were Zoroastrians and they were all warlike and nomadic Polytheists unlike sedentary Zoroastrians. Iranians probably dont like to hear that but Zoroastrianism is basically the same like islam

aeon
2015-02-13, 11:14
Zoroaster was basically not different from Mohammad after him, he prohibited the older gods and started to create his own fake religion. His religion is more elamitic/Bmac than Indo-European. Vedic Hinduism is older and much more conservative than Zoroastrianism, which was even against most older traditions and removed them. No steppe Indo-Iranians were Zoroastrians and they were all warlike and nomadic Polytheists unlike sedentary Zoroastrians. Iranians probably dont like to hear that but Zoroastrianism is basically the same like islam

LOL. I give you an Avestan quotation and you give me this babble.

Zarathushtra lived somewhere in the modern-day Kazakhstan and had no contact with Elamites.

But yes, he was a great religious reformer, much greater than Mohammad though, because he was the first in the world history to preach monotheism, and monotheistic Judaism, Christianity and Islam all are derived from his preaching.

Woin
2015-02-13, 11:25
LOL. I give you an Avestan quotation and you give me this babble.

Zarathushtra lived somewhere in the modern-day Kazakhstan and had no contact with Elamites.

But yes, he was a great religious reformer, much greater than Mohammad though, because he was the first in the world history to preach monotheism, and monotheistic Judaism, Christianity and Islam all are derived from his preaching.

Zoroaster lived in Bactria or Media. Actually the zoroastrian burial method of exposure of the dead, particularly to scavenging birds for the purposes of excarnation is derived from BMAC and was never present anywhere in the steppe.

Please compare older vedic hinduism with Zoroastrianism and you will see that Zoroastrianism is a reformed "innovative" religion which prohibited anything which was once typical for Indo-Europeans. Scythians were never Zoroastrians and Zoroastrianism was restricted to elamitized persians

aeon
2015-02-13, 11:39
Zoroastrianism even strongly affected Slavs, as their language shows.

Just like Zoroastrian Iranics, Slavs downgraded the old IE deiwos (god) to an evil creature (Iranic daeva, Slavic divъ), and just like Zoroastrian Iranics started to call god bogъ (Iranic baga).

So you should extend your dislike of Zoroastrianism to the old Slavic religion too. :)

The Wolf King ♔
2015-02-13, 12:22
Ancient Scythian 'Princess' and Zoroastrianism


Prominent scientists and research centers of Japan, Germany and Russia were attracted to the uniqueness of the burial and studied the findings along with their Kazakhstani colleagues.
The latest breakthrough in the work allowed Murat Sdykov, head of West Kazakhstan Oblast Center for History and Archaeology, to identify the age of the burial. “The results of laboratory studies showed that the burial dates back to 4-5 centuries BC,” Sdykov said. The age of the woman was hard to identify due to heavy decomposition of bones. Nevertheless, it is clear that the burial is characteristic of Zoroastrianism. In addition, Sdykov informed that two female guards were buried along with the Golden Princess.
...Reconstruction of the garment was entrusted to the famous restorer Krym Altynbekov. Thanks to his work, one can now see what Golden Princess might have looked like 2500 years ago. Gold plaques of four types were sewn on the upper part of the garment: differently shaped geometric pieces depicted ram griffins, rams, griffins and swastikas. Scientists call them solar, implying worship of the sun characteristic for the nomads of the time, which is also supported by the "Avesta", the core collection of sacred Zoroastrianism texts.


Here:http://en.tengrinews.kz/science/Reconstruction-shows-how-ancient-Scythian-Princess-discovered-in-Kazakhstan-255482/

Rugevit
2015-02-13, 12:44
Zoroastrianism even strongly affected Slavs, as their language shows.

Just like Zoroastrian Iranics, Slavs downgraded the old IE deiwos (god) to an evil creature (Iranic daeva, Slavic divъ), and just like Zoroastrian Iranics started to call god bogъ (Iranic baga).

So you should extend your dislike of Zoroastrianism to the old Slavic religion too. :)


Interesting observation. Russian linguist F. P. Filin was writing that it's uncertain if the word bogъ was borrowed by Slavs from Indo-Iranians. But only in Slavic and Iranian languages the cognate developed to a word with a meaning of God. It looks like Slavs may had been influenced by Iranians having the bog and div with the meaning of God and evil. Slavs may had borrowed other deities from Iranians such as Semargl (Simurgh in Persian), Khors (Xors/Xurs in Ossetian) and Gamanyun (Humayun in Persian)

There is much literature published on linguistic contacts between Slavs and Iranians but little on influence of Zoroastrianism. It maybe nomadic Iranians being exposed to Zoroastrianism migrated to Ukraine influencing Slavs. When I read about Zoroastrianism I think of ancient Bactria and Sogdiana, which were too far from non-nomadic Slavs.

Pioterus
2015-02-13, 12:58
Interesting observation. Russian linguist F. P. Filin was writing that it's uncertain if the word bogъ was borrowed by Slavs from Indo-Iranians. But only in Slavic and Iranian languages the cognate developed to a word with a meaning of God. (...)

One of the earliest observation of this similarities comes from Ignacy Pietraszewski (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Pietraszewski) and his translation of Avestas dating back to mid XIX century:

PDF doc (http://images.nexto.pl/upload/sklep/armoryka/ebook/zedaszta-red_andrzej_sarwa-armoryka/public/zedaszta-armoryka-demo.pdf)

The Wolf King ♔
2015-02-13, 12:59
Online editions of the Sacred Books of the East's Zoroastrian texts: the three volume Avesta series, as well as the five volume Pahlavi series:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/zor/index.htm

aeon
2015-02-13, 16:16
Interesting observation. Russian linguist F. P. Filin was writing that it's uncertain if the word bogъ was borrowed by Slavs from Indo-Iranians. But only in Slavic and Iranian languages the cognate developed to a word with a meaning of God. It looks like Slavs may had been influenced by Iranians having the bog and div with the meaning of God and evil. Slavs may had borrowed other deities from Iranians such as Semargl (Simurgh in Persian), Khors (Xors/Xurs in Ossetian) and Gamanyun (Humayun in Persian)

There is much literature published on linguistic contacts between Slavs and Iranians but little on influence of Zoroastrianism. It maybe nomadic Iranians being exposed to Zoroastrianism migrated to Ukraine influencing Slavs. When I read about Zoroastrianism I think of ancient Bactria and Sogdiana, which were too far from non-nomadic Slavs.

There is a huge number of common Irano-Slavic religious terms like bog, div, svjat, raj, mir, vera, žreti, vopiti, zvati, gadati, veščati, pisati, kajati, xraniti, bojati, slovo, delo, vatra, čaša, mogila, goiti, zdrav, xvor, zlo, sram, vina, šuj, kostn, blago, čara, xud, xoroš, etc., which prove that there once existed an Irano-Slavic religious community.

Rugevit
2015-02-13, 17:39
There is a huge number of common Irano-Slavic religious terms like bog, div, svjat, raj, mir, vera, žreti, vopiti, zvati, gadati, veščati, pisati, kajati, xraniti, bojati, slovo, delo, vatra, čaša, mogila, goiti, zdrav, xvor, zlo, sram, vina, šuj, kostn, blago, čara, xud, xoroš, etc., which prove that there once existed an Irano-Slavic religious community.


This information from a dictionary of etymology.


mir is related to old Lithuania mieras, Latvian mie^rs
Sviat is related to proto-Germanic *hwītaz (bright) and Sanskrit śvetá (“white, bright”)
Vera is related to Latvian vērus. Old Germanic wâr . Old Icelandic - vár
žreti is related to Lithuanian giriù, gýriau, gìrti . Latvian dzir̃t, dzir̃tiês. Old Hindi - gr̥ṇā́ti
vopiti is related to Latvian ūpêt, ūpẽju, upuôt. Lithuanian - ùpas
zvati is related to Lithuanian žavė́ti. Latvian - zave^t . Old Hindic - hávatē.
gadati is related to Lithuanian godóti, godýti . Latvian - gùods.
pisati is related to Lithuanian piešiù, piẽšti, paišýti, pаišаũ. Old Prussian - pеisāi, pеisātоn.
kajati is related to Old Hindi cáyate .
xraniti is from Old Church Slavonic . It's loan word from Greek - φυλάττειν.
bojati is related to Lithuanian bijótis, bajùs, báimė, báilė. Old Hindi - bháyatē, bibhḗti. Celtic - báigul
slovo is related to Latvian slava. East Lithuanian dialect - šla͂ve, šla͂vinti. Greek - κλέος. Old Hindi - çrávas
delo is related to Lithuanian padėlỹs, priedėlė̃ . Old Icelandic - dalidun. Possibly to Lithuanian - dailė́ and Latvian - dail̨š.
vatra is loanword from Romanian or Albanian. The word is common in the Balkans
čaša is related to Old Prussian kiosi or Baltic *ki̯ōsē / *ki̯āsē
zlo to Lithuanian atžū́las, atžūlùs
hvor is related to Germanic swër, swëran.
sram is related to Latvian sērmelis . Old Icelandic - harmr.
vina is related to Lithuanian vaina. Latvian - vaĩna
blago is a loanword in Church Slavonic from Greek εὑσεβής, εὑήθης, εὑγενής
hud is related to Old Hindi kṣṓdati.


----

The Balts must have been part of the Irano-Slavic community as they share many common words with the Slavs and Iranians from the list. Most words you have listed are cognates have the same or similar meaning in other IE languages. On the other hand, only in Slavic and Indo-Iranian bogъ and divъ have the meaning of God and demon. *divъ cognates exists in nearly every IE language (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/deyw%C3%B3s). But unlike in Slavic it means God other IE languages. For example, dievs in Latvian or dievas in Lithuanian. In Slavic *divъ is demon. :D

aeon
2015-02-14, 11:53
This information from a dictionary of etymology.


mir is related to old Lithuania mieras, Latvian mie^rs
Sviat is related to proto-Germanic *hwītaz (bright) and Sanskrit śvetá (“white, bright”)
Vera is related to Latvian vērus. Old Germanic wâr . Old Icelandic - vár
žreti is related to Lithuanian giriù, gýriau, gìrti . Latvian dzir̃t, dzir̃tiês. Old Hindi - gr̥ṇā́ti
vopiti is related to Latvian ūpêt, ūpẽju, upuôt. Lithuanian - ùpas
zvati is related to Lithuanian žavė́ti. Latvian - zave^t . Old Hindic - hávatē.
gadati is related to Lithuanian godóti, godýti . Latvian - gùods.
pisati is related to Lithuanian piešiù, piẽšti, paišýti, pаišаũ. Old Prussian - pеisāi, pеisātоn.
kajati is related to Old Hindi cáyate .
xraniti is from Old Church Slavonic . It's loan word from Greek - φυλάττειν.
bojati is related to Lithuanian bijótis, bajùs, báimė, báilė. Old Hindi - bháyatē, bibhḗti. Celtic - báigul
slovo is related to Latvian slava. East Lithuanian dialect - šla͂ve, šla͂vinti. Greek - κλέος. Old Hindi - çrávas
delo is related to Lithuanian padėlỹs, priedėlė̃ . Old Icelandic - dalidun. Possibly to Lithuanian - dailė́ and Latvian - dail̨š.
vatra is loanword from Romanian or Albanian. The word is common in the Balkans
čaša is related to Old Prussian kiosi or Baltic *ki̯ōsē / *ki̯āsē
zlo to Lithuanian atžū́las, atžūlùs
hvor is related to Germanic swër, swëran.
sram is related to Latvian sērmelis . Old Icelandic - harmr.
vina is related to Lithuanian vaina. Latvian - vaĩna
blago is a loanword in Church Slavonic from Greek εὑσεβής, εὑήθης, εὑγενής
hud is related to Old Hindi kṣṓdati.


----

The Balts must have been part of the Irano-Slavic community as they share many common words with the Slavs and Iranians from the list. Most words you have listed are cognates have the same or similar meaning in other IE languages. On the other hand, only in Slavic and Indo-Iranian bogъ and divъ have the meaning of God and demon. *divъ cognates exists in nearly every IE language (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/deyw%C3%B3s). But unlike in Slavic it means God other IE languages. For example, dievs in Latvian or dievas in Lithuanian. In Slavic *divъ is demon. :D


Yes, these roots are present in other IE languages too, but the point is, they have specific meanings in Slavic and Iranic that other IE languages do not share. For example, the root of pisati means "to paint" in other IE languages, and only in Slavic and Iranic it means "to write", etc.



blago is a loanword in Church Slavonic from Greek εὑσεβής, εὑήθης, εὑγενής


LOL, are you serious?

Rugevit
2015-02-14, 12:11
Yes, these roots are present in other IE languages too, but the point is, they have specific meanings in Slavic and Iranic that other IE languages do not share. For example, the root of pisati means "to paint" in other IE languages, and only in Slavic and Iranic it means "to write", etc.


That was the point. Most words have the same or similar meaning in IE languages except for bogъ and divъ. These two have the same meaning in Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages.



LOL, are you serious?

That's from dictionary of etymology : http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Vasmer-term-958.htm

Leo Iscariot
2016-04-28, 23:58
I didn't know if I should've made a seprate thread or posted this here, so I hope I made the right choice.

I've been noticing articles lately about Kurds reverting to Zoroastrianism, and think it's a very interesting case; especially since all these articles usually mention the cause being a reaction to the fundimentalist Islam of ISIL.


Kurdistan's Zoroastrian revival

http://albawabacdn.albawabamiddleea.netdna-cdn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_headline_node_big//sites/default/files/im/kurds-nowruz-afp.jpg
Kurds in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region celebrate Nowruz, an ancient Zoroastrian new year festival also observed by Iranians. (AFP/Safin Hamed)
The small, ancient religion of Zoroastrianism is being revived in northern Iraq. Followers say locals should join because it's a truly Kurdish belief. Others say the revival is a reaction to extremist Islam.

One of the smallest and oldest religions in the world is experiencing a revival in the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan. The religion has deep Kurdish roots – it was founded by Zoroaster, also known as Zarathustra, who was born in the Kurdish part of Iran and the religion's sacred book, the Avesta, was written in an ancient language from which the Kurdish language derives. However this century it is estimated that there are only around 190,000 believers in the world - as Islam became the dominant religion in the region during the 7th century, Zoroastrianism more or less disappeared.

Until – quite possibly – now. For the first time in over a thousand years, locals in a rural part of Sulaymaniyah province conducted an ancient ceremony on May 1, whereby followers put on a special belt that signifies they are ready to serve the religion and observe its tenets. It would be akin to a baptism in the Christian faith.

The newly pledged Zoroastrians have said that they will organise similar ceremonies elsewhere in Iraqi Kurdistan and they have also asked permission to build up to 12 temples inside the region, which has its own borders, military and Parliament. Zoroastrians are also visiting government departments in Iraqi Kurdistan and they have asked that Zoroastrianism be acknowledged as a religion officially. They even have their own anthem and many locals are attending Zoroastrian events and responding to Zoroastrian organisations and pages on social media.

"...it is estimated that there are only around 190,000 (Zoroastrian) believers in the world"
Although as yet there are no official numbers as to how many Kurdish locals are actually turning to this religion, there is certainly a lot of discussion about it. And those who are already Zoroastrians believe that as soon as locals learn more about the religion, their numbers will increase. They also seem to be selling the idea of Zoroastrianism by saying that it is somehow “more Kurdish” then other religions – certainly an attractive idea in an area where many locals care more about their ethnic identity than religious divisions.

As one believer, Dara Aziz, told this reporter: “I really hope our temples will open soon so that we can return to our authentic religion”.

“This religion will restore the real culture and religion of the Kurdish people,” says Luqman al-Haj Karim, a senior representative of Zoroastrianism and head of the Zoroastrian organisation, Zand, who believes that his belief system is more “Kurdish” than most. “The revival is a part of a cultural revolution, that gives people new ways to explore peace of mind, harmony and love,” he insists.

In fact, Zoroastrians believe that the forces of good and evil are continually struggling in the world – this is why many locals also suspect that this religious revival has more to do with the security crisis caused by the extremist group known as the Islamic State, as well as deepening sectarian and ethnic divides in Iraq, than any needs expressed by locals for something to believe in.

“The people of Kurdistan no longer know which Islamic movement, which doctrine or which fatwa, they should be believing in,” noted Mariwan Naqshbandi, the spokesperson for Iraqi Kurdistan's Ministry of Religious Affairs. He says that the interest in Zoroastrianism is a symptom of the disagreements within Islam and religious instability in the Iraqi Kurdish region, as well as in the country as a whole.

“For many more liberal or more nationalist Kurds, the mottos used by the Zoroastrians seem moderate and realistic,” Naqshbandi explains. “There are many people here who are very angry with the Islamic State group and it's inhumanity.”

Naqshbandi also confirmed that his Ministry would help the Zoroastrians achieve their goals. The right to freedom of religion and worship was enshrined in Kurdish law and Naqshbandi said that the Zoroastrians would be represented in his offices.

Zoroastrian leader al-Karim isn't so sure whether it is the Islamic State group's extremism that is changing how locals think about religion. “The people of Kurdistan are suffering from a collapsing culture that actually hinders change,” he argues. “It's illogical to connect Zoroastrianism with the IS group. We are simply encouraging a new way of thinking about how to live a better life, the way that Zoroaster told us to.”

“This religion will restore the real culture and religion of the Kurdish people”
On local social media there has been much discussion on this subject. One of the most prevalent questions is this: Will the Kurdish abandon Islam altogether in favour of other beliefs?

“We don't want to be a substitute for any other religion,” al-Karim replies. “We simply want to respond to society's needs.”

However, even if al-Karim doesn't admit it, it is clear to everyone else. Committing to Zoroastrianism would mean abandoning Islam. But even those who want to take on the Zoroastrian “belt” are staying well away from denigrating any other belief system. This may be one reason why, so far, Islamic clergy and Islamic politicians haven't criticised the Zoroastrians openly.

As one local politician, Haji Karwan, an MP for the Islamic Union in Iraqi Kurdistan, tells me, he doesn't think that so many people have actually converted to Zoroastrianism anyway. He also thinks that those promoting the religion are few and far between. “But of course, people are free to choose whatever religion they want to practise,” Karwan says. “Islam says there's no compulsion in religion.”

On the other hand, Karwan disagrees with the idea that any religion – let alone Zoroastrianism – is specifically “Kurdish” in nature. Religion came to humanity as a whole, not to any one specific ethnic group, he argues.

Mirrored from Niqash.
http://www.albawaba.com/mena_voices/kurdistans-zoroastrian-revival-704004

ancestryfan1994
2016-04-29, 00:30
I didn't know if I should've made a seprate thread or posted this here, so I hope I made the right choice.

I've been noticing articles lately about Kurds reverting to Zoroastrianism, and think it's a very interesting case; especially since all these articles usually mention the cause being a reaction to the fundimentalist Islam of ISIL.


http://www.albawaba.com/mena_voices/kurdistans-zoroastrian-revival-704004

Don't know how and why these people who are responsible for the article have branded the religion as a "truly kurdish belief", but they certainly seem to have forgot that a country called Iran exists, that contains the Persian ethnic group...who was responsible for the religion....lol

Anyway, its nice to see a revival of the religion regardless of who's practicing it. I think this deserved a new thread tbh, as theres a similar movement happening in Iran also, but with the inclusion of christianity. Its important that these things continue to grow if the region is to ever be cleansed of its current situation imo.

Leo Iscariot
2016-04-29, 01:01
Don't know how and why these people who are responsible for the article have branded the religion as a "truly kurdish belief", but they certainly seem to have forgot that a country called Iran exists, that contains the Persian ethnic group...who was responsible for the religion....lol

Anyway, its nice to see a revival of the religion regardless of who's practicing it. I think this deserved a new thread tbh, as theres a similar movement happening in Iran also, but with the inclusion of christianity. Its important that these things continue to grow if the region is to ever be cleansed of its current situation imo.

Perhaps by virtue of the fact that Kurds are an Iranian people, and Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion?

ancestryfan1994
2016-04-29, 01:23
Perhaps by virtue of the fact that Kurds are an Iranian people, and Zoroastrianism is an Iranian religion?


I thought that at first, could be the case and when you peel it back enough it is a fair assessment. However from the novice viewpoint one who has no knowledge of this case and the history of the religion would assume that the article is indicating that it's a "Kurdish thing".

The Apple
2016-04-29, 02:00
I thought that at first, could be the case and when you peel it back enough it is a fair assessment. However from the novice viewpoint one who has no knowledge of this case and the history of the religion would assume that the article is indicating that it's a "Kurdish thing".

Classic Kurdish move to steal other peoples' histories. Propaganda like this will benefit them in the eyes of anti-Christian Westerners, regardless of Kurds being like 98% Muslim, which won't change anytime soon.

ancestryfan1994
2016-04-29, 02:58
Classic Kurdish move to steal other peoples' histories. Propaganda like this will benefit them in the eyes of anti-Christian Westerners, regardless of Kurds being like 98% Muslim, which won't change anytime soon.

Ive noticed this also with the weird obsession among kurds and their hypothesis that the Medes are their supposed "ancestors", despite there being no linguistic or historical evidence that points to it whatsoever from what I recall. Anyway, I'm not against them being zoroastrian, its actually better to see it emerge in numbers in the region again. And to be perfectly honest, I have no beef with kurds whatsoever, its just that recently I've noticed a few things that are at the very least "questionable" from their ends when it comes to certain claims they make.

Leo Iscariot
2016-04-29, 03:59
I thought that at first, could be the case and when you peel it back enough it is a fair assessment. However from the novice viewpoint one who has no knowledge of this case and the history of the religion would assume that the article is indicating that it's a "Kurdish thing".

Fair point. I don't think he was necessairly trying to claim it as being Kurdish-specific, but I can see how someone could think that with the way he said it.

Cromagnorse
2016-04-29, 17:24
Classic Kurdish move to steal other peoples' histories. Propaganda like this will benefit them in the eyes of anti-Christian Westerners, regardless of Kurds being like 98% Muslim, which won't change anytime soon.

It's not just about anti-christian centrist westerners. Attempts have also been made recently at convincing white racial preservationists that Kurds are our brethren:

This whole "we are your aryan brethren" narrative has been pushed by Kurds/Iranics quite a lot in Swedish racial preservatonist/nationalist circles recently. First, some guy with a noticable immigrant accent called into the Motgift radio show on the 18th of April (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=sv&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.motgift.nu%2F2016%2F04%2F18%2F kaplangate-och-kommentarskobror%2F&sandbox=1) and claimed that we should discard Semitic-Christian nationalism and embrace the Zoroastrian Iranic peoples as our Indo-European, non-Semitic brethren, due to cultural and Y-DNA reasons. The guys at the radio show completely refused to do so and maintained their (quite crackpot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity) and less crackpot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_St._Pius_X#Foundation_and_early_history )versions of a) Christian European-nationalist position. The immigrant had called immediately after the Radio hosts denounced the official decision in a Swedish municipality to acknowledge the Iranian New Years' celebration as an official holiday.

Following that, a Kurd made similar claims on Flashback forum (also based on Y-dna, common Indo-European culture, the outdated Anatolian PIE hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_hypothesis)and cherry-picked blonde Kurds) to support his claim that Swedish nationalists should "take the Kurds into account (https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flashback.org%2Fp57107569%23)" (and support them, I assume?)

Nordic Resistance Movement (https://www.nordfront.se/english)member Martin Saxlind replied, among other things:

This "Aryan Unity" -talk that some non-Europeans are doing, is something which I see as a bad attempt to justify their own colonization of Europe (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.flashback.org/sp57109964&usg=ALkJrhiu_-kyvx7smSl84N9OftkH7-RYsA)

beyw
2016-04-30, 21:11
Classic Kurdish move to steal other peoples' histories. Propaganda like this will benefit them in the eyes of anti-Christian Westerners, regardless of Kurds being like 98% Muslim, which won't change anytime soon.

If someone engages in history revisionism, and/or is overly nationalistic, counter those specific points or ignore that person. No need to drag 30+ million people through the mud because you feel butthurt as a diaspora Assyrian. You don't see me going "man, typical Turkish behaviour to genocide and instill barbarity, fascist Turks!!11". Yeah, some Kurds have a twisted view of history because of nationalism. Is this unique to Kurds? No. You literally only care because you're Assyrian, which is kind of silly.

-

And to be perfectly honest, I have no beef with kurds whatsoever, its just that recently I've noticed a few things that are at the very least "questionable" from their ends when it comes to certain claims they make.

Kurds really aren't a monolithic group in that sense. Sure, some make absurd claims, likes Medes being Kurdish predecessors and Zoroastrianism being a Kurdish religion. However, these claims are only being portrayed as "typical Kurdish" because they're incorrect and cause some people to be provoked. They aren't viewed as "typical Kurdish" because they enjoy some form of overwhelming support from Kurds or something similar. Our friend the Apple, for example, doesn't care about what other Kurds think, as nothing makes him smile more than an excuse reason to downtalk Kurds, since he views them as his primary enemy or whatever the current AINA agenda says. Just like internet diaspora Assyrians, internet diaspora Armenians, internet diaspora Turks and internet diaspora Persians aren't representative of their people as a whole, so aren't Kurds. It's very often the case of a loud minority when topics such as these are brought up. On top of that we have the case of Middle Eastern people being ignorant, and to a lesser extent stupid.

ancestryfan1994
2016-04-30, 21:42
Kurds really aren't a monolithic group in that sense. Sure, some make absurd claims, likes Medes being Kurdish predecessors and Zoroastrianism being a Kurdish religion. However, these claims are only being portrayed as "typical Kurdish" because they're incorrect and cause some people to be provoked. They aren't viewed as "typical Kurdish" because they enjoy some form of overwhelming support from Kurds or something similar. Our friend the Apple, for example, doesn't care about what other Kurds think, as nothing makes him smile more than an excuse reason to downtalk Kurds, since he views them as his primary enemy or whatever the current AINA agenda says. Just like internet diaspora Assyrians, internet diaspora Armenians, internet diaspora Turks and internet diaspora Persians aren't representative of their people as a whole, so aren't Kurds. It's very often the case of a loud minority when topics such as these are brought up. On top of that we have the case of Middle Eastern people being ignorant, and to a lesser extent stupid.

This is the conflicting part that i have struggled to come to terms with, my own experience with this stuff comes by way of a very good friend of mine who is kurdish. I always heard the "Medes" hypothesis from him and the kurds he knows, as if it was a source of national pride for kurds as an ethnic group, and it is to a fair extent spread among a certain portion of kurds (mainly the uneducated super nationalists). But this kurdish friend of mine also has no idea about genetics and linguistic statistics so on that front, like you say, its mainly because they have not been educated enough. This also goes the same way for my own people and our obsession with the aryan hypothesis. At the end of the day you can only encourage those that have those sort of viewpoints to seek out the truth by means of scientific or historical facts, explaining otherwise to them is useless.

The Apple
2016-04-30, 23:09
If someone engages in history revisionism, and/or is overly nationalistic, counter those specific points or ignore that person. No need to drag 30+ million people through the mud because you feel butthurt as a diaspora Assyrian. You don't see me going "man, typical Turkish behaviour to genocide and instill barbarity, fascist Turks!!11". Yeah, some Kurds have a twisted view of history because of nationalism. Is this unique to Kurds? No. You literally only care because you're Assyrian, which is kind of silly.

Oh please. Kurds are known for this. Probably the worst offenders in the region. There is no one here in particular to counter, so your point is moot to begin with.

I'm content with the diaspora. Really, if it wasn't for our spread here beginning in the 19th century, a lot of us would have ended up like a less retarded Arab, Kurd, or Turk. Not because we would follow the same natural trajectory, but because of the aforementioned surrounding populations negatively influencing us as they have been. Given our massive persecution, our population is better than most other Middle Eastern groups despite this unfortunate circumstance anyway. We are no where near as backward, and are actually moving forward, unlike you guys. Turks are actually regressing, which is pretty funny.

I really don't understand why Kurds are in Europe and North America to begin with. Your place really isn't here. Kurds, along with Turks and other Muslim Middle Easterns are a fifth column in the West.

But really, you don't know much about me, what I've done so far, or what I'm currently doing with Assyrian-related affairs, so the "internet warrior" comment is a bit funny. Suppose I was just that - an internet warrior - social media is one of, if not the most influential mediums in the world. It's not that bad of a thing if you think about it.

I know you were just making an example, but a Kurd can't even use that argument, since a Kurd is effectively a less-refined version of a Turk. Still backward, violent, etc., but not equivocal.

"Some." Middle Easterns(as well as other groups) are bad with this in general. Kurds are a special exception that claim much more, from various groups though. Even the Swedes(and not just the post on this particular thread), have shown Kurds claiming parts of Western civilization. I'm sure the amount of Kurds claiming that they've always been along the Mediterranean is going to increase as well. Thanks to being an expansionary population that won't stop having fifty uneducated children.

beyw
2016-05-01, 01:16
Oh please. Kurds are known for this. Probably the worst offenders in the region. There is no one here in particular to counter, so your point is moot to begin with.

Ridiculous argument. Do you want to know what Assyrians are known for, and see me base a shitty statement based on that appearent fact about your people? Ain't that hard to do akhi (:p). Nobody disputes that some Kurds falsely claim Zoroastrianism as a Kurdish religion. It's your (by now) tiresome attitude of generalizing such a diverse group that's the issue at hand. In my reply to ancestryfan1994 I discuss that very generalization, whilst acknowleding that some Kurds live up to what you say is a "typical" Kurdish behaviour.


I'm content with the diaspora. Really, if it wasn't for our spread here beginning in the 19th century, a lot of us would have ended up like a less retarded Arab, Kurd, or Turk. Not because we would follow the same natural trajectory, but because of the aforementioned surrounding populations negatively influencing us as they have been. Given our massive persecution, our population is better than most other Middle Eastern groups despite this unfortunate circumstance anyway. We are no where near as backward, and are actually moving forward, unlike you guys.

If you find this comforting, then by all means. Doesn't really change the grim fate Assyrians are facing.


Turks are actually regressing, which is pretty funny.

That's not true, but another topic.


I really don't understand why Kurds are in Europe and North America to begin with. Your place really isn't here. Kurds, along with Turks and other Muslim Middle Easterns are a fifth column in the West.

I'd love to have this disucssion but I really don't see what it has to do with what I wrote. If you care to know, I actually agree with you on this.



But really, you don't know much about me, what I've done so far, or what I'm currently doing with Assyrian-related affairs, so the "internet warrior" comment is a bit funny. Suppose I was just that - an internet warrior - social media is one of, if not the most influential mediums in the world. It's not that bad of a thing if you think about it.

Yeah, I never called you an internet warrior. So, I guess we cool. I'm sure you are furthering the Assyrian cause a great deal as we speak.


I know you were just making an example, but a Kurd can't even use that argument, since a Kurd is effectively a less-refined version of a Turk. Still backward, violent, etc., but not equivocal.

That warms my uncivilized, savage heart, my dear Suryoyo Christian.


"Some." Middle Easterns(as well as other groups) are bad with this in general. Kurds are a special exception that claim much more, from various groups though.

My main Kurdologist the Apple. You know, it's much easier to spot the bullshit when seperating your post in to more isolated lines of inflammatory and silly sentences.


Even the Swedes(and not just the post on this particular thread), have shown Kurds claiming parts of Western civilization. I'm sure the amount of Kurds claiming that they've always been along the Mediterranean is going to increase as well.

What parts of Western civilisation have Kurds claimed? Did we found Rome? :evilgrin:


Thanks to being an expansionary population that won't stop having fifty uneducated children.

I'll tell my grandchildren all about how there used to be an Assyrian people, before they were lost due to assimilation and turning the other cheek whilst succumbing to the violent nature of the Middle East, in their very own homeland. It'll move my hopefully Kurdish grandchildren to tears, I reckon.

The Apple
2016-05-02, 01:05
Ridiculous argument. Do you want to know what Assyrians are known for, and see me base a shitty statement based on that appearent fact about your people? Ain't that hard to do akhi (:p). Nobody disputes that some Kurds falsely claim Zoroastrianism as a Kurdish religion. It's your (by now) tiresome attitude of generalizing such a diverse group that's the issue at hand. In my reply to ancestryfan1994 I discuss that very generalization, whilst acknowleding that some Kurds live up to what you say is a "typical" Kurdish behaviour.
You're a static population, like most Muslim groups. Not my problem, Kurdo. ;)


If you find this comforting, then by all means. Doesn't really change the grim fate Assyrians are facing.
We've survived this long. We're not disappearing anytime soon.


I'd love to have this disucssion but I really don't see what it has to do with what I wrote. If you care to know, I actually agree with you on this.
Yet you're still in the West.


Yeah, I never called you an internet warrior. So, I guess we cool. I'm sure you are furthering the Assyrian cause a great deal as we speak.
What an exquisite passive aggressive comment.


That warms my uncivilized, savage heart, my dear Suryoyo Christian.
It would be a Suraya atheist, for future reference.


My main Kurdologist the Apple. You know, it's much easier to spot the bullshit when seperating your post in to more isolated lines of inflammatory and silly sentences.
Capitalizing a made-up profession for added weight. How quaint.


What parts of Western civilisation have Kurds claimed? Did we found Rome? :evilgrin:
I would say that is a ridiculous claim, but I'm sure there is at least one of your kind that does.


I'll tell my grandchildren all about how there used to be an Assyrian people, before they were lost due to assimilation and turning the other cheek whilst succumbing to the violent nature of the Middle East, in their very own homeland. It'll move my hopefully Kurdish grandchildren to tears, I reckon.
You should have completely rethought this little summary. It doesn't make sense.