According to Kurdish scholar Taufiq Wahbi, their main deity, which symbolized the good and the wholesome, was Baba Asman. He was the counterpart of the Indian god, Diyaus Pitar.
How could he know ? Are there written sources of first Iranians ? No. The only written sources we have concerning Iranian religion is Avesta, which is closed to Rig-Veda of Indian. No mention of a "Baba Asman". I wonder where Wahby has fished the name, then. Diyaus Pitar has given the name "Zeus" for greek, or "Deus" in latin, etc. Avesta gives the name of the 7 divinities, but never mentionned a "Baba Asman". And there is no equivalence in Rig-Veda which is the most ancient religious text of an Indo-Aryan population.
But I believe that while some Kurds in the east accepted Zoroastrianism, the majority did not. They remained faithful to
their own ancient religion.
Ok, believe. But what are the proof ?
According to Zoroastrian legend, god would stop the flow of water through cities, leaving residents with no alternative but to sacrifice selected maidens. Then god would restore the water flow.
It is more a Mesopotamien belief than an Iranian one, for it was a symbol of irrigation, and fisrt Iranian were not peasants but nomadic shpeherds, they did not care of water and agriculture.
By the way, for the moment the author just say that Kurds and Yezidis are not Zoroastrians (without proving it though). I agree also.
According to Wahbi, during the 4th and 5th centuries AD the majority of Kurds east of the Zagros, Cizir, Botan, Kirkuk, and those in the mountains of southeast Kurdistan were not Zoroastrians.
Sources ??? and it is funny and unscientific to call these cities with their modern names, as if you say Mosul for Niniveh...
We see that the people of the Medes' Empire, whom we regard as the ancestors of the Kurds, were not Zoroastrians.
First : there is no proof that medes are Kurds' ancestors. And as Medes did not write, we have not a lot of informations about their religion.
The religion of the Medes was supplanted by three religions emanating from it, which remain to this day: Yezidism, Yarsanism and Alewism.
LOL. Comic stuff. Alevis did not exist before 16th century. It was a personnal creation of Shah Ismaïl. Before that, Qizil Bash were shiites, and originally a sunni sufi order.
Yarsenism (ahl e Haqq) could not be appeared before Islam, with its cult of Angel figures calling : Sultan Sohak, Djibraïl, Benyamin, Israfil, Azrail, and Fatma...
And about yezidism it is the same : they have ancient Iranian beliefs, but a great number of Arab terms. Malek Taus is the most important figure. Strange that this main figure has an Arab name, isn't it ?
Among the Yazdani sects of our day, Alewis and Yarsanis, beliefs are founded on the worship of seven angels.
Like in any Iranian cults, nothing original, even Zoroastrism was like that.
"Religion is the religion of the red Yezidi". When a Yezidi boy is circumcised, he is required to say, "I am a lamb of the red Yezidi".
Interesting but not specific to yezidism. Avesta had it too, and the great Shihab al Dîn Yahyâ Sohrawardî praised too the "Red Archangel". He was not yezidi but muslim, though.
There is an interesting belief about Prophet Zoroaster. Sheikh Dewresh Kelesh would say that Zoroaster was a Yezidi who left us. When he returned we did not accept his religion. It is evident from Iranian history that Zoroaster came from the people who lived around Lake Ourmiya. He remained on Mt. Ararat for two years and then returned to his people as a prophet preaching a new religion. He spent ten years recruiting converts among the people around Ourmiya, but his efforts drew only one person to his beliefs. Finally, he went to the Persians, among whom he found fertile ground for his teachings. This lends credibility to the claim that the sayings of Sheikh Dewresh are not baseless.
Fantasist stuff, again. We know quite nothing about Zoroaster. Only few mention in Avesta, no one knows where he borned, and where he went and died.
Moreover, contrary to the writings of some scholars, Yezidism did not emanate from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism originated from Yezidism. Before Zoroaster became the prophet of a new religion, he was either a Yezidi or belonged to Yezidism.
yeah very interesting conclusion : just that Yezidis are not Zoroastrians. Thanx, we already know.
But telling that Zoroastrism derived from Yezidism is a pure invention. Based on nothing. We just know that Zoroastrism was a reform of an ancient Iranian cult, probably near to Indian Vedism if we consider the common points and gods and names between Avesta and Rig-Veda. If we compare Rig-Veda and Yezidism, we have not a great semblance.
Then, this paper is NOT a scientific paper. No quotations of original texts, no proofs, and a lot of mistakes, and pure dreamy affirmation. Have you nothing better than this to show us ?
