Iran and its surrounding regions—from China and India in the east to Mesopotamia in the west—have long been a crossroads of cultural, social, political, and ideological interactions, at times erupting into military conflicts. In this historical context, and in an era where knowledge and reason are increasingly applied to cultural endeavors, it is essential that we reflect on the contributions of the great thinkers and scholars of Iran with fairness, honesty, and without prejudice or hostility, even when adopting a critical or evaluative perspective.
In Khordad (June) of this year, I read an article by Farhad Royintan on the Amordad website discussing a “wave of attacks on the Zoroastrian faith” [Royintan, 1404 Khordad], reporting the publication of several books whose content was considered offensive to Zoroastrianism. These publications had raised cultural and legal concerns among Zoroastrians and followers of other religions in Iran.
Among these works, I came across “The Sacrifice in Zoroastrian Ritual” by researcher Gholamreza Navaderi. The book surveys the history of sacrificial practices across various religions and cultures before focusing on sacrifice in Zoroastrianism. I present this discussion to highlight certain educational and research considerations in this area and to critically examine the author’s conclusions regarding sacrificial practices in the Zoroastrian tradition.
- The Book and Its Author
This book provides comprehensive publication details, including the author’s name, publisher, contact information (phone and email), place and year of publication, first edition print run, total number of pages, and more. The author, Hojjatoleslam Gholamreza Navaderi, serves as the scientific secretary of the Zoroastrianism and Antiquity group at the Qom Seminary. He has commented on various aspects of pre-Islamic Iranian history, some of which are apparently based on historical and scholarly sources. For The Sacrifice in Zoroastrian Ritual, the author cites over 195 references. The book also includes a Dewey Decimal classification, a Library of Congress classification, and a national bibliography number.
The work begins with a three-page preface and is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provides an overview of sacrifice in different religious traditions. Of particular interest is the discussion of the Arabic term “Majus” as it appears in the Quran. This chapter examines the role and significance of sacrifice across various faiths, drawing on multiple sources, before focusing specifically on Zoroastrian sacrificial practices. The chapter concludes with a review of prior research and the types of sources consulted.
Overall, the approach in this introductory chapter suggests a scholarly and impartial methodology, giving readers reason to expect a research-based and balanced treatment of the subject.
The second chapter of the book explores meat consumption in ancient Iran and within Zoroastrian practices. The third chapter focuses on hunting, examining perspectives from the Shahnameh and the Avesta, and analyzing the relationship between social classes, hunting practices, and the rules governing who could hunt.
The fourth chapter is the longest, covering over 120 pages, and investigates sacrificial practices across different historical periods—from the Medes and Achaemenids to the Sassanid era—while also considering the customs of various ethnic and religious groups in Iran.
The fifth and final chapter addresses Zoroastrians and sacrificial practices in contemporary times. Even in this section, the author revisits the origins of sacrifice from the viewpoints of Hindu philosophy, Āzar Keyvani, the Gathas, and the Avesta. The book concludes with a three-page summary that synthesizes the findings from all chapters.
Although the index lists nearly 200 references, many additional sources appear to be missing. Including these could have helped to more rigorously test the author’s hypotheses and critically evaluate his interpretations. In scholarly research, it is essential to acknowledge that our hypotheses may be accepted, rejected, or refined as the study progresses, reflecting the evolving and provisional nature of academic knowledge.
- On the content of the Book’s conclusion
I focus here only on the conclusion because a full critique of all five main chapters would require much more time and space. Given that the book spans over 270 pages and includes nearly 200 references, a thorough conclusion should have extended at least ten pages to adequately summarize all chapters. Instead, the conclusion is brief and abrupt.
Despite its brevity, the conclusion reveals the author’s key hypotheses, which, in my view, are even more significant than the discussion of sacrifice in Zoroastrianism itself. Two points stand out on the second page of the conclusion (p. 256): the uncertainty surrounding the attribution of the Gathas to Zoroaster, and the question of the certainty of Zoroaster’s prophethood. Here, the author draws on Dr. Parviz Rajabi’s work regarding the “lost six millennia” and the unclear timing of Zoroaster’s emergence.
According to Navaderi, neither Zoroaster’s prophethood—of this great Iranian thinker and messenger—nor the connection of the philosophical Gathas to him can be considered certain. If the author questions the foundations of the faith and the legitimacy of its prophet, it raises an important question: why focus on sacrificial practices in Zoroastrianism? If the authenticity of the religion and its messenger is in doubt, whether or not sacrifice exists in the tradition has little relevance to the validity of his analysis.
At this point, I must highlight an essential consideration and set aside the other sections of the book. The exact time and place of Zoroaster’s emergence are difficult to establish, with estimates ranging from approximately 600 years before Christ to over 2,000 years earlier. This uncertainty is similar to other great thinkers and prophets whose lives remain partially obscure, even in more recent times. One’s perspective or allegiance often shapes how a prophet is interpreted, and encountering different viewpoints naturally leads to examining alternative hypotheses.
In conclusion, as long as a society with Iranian roots survives, the memory and identity of Iran will endure—even if mismanagement or negligence threatens its continuity. Just as the Shahnameh preserves the Persian language and the heritage of Iran and Iranians, so too does even a small Zoroastrian community ensure that the legacy of Zoroaster lives on, provided his Gathic teachings are studied carefully and interpreted accurately.
Given the complexity of the Gathas and the Avesta, many terms have been mistranslated or misinterpreted by Western scholars or Iranian translators, sometimes distorting the meaning of entire passages. A writer who values their Iranian heritage should focus on accurate and thoughtful interpretations rather than speculative or misleading readings. For instance, rather than translating Geush Urvanam as “the soul of the cow,” a more precise understanding would be “the soul of the universe” or “the cosmic soul.”
While what Westerners or non-Iranians say about this great Iranian prophet is worth exploring, the most important responsibility lies with Iranians themselves: to honor their pre-Islamic history and cultural heritage, especially the wisdom of Zoroaster and the benevolence of Cyrus the Great. To doubt or question these foundations distances one from being truly connected to their Iranian identity.
It is important to note that a brief look at some of Navaderi’s research, which has been published in book form, shows that several of his works address highly sensitive and controversial topics, often taking positions contrary to widely accepted views. For instance, his books “Marriage with Close Relatives” and “Cyrus or Dhu al-Qarnayn Still Unknown” respectively challenge the prevalence of consanguineous marriage among Zoroastrians and question Cyrus’s role as a liberator for the people of Babylon.
While such approaches may appear scholarly and research-based, their inherent biases and particular perspectives can lead them off course. Addressing controversial subjects and opposing prevailing views may bring recognition or notoriety within a socially and culturally sensitive environment, but it does not necessarily promote harmonious coexistence among followers of different religions in Iran.
I would like to close with a reflective excerpt from the 9th-century Iranian poet Abdulrahman Jami, as kindly shared by a friend:
“In the histories, it is said that for five thousand years the rule of the world belonged to the Gabars and the Magi, and the state was in their families because they governed with justice and did not commit oppression. It is recorded that God revealed to David (peace be upon him) to tell his people not to speak ill of the kings of the Iranians, for they established justice in the world so that My servants could live within it.”
Jami concludes:
“Understand justice and fairness, not disbelief or religion; that is what truly preserves a realm.”
