Hubbry Logo
AhrimanAhrimanMain
Open search
Ahriman
Community hub
Ahriman
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Ahriman
Ahriman
Ahriman
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Ahriman
Spirit of evil, chaos, destruction, daevas
AffiliationZoroastrianism
RegionGreater Iran
Part of a series on
Zoroastrianism
Primary topics
Divine entities
Scripture and worship
Accounts and legends
History and culture
Adherents
Related topics
icon Religion portal

Angra Mainyu (/ˈæŋrə ˈmaɪnjuː/; Avestan: 𐬀𐬢𐬭𐬀⸱𐬨𐬀𐬌𐬥𐬌𐬌𐬎, romanized: Aŋra Mainiiu) is the Avestan name of Zoroastrianism's hypostasis of the "destructive/evil spirit" and the main adversary in Zoroastrianism either of the Spenta Mainyu, the "holy/creative spirits/mentality", or directly of Ahura Mazda, the highest deity of Zoroastrianism. The Middle Persian equivalent is Ahriman (/ˈɑːrɪmən/; Middle Persian: 𐭠𐭧𐭫𐭬𐭭𐭩, romanized: Ahreman). The name can appear in English-language works as Ahrimanes.[1][a]

In the Avesta

[edit]

In Zoroaster's revelation

[edit]

Avestan angra mainyu "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's."[2] In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to Zoroaster, angra mainyu is not yet a proper name.[b] In the one instance in these hymns where the two words appear together, the concept spoken of is that of a mainyu ("mind", "spirit" or otherwise an abstract energy etc.)[c] that is angra ("destructive", "chaotic", "disorderly", "inhibitive", "malign" etc., of which a manifestation can be anger). In this single instance – in Yasna 45.2 – the "more bounteous of the spirits twain" declares angra mainyu to be its "absolute antithesis".[2]

A similar statement occurs in Yasna 30.3, where the antithesis is however aka mainyu, aka being the Avestan language word for "evil". Hence, aka mainyu is the "evil spirit" or "evil mind" or "evil thought," as contrasted with spenta mainyu, the "bounteous spirit" with which Ahura Mazda conceived of creation, which then "was".

The aka mainyu epithet recurs in Yasna 32.5, when the principle is identified with the daevas that deceive humankind and themselves. While in later Zoroastrianism, the daevas are demons, this is not yet evident in the Gathas: Zoroaster stated that the daevas are "wrong gods" or "false gods" that are to be rejected, but they are not yet demons.[3] Some have also proposed a connection between Angra Mainyu and the sage Angiras of the Rigveda.[4][5] If this is true, it could be understood as evidence for a religious schism between the deva-worshiping Vedic Indo-Aryans and early Zoroastrians.

In Yasna 32.3, these daevas are identified as the offspring, not of Angra Mainyu, but of akem manah, "evil thinking". A few verses earlier it is however the daebaaman, "deceiver" – not otherwise identified but "probably Angra Mainyu"[2] – who induces the daevas to choose achistem manah – "worst thinking." In Yasna 32.13, the abode of the wicked is not the abode of Angra Mainyu, but the abode of the same "worst thinking". "One would have expected [Angra Mainyu] to reign in hell, since he had created 'death and how, at the end, the worst existence shall be for the deceitful' (Y. 30.4)."[2]

In the Younger Avesta

[edit]

Yasna 19.15 recalls that Ahura Mazda's recital of the Ahuna Vairya invocation puts Angra Mainyu in a stupor. In Yasna 9.8, Angra Mainyu creates Aži Dahaka, but the serpent recoils at the sight of Mithra's mace (Yasht 10.97, 10.134). In Yasht 13, the Fravashis defuse Angra Mainyu's plans to dry up the earth, and in Yasht 8.44 Angra Mainyu battles but cannot defeat Tishtrya and so prevent the rains. In Vendidad 19, Angra Mainyu urges Zoroaster to turn from the good religion by promising him sovereignty of the world. On being rejected, Angra Mainyu assails Zoroaster with legions of demons, but Zoroaster deflects them all. In Yasht 19.96, a verse that reflects a Gathic injunction, Angra Mainyu will be vanquished and Ahura Mazda will ultimately prevail.

In Yasht 19.46ff, Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu battle for possession of khvaraenah, "divine glory" or "fortune". In some verses of the Yasna (e.g. Yasna 57.17), the two principles are said to have created the world, which seems to contradict the Gathic principle that declares Ahura Mazda to be the sole creator and which is reiterated in the cosmogony of Vendidad 1. In that first chapter, which is the basis for the 9th–12th-century Bundahishn, the creation of sixteen lands by Ahura Mazda is countered by the Angra Mainyu's creation of sixteen scourges such as winter, sickness, and vice. "This shift in the position of Ahura Mazda, his total assimilation to this Bounteous Spirit [Mazda's instrument of creation], must have taken place in the 4th century BC at the latest; for it is reflected in Aristotle's testimony, which confronts Areimanios with Oromazdes (apud Diogenes Laertius, 1.2.6)."[2]

Yasht 15.43 assigns Angra Mainyu to the nether world, a world of darkness. So also Vendidad 19.47, but other passages in the same chapter (19.1 and 19.44) have him dwelling in the region of the daevas, which the Vendidad asserts is in the north. There (19.1, 19.43–44), Angra Mainyu is the daevanam daevo, "daeva of daevas" or chief of the daevas. The superlative daevo.taema is however assigned to the demon Paitisha ("opponent"). In an enumeration of the daevas in Vendidad 1.43, Angra Mainyu appears first and Paitisha appears last. "Nowhere is Angra Mainyu said to be the creator of the daevas or their father."[2]

In Zurvanite Zoroastrianism

[edit]
Main article: Zurvanism

Zurvanism – a historical branch of Zoroastrianism that sought to theologically resolve a dilemma found in a mention of antithetical "twin spirits" in Yasna 30.3 – developed a notion that Ahura Mazda (MP: Ohrmuzd) and Angra Mainyu (MP: Ahriman) were twin brothers, with the former being the epitome of good and the latter being the epitome of evil. This mythology of twin brotherhood is only explicitly attested in the post-Sassanid Syriac and Armenian polemic such as that of Eznik of Kolb. According to these sources the genesis saw Zurvan as an androgynous deity, existing alone but desiring offspring who would create "heaven and hell and everything in between." Zurvan then sacrificed for a thousand years. Towards the end of this period, Zurvan began to doubt the efficacy of sacrifice and in the moment of this doubt Ohrmuzd and Ahriman were conceived: Ohrmuzd for the sacrifice and Ahriman for the doubt. Upon realizing that twins were to be born, Zurvan resolved to grant the first-born sovereignty over creation. Ohrmuzd perceived Zurvan's decision, which he then communicated to his brother. Ahriman then preempted Ohrmuzd by ripping open the womb to emerge first. Reminded of the resolution to grant Ahriman sovereignty, Zurvan conceded, but limited kingship to a period of 9000 years, after which Ohrmuzd would rule for all eternity.[6]: 419–428  Eznik of Kolb also summarizes a myth in which Ahriman is said to have demonstrated an ability to create life by creating the peacock.

The story of Ahriman's ripping open the womb to emerge first suggests that Zurvanite ideology perceived Ahriman to be evil by choice, rather than always having been intrinsically evil (as found, for example, in the cosmological myths of the Bundahishn). And the story of Ahriman's creation of the peacock suggests that Zurvanite ideology perceived Ahriman to be a creator figure like Ormazd. This is significantly different from what is found in the Avesta (where Mazda's stock epithet is dadvah, "Creator", implying Mazda is the Creator), as well as in Zoroastrian tradition where creation of life continues to be exclusively Mazda's domain, and where creation is said to have been good until it was corrupted by Ahriman and the devs.

In some Zurvanite narratives, it is mentioned that Zurvan had a wife and had children with Ahura Mazda and Ahriman, later, Ahura Mazda married his mother and had children with her, including the sun, dogs, pigs, donkeys, and cattle.[7]

In Zoroastrian tradition

[edit]

In the Pahlavi texts of the 9th–12th century, Ahriman (written ʼhl(y)mn) is frequently written upside down "as a sign of contempt and disgust."[2]

In the Book of Arda Viraf 5.10, the narrator – the 'righteous Viraf' – is taken by Sarosh and Adar to see "the reality of God and the archangels, and the non-reality of Ahriman and the demons" as described by the German philologist and orientalist Martin Haug, whose radical interpretation was to change the faith in the 19th century (see "In present-day Zoroastrianism" below). [8] This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the Denkard, a 9th-century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism",[9] which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be."[2] In chapter 100 of Book of the Arda Viraf, which is titled 'Ahriman', the narrator sees the "Evil spirit, ... whose religion is evil [and] who ever ridiculed and mocked the wicked in hell."

In the Zurvanite Ulema-i Islam (a Zoroastrian text, despite the title), "Ahriman also is called by some name by some people and they ascribe evil unto him but nothing can also be done by him without Time.[citation needed]" A few chapters later, the Ulema notes that "it is clear that Ahriman is a non-entity" but "at the resurrection Ahriman will be destroyed and thereafter all will be good; and [change?] will proceed through the will of God." In the Sad Dar, the world is described as having been created by Ohrmuzd and become pure through his truth. But Ahriman, "being devoid of anything good, does not issue from that which is owing to truth." (62.2)

Book of Jamaspi 2.3 notes that "Ahriman, like a worm, is so much associated with darkness and old age, that he perishes in the end."[10] Chapter 4.3 recalls the grotesque legend of Tahmurasp (Avestan: Taxma Urupi) riding Angra Mainyu for thirty years (cf. Yasht 15.12, 19.29) and so preventing him from doing evil. In chapter 7, Jamasp explains that the Indians declare Ahriman will die, but "those, who are not of good religion, go to hell."

The Bundahishn, a Zoroastrian account of creation completed in the 12th century has much to say about Ahriman and his role in the cosmogony. In chapter 1.23, following the recitation of the Ahuna Vairya, Ohrmuzd takes advantage of Ahriman's incapacity to create life without intervention. When Ahriman recovers, he creates Jeh, the primal seductress who afflicts women with their menstrual cycles. In Bundahishn 4.12, Ahriman perceives that Ohrmuzd is superior to himself, and so flees to fashion his many demons with which to conquer the universe in battle. The entire universe is finally divided between the Ohrmuzd and the yazads on one side and Ahriman with his devs on the other. Ahriman slays the primal bull, but the moon rescues the seed of the dying creature, and from it springs all animal creation. But the battle goes on, with mankind caught in the middle, whose duty it remains to withstand the forces of evil through good thoughts, words and deeds.

Other texts see the world created by Ohrmuzd as a trap for Ahriman, who is then distracted by creation and expends his force in a battle he cannot win. (The epistles of Zatspram 3.23; Shkand Gumanig Vichar 4.63–4.79). The Dadistan denig explains that Ohrmuzd, being omniscient, knew of Ahriman's intent, but it would have been against his "justice and goodness to punish Ahriman before he wrought evil [and] this is why the world is created."[2]

Ahriman has no such omniscience, a fact of which Ohrmuzd reminds him (Bundahishn 1.16). In contrast, in Manichaean scripture, Mani ascribes foresight to Ahriman.[11]

Some Zoroastrians believed Ahriman "created dangerous storms, plagues, and monsters during the struggle with Ahura Mazda" and that the two gods were twins.[12]

Ahriman after the influence of Islam

[edit]
See also: Religious influences on Zoroastrianism

Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla described the doctrine of the Gayomarthians sect as another attempt to mitigate the dualism that has always been the essence of Zoroastrianism. This was due to the Prophet Muhammad’s emphasis on monotheism and the Muslims’ mockery of the doctrine of worshipping two gods. This caused the Zoroastrians to view dualism as a defect, so they added monotheism, which led to the Zoroastrians’ division into sects. Dhalla mentions examples of the Zoroastrian attempt to establish a monotheistic belief by diminishing the importance of Ahriman, including that Ahura Mazda and Ahriman were created from time, or that Ahura Mazda himself allowed the existence of evil, or that Ahriman was a corrupt angel who rebelled against Ahura Mazda. He goes on to mention the name of a Persian book from the 15h century in which it is written that the Magi (Zoroastrians) believe that Allah and Iblis are brothers.[13]

In present-day Zoroastrianism

[edit]

In 1862, Martin Haug proposed a new reconstruction of what he believed was Zoroaster's original monotheistic teaching, as expressed in the Gathas – a teaching which he believed had been corrupted by later Zoroastrian dualistic tradition as expressed in post-Gathic scripture and in the texts of tradition.[14] For Angra Mainyu, this interpretation meant a demotion from a spirit coequal with Ahura Mazda to a mere product of Ahura Mazda. Haug's theory was based to a great extent on a new interpretation of Yasna 30.3; he argued that the good "twin" in that passage should not be regarded as more or less identical to Ahura Mazda, as earlier Zoroastrian thought had assumed,[15] but as a separate created entity, Spenta Mainyu. Thus, both Angra Mainyu and Spenta Mainyu were created by Ahura Mazda, and should be regarded as his respective 'creative' and 'destructive' emanations.[15]

Haug's interpretation was gratefully received by the Parsis of Bombay, who at the time were under considerable pressure from Christian missionaries (most notable amongst them John Wilson)[16] who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.[17] Haug's reconstruction had also other attractive aspects that seemed to make the religion more compatible with nineteenth-century enlightenment, as he attributed to Zoroaster a rejection of rituals and of worship of entities other than the supreme deity.[18]

These new ideas were subsequently disseminated as a Parsi interpretation, which eventually reached the west and so in turn corroborated Haug's theories. Among the Parsis of the cities, who were accustomed to English language literature, Haug's ideas were more often repeated than those of the Gujarati language objections of the priests, with the result that Haug's ideas became well entrenched and are today almost universally accepted as doctrine.[17]

While some modern scholars[d][e] have theories similar to Haug's regarding Angra Mainyu's origins,[15][f] many now think that the traditional "dualist" interpretation was in fact correct all along and that Angra Mainyu was always considered to be completely separate and independent from Ahura Mazda.[15][21][22]

The Worship of Ahriman

[edit]

According to Plutarch, Zoroaster taught the worship of Ahriman. The Encyclopedia of Iran claims:[23]

that there existed Ahriman worshippers is attested by Plutarch and in a Dēnkard passage. The former (Isis and Osiris, 46) says that Zoroaster taught the Persians to sacrifice to Areimanios "offerings for averting ill, and things of gloom. For, pounding in a mortar a herb called omomi, they invoke Hades and darkness; then having mingled it with the blood of a slaughtered wolf, they bear it forth into a sunless place and cast it away." And the Dēnkard (p. 182.6) says: "The perverted, devilish, unrighteous rite of the 'mystery of the sorcerers' consists in praising Ahriman, the destroyer." Such a cult must have passed to the mysteries of Mithra, where dedications are found Deo Arimanio. The possibility of statues of Ahriman will be discussed below.

Islam

[edit]

In Islamic discourse, Ahriman embodies the absolute evil (the Devil) in contrast to Iblis (Satan) who represents an original noble being still under God's power.[24] Although the divs, the creations of Ahriman in Zorastian beliefs, entered Islamic literature, to the point of being identified with the demons of Islamic religion,[25][26](p 34) Ahriman is mostly a stylistic device to refute the idea of absolute evil.

Rumi denies the existence of Ahriman completely:[27]

This is our main quarrel with the Magians (Zoroastrians). They say there are two Gods: the creator of good and the creator of evil. Show me good without evil – then I will admit there is a God of evil and a God of good. This is impossible, for good cannot exist without evil. Since there is no separation between them, how can there be two creators?

Anthroposophy

[edit]

Rudolf Steiner, who founded the esoteric spiritual movement Anthroposophy, used the concept of Ahriman to name one of two extreme forces which pull humanity away from the centering influence of God. Steiner associated Ahriman, the lower spirit, with materialism, science, heredity, objectivity, and soul-hardening. He thought that contemporary Christianity was subject to Ahrimanic influence, since it tended towards materialistic interpretations. Steiner predicted that Ahriman, as a supersensible Being, would incarnate into an earthly form, some little time after our present earthly existence, in fact in the third post-Christian millennium.[28]

Opus Sanctorum Angelorum

[edit]

The Opus Sanctorum Angelorum, a debated group inside the Roman Catholic Church, defines Ahriman as a "demon in the Rank of Fallen Powers". It says his duty is to obscure human brains from the Truth of God.[29]

[edit]
  • In Gilbert & Sullivan's opera The Sorcerer, Ahrimanes is mentioned in the second act.
  • In season 6 of the TV show Highlander: The Series, Ahriman is the main antagonist.
  • "Temple of Ahriman" is a 2016 song by Swedish black metal band Dark Funeral, about Angra Mainyu and the Towers of Silence.
  • Various incarnations of Angra Mainyu appear in Type-Moon's Fate series.
  • Various incarnations of Angra Mainu and Ahriman appear in Final Fantasy game series.
  • The character Ahzek Ahriman from the Warhammer 40,000 setting is based on Angra Mainyu, and his brother Ohrmuzd is based on Ahura Mazda
  • DRAUGA by Michael W. Ford is an occult work exploring the lore, mythology and modern magical practice of Yatuk Dinoih (witchcraft) and daeva-yasna (demon-worship) from ancient Persia from a Luciferian approach.
  • Angra Mainyu is the lead "deity" of the Mahrkagir of the Drujan kingdom in Kushiel's Avatar, the third book in the Kushiel's Legacy series by Jacqueline Carey.
  • Ahriman is a major character in the JRPG Felvidek.
  • Ahriman is a major antagonist in the JRPG Shin Megami Tensei III: Nocturne.
  • Ahriman is the overarching antagonist of Prince of Persia. Ahriman has been sealed inside a tree by the followers of Ormazd, but is released by their King as part of a deal which resurrected the King's daughter Elika. The titular character must help defeat Ahriman's minions, but ultimately ends up releasing the dark God himself.

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Cobbe, Frances Power (1865). "The sacred books of the Zoroastrians". Studies New and Old of Ethical and Social Subjects. London, UK: Trubner & Company. p. 131. Retrieved 30 April 2022 – via Google.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1982). "Ahriman". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 1. New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul. pp. 670–673 – via iranicaonline.org.
  3. ^ Hellenschmidt, Clarice; Kellens, Jean (1993), "Daiva", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 6, Costa Mesa: Mazda, pp. 599–602
  4. ^ Talageri, Shrikant G. (2000). The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis. Aditya Prakashan. p. 179. ISBN 9788177420104.
  5. ^ Bose, Saikat K. (2015-06-20). Boot, Hooves and Wheels: And the Social Dynamics behind South Asian Warfare. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. ISBN 9789384464547.
  6. ^ Zaehner, Richard Charles (1955), Zurvan, a Zoroastrian dilemma, Oxford: Clarendon
  7. ^ Foundation, Encyclopaedia Iranica. "MARRIAGE ii. NEXT OF KIN MARRIAGE IN ZOROASTRIANISM". iranicaonline.org. Retrieved 2025-03-23.
  8. ^ Haug, Martin; Charles F. Horne, eds. (1917), "The Book of Arda Viraf", The Sacred Books and Early Literature of the East, vol. 7, translated by Haug, Martin, New York: Parke, Austin, and Lipscomb
  9. ^ de Menasce, Jean-Pierre (1958), Une encyclopédie mazdéenne: le Dēnkart. Quatre conférences données à l'Université de Paris sous les auspices de la fondation Ratanbai Katrak, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France
  10. ^ Modi, Jivanji Jamshedji Modi (1903), Jamasp Namak ("Book of Jamaspi"), Bombay: K. R. Cama Oriental Institute
  11. ^ Dhalla, Maneckji Nusservanji (1938), History of Zoroastrianism, New York: OUP p. 392.
  12. ^ Wilkinson, Philip (1999). Spilling, Michael; Williams, Sophie; Dent, Marion (eds.). Illustrated Dictionary of Religions (First American ed.). New York: DK. p. 70. ISBN 0-7894-4711-8.
  13. ^ "M.N. Dhalla: History of Zoroastrianism (1938), part 6, CHAPTER XLVI , DOWNFALL OF THE SASANIANS, AND THE AFTERMATH". www.avesta.org. Retrieved 2025-05-17.
  14. ^ Haug, Martin (1884). West, Edward W. (ed.). Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis (3rd ed.). London, UK: Trubner – via Google Books.
  15. ^ a b c d Boyce, Mary (1982). A History of Zoroastrianism (Third impression, with corrections). Vol. 1: The Early Period. pp. 192–194.
  16. ^ Wilson, John (1843). The Parsi Religion: Unfolded, refuted, and contrasted with Christianity. Bombay, IN: American Mission Press. pp. 106 ff.
  17. ^ a b Maneck, Susan Stiles (1997). The Death of Ahriman: Culture, identity and theological change among the Parsis of India. Bombay, IN: K.R. Cama Oriental Institute. pp. 182 ff.
  18. ^ Boyce, Mary (2001). Zoroastrians: Their religious beliefs and practices. Routledge. p. 20. ISBN 9780415239028 – via Google Books.
  19. ^ Gershevitch, Ilya (January 1964). "Zoroaster's own contribution". Journal of Near Eastern Studies. 23 (1): 12–38. doi:10.1086/371754. S2CID 161954467.
  20. ^ Boyce, Mary (1990). Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism. University of Chicago Press. p. 16. ISBN 9780226069302 – via Google Books.
  21. ^ Clark, Peter (1998). Zoroastrianism: An introduction to an ancient faith. Sussex Academic Press. pp. 7–9. ISBN 9781898723783 – via Google Books.
  22. ^ Nigosian, Solomon Alexander (1993). The Zoroastrian Faith: Tradition and modern research. McGill – Queen's Press. p. 22. ISBN 9780773511446 – via Google Books.
  23. ^ Foundation, Encyclopaedia Iranica. "Welcome to Encyclopaedia Iranica". iranicaonline.org. Retrieved 2024-09-11.
  24. ^ Asa Simon Mittman, Peter J. Dendle The Ashgate Research Companion to Monsters and the Monstrous, Routledge 24.02.2017, ISBN 978-1-351-89431-9
  25. ^ Davaran, Fereshteh. Continuity in Iranian identity: Resilience of a cultural heritage. Vol. 7. Routledge, 2010.
  26. ^ Nünlist, Tobias (2015). Dämonenglaube im Islam [Islamic Belief in Demons] (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-110-33168-4.
  27. ^ Asghar, Irfan. The Notion of Evil in the Qur'an and Islamic Mystical Thought. Diss. The University of Western Ontario (Canada), 2021.
  28. ^ Steiner, Rudolph (1985). The Ahrimanic Deception. Spring Valley, New York: Anthroposophic Press. p. 6. Lecture given by Rudolf Steiner in Zurich October 27th, 1919
  29. ^ Das Handbuch des Engelwerkes. Innsbruck, 1961. p. 120.
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Ahriman

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Ahriman, also known as Angra Mainyu in the Avestan language—meaning "destructive" or "hostile spirit"—is the embodiment of evil and the chief antagonist in Zoroastrianism, standing in eternal opposition to the supreme benevolent deity Ahura Mazda. As the uncreated force of chaos, destruction, and falsehood, Ahriman represents the principle of druj (the Lie), countering Ahura Mazda's asha (truth and order), and is responsible for introducing death, disease, and moral corruption into the world. In Zoroastrian cosmology, he is not a fallen angel or subordinate creation but an independent, coeternal twin spirit to Spenta Mainyu (the Holy or Bounteous Spirit), though subordinate in ultimate power, engaging in a cosmic dualistic battle that defines the religion's ethical framework. The concept of Ahriman originates in the earliest Zoroastrian scriptures, the Gathas of the , composed by the prophet (Zarathustra) around the second millennium BCE, where Angra Mainyu is depicted as choosing evil over good in the primordial division of spirits. Later texts, such as the (Fargard 1), elaborate on his destructive activities, portraying him as counter-creating noxious elements—like venomous serpents, freezing winters, and evil sorcerers—in response to 's perfect lands, thereby corrupting the material world through his assault. This dualism underscores Zoroastrianism's emphasis on human , where individuals must actively choose good thoughts, words, and deeds to aid against Ahriman's influence. In post-Avestan Pahlavi literature, such as the Bundahishn, Ahriman's role expands into a detailed demonology, where he leads a host of daevas (demons) and daevas like Aeshma (wrath) and Druj (the Lie), perpetuating evil until the final renovation of the world (Frashokereti), when he and his forces will be annihilated, purifying creation. Zoroastrian theology posits that Ahriman's defeat is assured, as evil is inherently weaker and self-destructive, reinforcing the faith's optimistic eschatology. This figure has profoundly influenced Abrahamic religions, contributing to concepts of Satan or the Devil, though Ahriman remains distinctly a cosmic force rather than a mere tempter.

Etymology and Origins

Linguistic Roots

The term Ahriman originates from the Avestan compound Angra Mainyu, which literally translates to "destructive spirit" or "evil mind." This etymology breaks down into two primary components: angra, denoting "destructive," "hostile," or "evil," and mainyu, signifying "spirit," "mind," or "mentality." These elements trace back to Proto-Indo-Iranian roots, with angra- linked to concepts of affliction, constriction, or anger, possibly deriving from Proto-Indo-European *h₂enǵʰ- ("narrow" or "tight"), evoking a sense of binding harm. The second component, mainyu-, corresponds to Proto-Indo-Iranian manyu-, cognate with Vedic Sanskrit manyuḥ, a term for "wrath," "spirit," or even a deified embodiment of furious energy in the Rigveda, highlighting shared Indo-Iranian notions of abstract mental or spiritual forces. In the transition to Middle Iranian languages, Angra Mainyu evolved phonetically into "Ahriman," particularly in Pahlavi texts of the Parthian and Sasanian periods (circa 3rd century BCE to 7th century CE). This shift involved typical Iranian sound changes, such as the intervocalic nasal ŋ developing into a cluster /hr/, and simplifying while retaining its core meaning as the adversarial force; the form is not attested in inscriptions but appears consistently in Zoroastrian . Scholarly analysis of the term's antiquity centers on its appearance in the Gathas, the oldest hymns attributed to (circa 1500–1000 BCE), where Angra Mainyu is invoked only once ( 45.2) as the antithesis to the benevolent spirit. This limited attestation in archaic Old Avestan suggests the specific compound may be a Zoroastrian innovation, though linguists debate whether the underlying concepts of destructive spirits predated him, drawing on the term's Proto-Indo-Iranian parallels and the demotion of earlier Indo-Iranian deities into demonic roles.

Conceptual Development in Early Iranian Religion

In pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion, which shared roots with the broader Indo-Iranian mythological tradition, the daevas represented a class of deities linked to natural phenomena and cosmic forces, often embodying aspects of that challenged the established order. These figures paralleled the devas in Vedic traditions as divine beings, but in Iranian contexts, certain daevas were associated with disruptive or malevolent actions, such as storms or battles that symbolized cosmic instability, laying conceptual groundwork for later antagonistic entities. Zoroaster's reforms fundamentally transformed this polytheistic framework by elevating Angra Mainyu—later known as —as the singular destructive spirit and primary antagonist to , the supreme benevolent deity. This shift introduced a stark ethical dualism, portraying the universe as a battleground between creative order () and destructive chaos (druj), where Angra Mainyu actively corrupts the good creation rather than existing as one among many gods. Scholars interpret this as Zoroaster's innovative response to prevailing Indo-Iranian beliefs, consolidating chaotic daevas under Angra Mainyu's leadership to emphasize moral choice and cosmic renewal. Archaeological evidence from early Iranian regions, including Elamite inscriptions from dating to the second millennium BCE, hints at destructive deities through references to gods invoked for warfare and calamity, such as protective figures countering chaos-bringing forces in royal dedications. Similarly, sparse inscriptions and artifacts from the seventh century BCE, such as those from Tepe Nush-e Jan, suggest ritual practices addressing adversarial supernatural elements, potentially prefiguring Zoroastrian dualistic oppositions. Mary Boyce, in her analysis of Zoroastrian origins, posits that Ahriman's role emerged prominently in early rituals as a counterforce to the sacred flame, symbolizing the perpetual threat of pollution and extinction that worshippers ritually warded off to maintain cosmic balance. Boyce argues this conceptualization drew from pre-Zoroastrian nomadic traditions, where served as a focal point for confronting environmental and spiritual disorders attributed to malevolent influences.

Role in Zoroastrian Scriptures

Depiction in the Gathas

In the Gathas, the core hymns attributed to Zoroaster, Angra Mainyu—later known as Ahriman in Middle Persian—represents the destructive spirit and embodiment of druj (the Lie or Falsehood), standing in fundamental opposition to asha (Truth or Righteousness), the cosmic and moral order upheld by Ahura Mazda. This ethical dualism is vividly articulated in Yasna 30, which describes the two primeval spirits as twins who, at the dawn of existence, reveal themselves as the sources of good and evil in thought, word, and deed; the wiser choose rightly between them, while fools err. The good spirit aligns with asha, fostering benevolence and life, whereas the evil spirit embraces druj, promoting destruction and deception. Angra Mainyu's name appears explicitly only once in the Gathas, in 45.2, where the more bountiful spirit proclaims its antithesis to this "follower of the Lie," portraying Angra Mainyu as that introduces death and corruption into Ahura Mazda's primordial creations. This intrusion results in a mingled world, where the spirits' opposing choices at creation's outset produce both life and non-life, intertwined ( 30.4). The Gathas thus frame the material realm as a battleground born from this initial cosmic tension, with Angra Mainyu's assault manifesting as the perversion of Ahura Mazda's benevolent order rather than a separate act of independent creation. The Gathas emphasize ethical dualism through Angra Mainyu's influence on human , tempting individuals toward moral deviation and the of via druj, while the righteous align with to aid in the ultimate triumph of good. This choice determines one's fate in the eschatological renewal, where followers of the Lie face retribution and the virtuous attain bliss. Yasna 30 underscores the personal and cosmic stakes, urging discernment to resist evil's seduction and contribute to the renovation of the world. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars, including James Darmesteter in his translation of the , have characterized the Gathas' portrayal of Angra Mainyu as abstract and psychological, symbolizing internal moral conflict and ethical choice rather than the later, more literal . Mary Boyce, in her analysis of Zoroastrian origins, similarly notes this focus on introspective dualism in the Gathas, distinct from the mythological elaborations in subsequent texts. Helmut Humbach's linguistic further highlights how terms like angra mainyu evoke a retarding mentality opposing progressive truth.

Portrayal in the Younger Avesta

In the Younger Avesta, Angra Mainyu, the destructive spirit, emerges as a more vividly mythologized compared to his abstract philosophical role in the Gathas, serving as the archetypal leader of the , or malevolent divinities, who embody chaos and deceit. He is explicitly titled the "Daeva of Daevas" in the , where he rallies these demonic forces against the creations of , counter-creating evils such as diseases, drought, and death to corrupt the ordered world. This leadership is portrayed through narratives of collective assault, where Angra Mainyu directs daevas like , Saurva, and Naonghaithya in their opposition to righteousness (). Key myths in the and illustrate Angra Mainyu's aggressive incursions into primordial creation, including his assault on the sole-created bull (), which he slays to introduce mortality and suffering into the world, transforming an ideal unity into a realm of mixture and decay. In response, he generates subordinate demons to perpetuate his influence, such as (Akəm Manah), the of evil mind, who tempts individuals toward wicked thoughts and is hurled by Angra Mainyu alongside other fiends in Yasht 19.46 to assail heroes and yazatas. Similarly, , the of wrath and violence, acts as Angra Mainyu's messenger, wielding a bloody spear to incite fury and disrupt rituals, as detailed in Vendidad 10.13 and 10.93, where he is repelled by invocations to protective deities. Ritual texts like the emphasize practical defenses against Angra Mainyu and his daevas, prescribing purifications to expel "evil spirits" through recitations of sacred manthras, fumigations, and ablutions that neutralize demonic pollution (druj). For instance, in 19, Angra Mainyu attempts to seduce Zoroaster with promises of worldly dominion, only to be thwarted when the prophet chants the Ahunvar , causing the demon Bui and accompanying fiends to flee in terror, underscoring the efficacy of ritual words in warding off direct assaults. Cosmological narratives in the depict ongoing battles where yazatas like confront Angra Mainyu, forcing him to retreat in fear from the god's radiant chariot and mace, as in the Mihr Yasht ( 10), where Mithra's vigilance ensures the demon's temporary expulsion from the earthly realm. These conflicts culminate in eschatological prophecy, with Angra Mainyu's ultimate defeat foreseen at , the final renovation, when the and forces of good eradicate all daevas, purifying creation and rendering the destructive spirit powerless forever ( 19.11-12). Scholars such as Antonio Panaino note that the Younger Avesta concretizes the Gathas' abstract dualism by embedding Angra Mainyu in elaborate mythological cycles, shifting from ethical opposition to tangible cosmic warfare and ritual countermeasures, thereby making the threat of evil more immediate and actionable for devotees.

Interpretations in Zoroastrian Variants

Zurvanite Dualism

In Zurvanite , Zurvan, the god of infinite time, is depicted as the primordial father of both and Ahriman. According to accounts preserved in Armenian sources, Zurvan performed sacrifices for a thousand years in an effort to produce a male heir, but in a moment of doubt about the efficacy of his offerings, he vowed that the first child born—regardless of gender—would rule the world. This doubt led to the conception of twins within Zurvan: (Ohrmazd) emerged from the essence of the sacrifices, embodying goodness and light, while Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) sprang from the doubt itself, representing darkness and destruction. This mythological framework establishes a limited dualism distinct from orthodox Zoroastrianism's ethical dualism, where and Ahriman are co-eternal and equally potent opposites locked in cosmic struggle. In , Ahriman is portrayed as a subordinate force, born second and granted only temporary dominion over the material world for 9,000 years as part of Zurvan's overarching plan; his role as a facilitates creation and ultimate renewal, ensuring 's final victory and the restoration of order. Zurvanism gained prominence during the Sassanian Empire (224–651 CE), particularly at the royal court, where it influenced theological discourse and may have enjoyed patronage among elites, though it coexisted uneasily with orthodox . Evidence survives in Pahlavi texts such as the , , and Selections of Zadspram, which describe Zurvan's aspects (e.g., as infinite time encompassing space, wisdom, and power) and integrate Zurvanite motifs into broader cosmogonies, including Ahriman's defilement of creation as a catalyst for human propagation. Modern scholarship debates Zurvanism's status as either a heretical , a parallel ancient Iranian tradition, or an integrated theological trend within , with limited direct textual attestation fueling ongoing reconstruction efforts. Geo Widengren, in works like Die Religionen Irans (1965), argued for Zurvanism's deep roots in pre-Zoroastrian Iranian religion, positing it as a monistic framework that elevated time above dualistic forces, influencing Sassanian esotericism without fully supplanting .

Pahlavi and Post-Avestan Traditions

In the Pahlavi literature of the Sassanian period, Ahriman (Angra Mainyu) is depicted as the destructive spirit who initiates the cosmic conflict by invading Ohrmazd's spiritual creation after a period of spiritual existence. According to the , Ahriman, dwelling in endless darkness, perceives Ohrmazd's superiority and rushes into the void at noon, shattering the , darkening the world, and infusing creation with malice, thereby commencing a 9,000-year struggle divided into phases of and separation. This invasion leads Ahriman to produce afflictions such as death through the demon Astwihad, disease via venomous creatures, and other sufferings like pain, hunger, and lethargy, all designed to corrupt Ohrmazd's primordial creations including the , , , , the sole , and Gayomard the archetypal . Demonology in Pahlavi texts, particularly the Denkard, elaborates a structured under Ahriman, with Druj (the ) serving as a central of deceit and often equated with Ahriman himself as the arch-druj, leading to widespread misery by perverting and fostering falsehood. Ahriman's chief minions form a counter- to Ohrmazd's Amesha Spentas, including Akoman (Evil Mind) who sows vile thoughts, Indar who discourages virtue, Sovar who promotes misgovernment, Tauru (or Nakahed) who induces indolence, Tairev who mingles poison in food and drink, and Zairich who inflicts harm through noxious pests; these arch-fiends, along with subordinates like Astovihad (seizer of life) and Vizarsh (tormentor of souls), actively contribute to human suffering by tempting individuals toward moral lapses, bodily ailments, and post-mortem torment in hell. Eschatological narratives in the and foresee Ahriman's ultimate defeat during the (final renovation), where, after the of the dead and a climactic battle led by the , Ahriman and his remaining demons like Az are bound and rendered powerless, allowing Ohrmazd to purify the world through a molten metal ordeal that annihilates evil while rewarding the righteous. Rituals such as the , performed daily by priests, play a vital role in this cosmic opposition by invoking divine aid to weaken Ahriman's forces and hasten the renovation, with recitations believed to inflict spiritual harm on demons and reinforce the triumph of good.

Influences and Adaptations

Impact on Manichaeism

Mani, the founder of Manichaeism in the 3rd century CE, drew heavily from Zoroastrian dualism in constructing his cosmology, adapting the destructive spirit Ahriman into the figure of the Prince of Darkness as the primary antagonist who initiates cosmic conflict by invading the realm of light. This adaptation portrays the Prince of Darkness as an aggressive force emerging from a chaotic abyss, mirroring Ahriman's role as the embodiment of evil and disorder in Zoroastrian texts, though Mani emphasized a more absolute separation of light and darkness principles to underscore gnostic themes of entrapment and redemption. Central to this influence is the Manichaean outlined in key texts like the Kephalaia of the Teacher, where the Prince of Darkness—explicitly equated with Ahriman in and Parthian Manichaean sources—launches an assault on the divine realm, causing the primordial mixing of light and darkness substances. This intermingling results in the creation of the material world as a for particles, trapped within , a concept that parallels Ahriman's corruption of the good creation but shifts the focus from ethical struggle to metaphysical separation and eventual liberation through . Manichaeism's dissemination along the facilitated the retention and evolution of these Ahriman-derived motifs in regional variants, particularly among Sogdian merchants and Turkic Uighur communities, where the invading darkness persisted despite linguistic adaptations, such as replacing the name Ahriman with equivalents like Simnū in Old Turkish texts. Manichaean dualism borrows Ahriman's invasive agency while diverging in —favoring individual gnostic salvation over Zoroastrian collective renovation at the end of time.

Transformations Under Islamic Rule

Following the 7th-century Islamic conquest of , the Zoroastrian concept of Ahriman began to adapt through with elements of Islamic cosmology, particularly in Persian folklore where Ahriman was often equated with , the chief devil, and associated with malevolent . This blending reflects a cultural fusion to navigate the dominant Islamic framework while preserving Zoroastrian dualism. In the transition from Pahlavi to Zoroastrian literature, Ahriman's portrayal shifted toward a diminished cosmic status, emphasizing his influence on ethical and moral failings rather than as an equal adversary to . This is particularly apparent in texts like the Sad Dar, a 12th-century Persian of religious instructions, where Ahriman is depicted primarily as the instigator of sins such as unnatural intercourse, delay in , and the creation of noxious creatures, portraying him as a subordinate force defeated by ritual purity and truth rather than a primordial twin spirit. Such adaptations likely arose to align Zoroastrian theology more closely with Islamic , reducing Ahriman's ontological power while retaining his role in explaining human vice. The effects of under Islamic rule further shaped Ahriman's symbolic role among Zoroastrians. During this period, intensified , including forced conversions and destruction of sacred sites, compelled Zoroastrians to practice discreetly. Recent scholarship, notably Shaul Shaked's analysis in post-Islamic Zoroastrian Rivayats—collections of priestly correspondence from the 15th-18th centuries but drawing on earlier traditions—highlights how evolved under Islamic influence, with Ahriman retaining a central but subdued position in eschatological narratives, underscoring the religion's resilience through intercultural adaptation. Shaked examines these texts to illustrate the persistence of dualistic elements in Zoroastrian responses to monotheistic pressures, where Ahriman's defeat symbolizes ultimate triumph over both spiritual and historical adversities.

Modern and Esoteric Perspectives

In Contemporary Zoroastrianism

In contemporary , particularly among Parsi communities in , Ahriman is frequently interpreted symbolically as embodying internal vices such as , , and , rather than a literal cosmic adversary. This shift reflects theological adaptations influenced by modern and cultural integration, where Ahriman is downplayed as a lesser, non-independent entity to emphasize personal over dualistic conflict. Such views align with broader Parsi teachings that frame as an existential imbalance arising within human choices, promoting ethical in daily life. The ritual remains a cornerstone of modern Zoroastrian practice, invoking protections against "evil influences" attributed to Ahriman through prayers like the Fšūšō.mąθra ( 58), which praises while seeking safeguarding from malevolent powers. In diaspora communities across , , and , these rituals have been adapted for accessibility, often incorporating bilingual recitations and community gatherings in fire temples or homes to counteract negative forces amid urban lifestyles and secular pressures. These modifications ensure continuity while addressing logistical challenges faced by smaller, scattered populations. Ongoing debates highlight tensions between reformist and orthodox interpretations of Ahriman's role in dualism. Reformist thinkers like Khojeste Mistree advocate a metaphorical understanding, positing Ahriman as a temporary, non-real force symbolizing imbalance rather than an eternal counterpart to , with human good thoughts, words, and deeds aiding divine triumph over . Orthodox adherents, however, uphold literalism, viewing Ahriman as a subordinate yet real spiritual adversary based on texts, rejecting reformist notions as diluting core doctrines. These discussions, evident in 20th-century forums like the 1985 Bombay debate, continue to shape community discourse on faith and . Ahriman's conceptualization underpins ethical education in 21st-century Zoroastrianism, where dualistic teachings illustrate the choice between to cultivate (). Publications from the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of (FEZANA) emphasize this framework in religious curricula, portraying Ahriman as a cautionary in instruction for youth, fostering values like and amid contemporary challenges. Recent studies on Zoroastrian identity in settings affirm its enduring relevance in promoting ethical decision-making.

In Anthroposophy and Occult Traditions

In Rudolf Steiner's , developed in the early , Ahriman is portrayed as a supersensible being embodying materialistic and mechanistic forces that oppose both ic spirituality and the Christ impulse toward moral evolution. In his 1919 lectures compiled as The Influences of Lucifer and Ahriman, Steiner describes Ahriman as preparing for a physical in the West during the third , promoting a that denies the and spirit through soulless , , and literal interpretations of spiritual texts. This force contrasts with , who tempts toward egoistic , and Christ, who balances the two by fostering human and ethical . Within Steiner's triadic cosmology, Ahriman plays a necessary role in human spiritual evolution by intensifying material conditions, thereby compelling humanity to transcend physical limitations through conscious spiritual development. He fosters advancements in and as expressions of cold, calculating intellect, while encouraging and a denial of supersensible realities, particularly since the mid-19th century. Steiner emphasizes that this influence must be balanced by anthroposophical spiritual science, which integrates Ahrimanic clarity with Luciferic warmth and Christ-centered harmony to achieve evolutionary progress and prevent humanity from becoming enslaved to matter. Steiner's conceptualization of Ahriman draws from Theosophical roots, where Helena Petrovna Blavatsky interpreted Ahriman (as Angra Mainyu) in Zoroastrian terms as the representative of material and evil forces opposing the spiritual Ormuzd (), symbolizing the dual aspects within the human microcosm and cosmic macrocosm. This framework influenced Anthroposophy's separation from in 1913, extending Ahriman's role into modern traditions, including Rosicrucian-inspired groups that adopt Steiner's triadic model to explore material-spiritual tensions in esoteric practices. Academic critiques, such as those by historian of religions Olav Hammer, dismiss Steiner's interpretations of Ahriman as pseudohistorical, arguing that employs epistemological strategies—like appeals to ancient traditions and scientistic claims—to legitimize esoteric narratives without empirical grounding. Hammer's analysis in the early highlights how such constructions blend with , contributing to ongoing scholarly rejection of Anthroposophy's historical and cosmological assertions as unverifiable.

Worship and Cultural Depictions

Historical Cults and Rituals

In the Sassanian era (224–651 CE), Christian sources occasionally accused certain Zoroastrian fringe groups of engaging in cults dedicated to Ahriman, portraying them as worshippers of the destructive spirit in opposition to . For instance, the 8th-century Syriac writer Theodore bar Konai, in his Liber Scholiorum, described heretical Zoroastrian sects influenced by dualistic beliefs, including those that allegedly venerated Ahriman as a counterforce to the supreme deity, though these accounts are widely regarded by scholars as exaggerated polemics aimed at discrediting amid religious tensions in the empire. Such claims likely stemmed from misunderstandings of Zurvanite dualism or regional variations, where Ahriman's role in was emphasized, but direct evidence of organized Ahriman remains absent from Zoroastrian texts themselves. Orthodox Zoroastrian rituals, by contrast, focused on countering Ahrimanic influence through elaborate purification ceremonies designed to expel demonic pollution (druj). The Barashnum (or Baresnum), the most rigorous of these rites documented in both and Pahlavi literature, served as a exorcism-like process to cleanse individuals from severe contamination caused by contact with death, menstrual blood, or other agents attributed to Ahriman and his daevas. Performed by qualified in a specially prepared , the ritual began with triple washings using bull's (gomez), dust, and water, followed by isolation and recitations from the to invoke divine protection against Ahrimanic forces; Pahlavi texts like the Vendidad detail its efficacy in restoring ritual purity and spiritual integrity. This practice underscored Zoroastrianism's emphasis on combating evil through methodical rites rather than propitiating it. Fringe evidence from classical sources suggests that in eastern Iranian regions, pre-Zoroastrian or syncretic practices involving worship persisted, which later interpreters linked to Ahriman veneration. Greek historian (5th century BCE) noted that avoided temples and images, implicitly contrasting this with the daimon-worship common among other peoples, but implied regional holdouts where daevas—demons aligned with Ahriman in reformed Zoroastrian theology—retained cultic significance. In areas like and Margiana, archaeological and textual hints indicate that daevas, originally Indo-Iranian deities, were honored in rituals possibly blending with Ahrimanic elements, as daevas became synonymous with his minions in texts like the . Recent scholarly interpretations of archaeological finds from , particularly in Khorezm (spanning modern and ), have highlighted Zoroastrian elements interpretable as anti-Ahrimanic. For example, wall paintings from the 1st century CE at Akchakhan-kala, analyzed by Frantz Grenet in 2022, depict the deity —overseer of rituals and chief fighter against demons—as part of the earliest known Zoroastrian art, illustrating motifs from texts and underscoring combat against daevic (Ahrimanic) forces. These discoveries from prior excavations illuminate Zoroastrian expansion in the region.

Representations in Art and Literature

In ancient Sassanian art, Ahriman is depicted as a bound human figure trampled beneath the hooves of the god Ohrmazd's horse, symbolizing the triumph of good over evil in rock reliefs such as the investiture scene of at . This portrayal emphasizes Ahriman's role as an adversary battling benevolent spirits, often shown in a subdued position to underscore Zoroastrian dualism without glorifying the destructive force. In medieval , Ahriman appears as the patron and tempter of the tyrant in Ferdowsi's , where he disguises himself as a cook and physician to corrupt the king, feeding him lavish meals and prescribing gruesome remedies that lead to Zahhak's serpentine shoulders and . This narrative casts Ahriman as the architect of tyranny, embodying moral decay and despotic rule through subtle manipulation rather than direct confrontation. Ahriman's evolved from an abstract embodiment of evil in the , where no visual representations exist due to Zoroastrian , to concrete depictions in Sassanian reliefs as a defeated human antagonist. By the post-Sassanian and Islamic periods, portrayals in Persian illuminated manuscripts shifted toward more monstrous forms, with Ahriman rendered as a dark, serpentine or demonic entity in Mughal-era miniatures illustrating epic tales like the , highlighting his chaotic and destructive nature amid vibrant courtly scenes.

Ahriman in Broader Contexts

Perceptions in Islam

In early Islamic , the Zoroastrian concept of Ahriman as the destructive spirit opposing was interpreted as a pre-Islamic manifestation of akin to the shayatin or , the leader of the devils who rebelled against . This linkage appears in accounts of Persian religious practices, where Ahriman and his demonic forces were seen as satanic entities tempting humanity away from , reflecting Islam's rejection of dualistic cosmologies that posited an independent power. Sufi mysticism, particularly in the works of Jalal al-Din Rumi, reinterpreted Ahriman symbolically as the , or lower ego, that veils the from divine union and must be annihilated for spiritual enlightenment. In the Mathnawi, Rumi employs Ahriman as a for the self-asserting within, stating that even an angel remains "an Ahriman (Devil)" until it achieves selflessness (fana), blending Zoroastrian with Islamic to depict the internal battle against egoistic desires. This fusion highlights how Sufis adapted pre-Islamic motifs to emphasize the ego's role in spiritual impurity. Medieval Islamic polemics frequently decried Zoroastrian dualism as idolatrous, portraying Ahriman as a false or rebellious force that undermined God's absolute sovereignty, leading to legal and theological condemnations. Such critiques, common in works by scholars like , labeled dualists (thanawiyya) as heretics for elevating Ahriman to near-equality with the divine, influencing fatwas that restricted Zoroastrian practices under Islamic rule and reinforced monotheistic orthodoxy. In contemporary Iranian Shia contexts, subtle Zoroastrian influences persist in narratives, where the cosmic battle between Husayn's righteousness and the tyrannical forces of Yazid echoes dualistic themes of good triumphing over evil, as explored in post-2020 scholarship on interfaith . These echoes manifest in dramatic performances and sermons framing oppression as Ahriman-like darkness, adapting pre-Islamic motifs to reinforce themes of martyrdom and divine justice without explicit dualism. In modern , Ahriman's as a destructive spirit has influenced portrayals of cosmic and gnostic evils. drew directly from Zoroastrian dualism in his 1957 novel The Cosmic Puppets, where Ahriman and Ormazd embody opposing forces shaping reality and human fate. In the 1981 novel VALIS, Dick's exploration of gnostic archons as tyrannical rulers of a false world echoes Ahriman's role as an archon-like entity of deception and control, reflecting broader esoteric influences on 20th-century . Ahriman features prominently as an antagonist in video games and related adaptations. In the 2008 Prince of Persia developed by , Ahriman is the God of Darkness, imprisoned but scheming to unleash corruption upon the world through his servant Ahriman-corrupted followers, serving as the central threat the protagonists must contain. In tabletop role-playing games, Ahriman appears in the cosmology as a primordial serpent deity and demon lord embodying destruction and oblivion, ruling the Abyssal layer Ahriman-abad and patronizing exiles in settings like the and . References to Ahriman extend to music, particularly in genres. The Swedish band , founded in 1993, is led by guitarist and vocalist , whose pseudonym is explicitly inspired by the Zoroastrian spirit of evil, infusing their lyrics with themes of infernal chaos and anti-cosmic . Similarly, the Mesopotamian-themed band evokes ancient Near Eastern mythologies in albums like Emissaries (2006), where tracks such as "Rebirth of the " parallel Ahriman's motifs of primordial upheaval and defiance against divine order, blending Zoroastrian echoes with Sumerian lore. In broader 21st-century media, Ahriman's legacy persists in fantasy narratives exploring dualism. The universe features Ahzek Ahriman, chief sorcerer of the Thousand Sons legion, whose name and pursuits of directly homage the Zoroastrian figure, appearing in novels like Ahriman: Exile (2012) and subsequent expansions through 2025. Recent academic analyses highlight Ahriman's enduring impact on global pop culture, noting its adaptation in video games and as a symbol of existential conflict.

References

  1. https://www.avesta.org/zfaq.html
  2. https://rsc.byu.edu/light-truth/zoroastrianism
  3. https://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/exhibit/religion/zoroastrianism/essay.html
  4. https://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd1sbe.htm
  5. https://iranologia.es/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/S.-Gutierrez-THE-ZOROASTRIAN-MYTH-OF-THE-ORIGIN-OF-HUMANITY-AND-ITS-INDO.pdf
  6. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahriman/
  7. https://www.academia.edu/43814750/Ahura_Origin_and_Etymology
  8. https://www.foreignexchanges.news/p/guest-post-the-roots-of-zoroastrianism-5e1
  9. https://www.academia.edu/37663217/FROM_OLD_TO_NEW_PERSIAN
  10. https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526156198/9781526156198.00010.pdf
  11. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/daiva-old-iranian-noun/
  12. https://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/zoro.pdf
  13. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/11f19727-9bc4-4667-85e6-7a19f3abe4f4/download
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355129857_From_Polytheism_to_Monotheism_Zoroaster_and_Some_Economic_Theory
  15. https://www.worldhistory.org/elam/
  16. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/38633/chapter/335311647
  17. https://www.academia.edu/3878415/Zoroastrians_Their_Religious_Beliefs_and_Practices_Mary_Boyce
  18. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/fire-altars/
  19. https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/aveol/40
  20. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ahriman
  21. https://www.zarathushtra.com/z/gatha/az/yasna30.htm
  22. https://zoroastrians.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/the-gathas-humbach-ichaporia-1994.pdf
  23. https://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd19sbe.htm
  24. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/daiva-old-iranian-noun
  25. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/akoman-evil-mind-a-term-personified-as-a-demon-in-zoroastrianism/
  26. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aesma-wrath/
  27. https://www.avesta.org/vendidad/vd22sbe.htm
  28. https://www.avesta.org/ka/yt10sbe.htm
  29. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/frasokrti/
  30. https://www.biblioiranica.info/ahremans-ascent/
  31. https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/yeznik_refutation.htm
  32. https://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/zurvanism.htm
  33. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dualism/
  34. http://www.farvardyn.com/pahlavi2.htm#49
  35. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroastrianism-i-historical-review/
  36. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/nyberg-henrik-samuel/
  37. https://www.avesta.org/mp/bundahis.pdf
  38. https://www.avesta.org/dhalla/history6.htm
  39. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/manicheism-pandaemonium/
  40. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp156_manichaean_gnosis_creation_myth.pdf
  41. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ahriman
  42. https://brewminate.com/ahriman-from-the-lord-of-darkness-in-zoroastrianism-to-the-devil-in-christianity/
  43. https://www.avesta.org/pahlavi/saddar.html
  44. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322487494_Perception_of_Islam_in_Zoroastrian_Zand_Literature
  45. https://www.britannica.com/story/how-have-zoroastrians-been-treated-in-muslim-iran
  46. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ahriman
  47. https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/186760
  48. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/yasna/
  49. https://journal.oraltradition.org/on-the-problems-of-studying-modern-zoroastrianism/
  50. http://parsizoroastrianism.com/Tenets/OmnipotenceOfAhuraMazdaAndConceptOfEvil.pdf
  51. https://fezana.org/fjissue/FEZANA_1991_04_Winter.pdf
  52. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/7A7B74D773979F485956AF3F074E8671/S0021086222000081a.pdf/secondgeneration_iranian_zoroastrians_in_a_new_american_homeland_a_case_study_in_california.pdf
  53. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/AP1993/19191101p01.html
  54. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/AP1993/19191104p01.html
  55. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA191/English/AP1993/19191115p01.html
  56. https://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/mideast/mi-hpb.htm
  57. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/ChrLuc_index.html
  58. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bar-konay-theodore-kewanay-saturninus-not-koni-according-to-cambridge-university-library-ms/
  59. https://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/reference/zaehner/dawnVarZur10_1.htm
  60. https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barasnom
  61. https://www.avesta.org/ritual/rcc2.htm
  62. http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/historians/herod/herodotus3.html
  63. https://events.berkeley.edu/event/117691-zoroastrianism-in-central-asia-new-discoveries-in
  64. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_QVjqewbo
  65. https://smarthistory.org/sasanian-art-an-introduction/
  66. https://collections.agakhanmuseum.org/collection/artifact/the-death-of-zahhak-akm155
  67. https://www.criticalmuslim.io/decolonising-the-book-of-kings/
  68. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zoroastrianism/Iconography
  69. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/327535
  70. http://www.masnavi.net/3/25/eng/1/1983/
  71. https://www.transcend.org/tms/2025/07/blood-in-the-sand-how-ashura-transformed-from-islamic-historys-greatest-tragedy-to-peace-destroying-sectarian-turmoil-part-2/
  72. https://philipdick.com/mirror/websites/pkdweb/CospupsByBarb.htm
  73. https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/melechesh/424
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.