Angra Mainyu (; ) 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 (; ). The name can appear in English-language works as Ahreman and Ahrimanes.
In the Avesta
In Zoroaster's revelation
Avestan angra mainyu<!-- lower case when in Gathic context --> "seems to have been an original conception of Zoroaster's." In the Gathas, which are the oldest texts of Zoroastrianism and are attributed to Zoroaster, angra mainyu is not yet a proper name. 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.) 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". Some have also proposed a connection between Angra Mainyu and the sage Angiras of the Rigveda. 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" 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.
In Zoroastrian tradition
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." This idea of "non-reality" is also expressed in other texts, such as the Denkard, a 9th-century "encyclopedia of Mazdaism", which states Ahriman "has never been and never will be." 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."
Some Zoroastrians believed Ahriman "created dangerous storms, plagues, and monsters during the struggle with Ahura Mazda" and that the two gods were twins.
Ahriman after the influence of Islam
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 15th century in which it is written that the Magi (Zoroastrians) believe that Allah and Iblis are brothers.
In present-day Zoroastrianism
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.
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, 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.
who sought converts among the Zoroastrian community and criticized Zoroastrianism for its alleged dualism as contrasted with their own monotheism.
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.
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.
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.
The worship of Ahriman
According to Plutarch, Zoroaster taught the worship of Ahriman. The Encyclopedia of Iran claims:
Islam
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. 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, Ahriman is mostly a stylistic device to refute the idea of absolute evil.
Rumi denies the existence of Ahriman completely:<blockquote> 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?</blockquote>
Anthroposophy
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.
Opus Sanctorum Angelorum
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.