The clear Zoroastrian influence on the unknown author of the Gospel of Matthew

 

. We read from the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 2
: 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem,
2 saying, “Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him . ”

We find in this text quoted by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew that the Magi came from the East searching for the Messiah, the King of the Jews. In fact, a text like this requires us to ask ourselves a thousand questions before accepting it.
1. Why did the Magi believe in Christ in the first place? Did Jesus suddenly become, for the Magi, the god of light, Ahura Mazda, or did he become a Zoroastrian prophet of Zoroastrianism?
2. On what basis and on which prophecy in the books of the Magi did they apply it to Christ
? 3. How did the three Magi know of the Old Testament prophecies about Christ (even though the quote mentioned by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew from the Old Testament in verses five and six was originally wrong)?
4. Why did the writer of the Gospel of Matthew mention this story? Where is the evidence for the belief of a group of Magi in Christ? Does Magism have anything to do with Judaism according to Christian or Jewish belief?

The truth is that the answer is clear to every fair-minded person
that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew - despite his misquotation of the texts of the Old Testament - invented this story or took it from someone who invented it in order to establish the idea of ​​the universality of the message of Christ and his preaching to include the nations and not to be specific to the people of Israel and that the writer of the Gospel - as we will see - was influenced by Persian culture and especially the Persian belief in the savior in the Zoroastrian religion .

It is worth noting that some Christians have tried to delude readers that the Magi mentioned in the text are merely wise men and have no connection to Zoroaster. Some of them even went so far as to say that these three were in fact material and Persian kings and some said that they were Arab kings!!!! The truth is that the story refers to three wise men from the priests of the Zoroastrian religion, as we will explain from the Christian sources.
We read from the interpretation of the Church of the Great Martyr Saint Mark for the Gospel of Matthew, page 21:
((Verses 1-2: The Magi are the astrologers who were interested in studying medicine and astronomy. They were scholars in their country, and they were also considered priests, and they had a great position, as shown by their gifts. They came from the East, most likely from Persia or Iraq. Their number was not mentioned, but at least there were three leaders among them, and a large number may have followed them. They had heard prophecies from their ancestors about the appearance of a star indicating the birth of a great king. The prophet Balaam, son of Beor, said this, and he was from the East where they lived: “I see it, but not now. I behold it, but not near. A star shall rise from Jacob, and a scepter shall rise from Israel, and shall break the sides of Moab, and shall destroy all the sons of war” (Numbers 24:17). They may have understood this from Daniel, who He was the head of the Magi, from his prophecy about the birth of Christ: “Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem until the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall again be built, and the wall shall be in distress.” (25:9) “The Times”


We read from the book The Secrets of the Three Magi by Ignatius Hossam Kamal Abdel-Masih, Chapter One, Page 8:
((- As the word “Magi” means the ability and knowledge in research and interpretation.
Herodotus mentions that the Magi were wise men from the East and that they were servants of the religion of Zoroaster. They were distinguished by their special clothing and their separate residence from the people. It was said about them that they worshipped the four elements (fire, water, air and earth), but most of their worship was limited to fire only, and it was their custom not to burn the bodies of the dead or bury them in
the dirt, but they would place them on the roofs of houses for the crows and raptors to come and eat them!!!!.... The fathers agree, such as (Saint Cyril the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Diodorus of Tarsus and Saint Clement of Alexandria) that the Magi are wise men from Persia .




We read from Antonius Fikry’s interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, Chapter Two:
((Magi from the East = they are Chaldean or Persian priests or kings who are interested in studying astronomy and astronomical phenomena, and the name Magi is given to philosophers and men of science, especially astronomy, and it is said that they are magicians and astrologers from Mesopotamia, and they worship fire. The astrologers from the Magi (who believed in the existence of a relationship between the movement of the stars and the events of the world) believed that the appearance of a star was a sign of the birth of a great person. It is said that these Magi followed the doctrine of Balaam Who prophesied the coming of Christ (Book of Numbers).))
https://st-takla.org/pub_Bible-Inter...hapter-02.html

We read from the Bible Dictionary:
((A Persian word meaning (priests) whose rank was between the ruler and the people in the land of Media and Persia. They were servants of the religion of Zoroaster and were known for their special clothing and their separate residence from the rest of the people. Among their duties was that they kept the fire on the altar of Ormazd and resisted the evil of Ahriman. They worshipped the four elements: fire, water, earth and air. However, most of their worship was confined to fire. Among their worship was that they did not burn the bodies of the dead or bury them in the dirt, but rather they would place them on the roofs of houses so that crows and birds of prey would come and eat their flesh. They were the scholars of the Persian nation, teaching philosophy, astronomy and other sciences known at that time. It appears from the story of Matthew (Matthew 2: 1-12) that this group was respected in the days of the birth of Christ. We do not know from which country the Magi came, but it is likely that they learned about the coming of Christ from the scattered Jews, and they were the first pagans to enter the Christian Church. The feast of the Epiphany of Christ to the Gentiles, which falls on the sixth of January, was held in memory of their visit. ))
https://coptic-treasures.com/chapter...g#TOC_Item_233

We read from the Christian Encyclopedia, the word Magi:
(( A Persian word meaning "priests" who ranked between the ruler and the people in the lands of Media and Persia. They were servants of the religion of Zoroaster ዞራስተር and were known for their special clothing and their separate dwelling from the rest of the people. Among their duties was that they kept the fire on the altar of Ormazd and resisted the evil of Ahriman. They worshipped the four elements: fire, water, earth, and air. However, most of their worship was confined to fireAmong their customs was not to burn the bodies of the dead or bury them in the ground, but rather to place them on the roofs of houses, where crows and birds of prey would come and eat their flesh. They were the scholars of the Persian nation, teaching philosophy, astronomy, and other sciences known at that time. It is evident from the story of Matthew (2:1-12) that this group was respected in the days of the birth of Christ. We do not know from which country the Magi came, but it is likely that they learned of the coming of Christ from the dispersed Jews, and they were the first pagans to enter the Christian Church. The feast of the Epiphany of Christ to the Gentiles, which falls on the sixth of January, was established in memory of their visit. (See also Star of the Magi) ....
(c) The Magi in the Gospel of Matthew: Matthew uses the word "Magi" in its good sense, so much so that in English it is translated as "wise men" (Matthew 2:1, 7, 16). Matthew does not give us many details about these Magi, except that they came from “the East” (2:1, 2), a vague phrase that does not specify a specific country, thus leaving room for speculation. Some of the fathers said that they came from southern Arabia, based on the gifts they brought, “gold, frankincense, and myrrh,” which were famous for these countries, but were not considered “the East” in comparison with Palestine, so others said that they came from Chaldea, Media, or Persia. Although one cannot be certain, it is most likely that they came from Persia, as that was the name given to their priests.
Matthew does not mention how many Magi came to see the child Jesus. The Eastern Church believes that there were 12 pilgrims, perhaps because of the importance of the number “12” in the Bible (as in 12 tribes, 12 disciples). The Western Church says that there were three wise men, assuming that each of them brought one of the three gifts mentioned.
Matthew does not mention their names, as the names "Caspar, Melchior (Malkon) and Balthazar" are mythical names, and likewise there is no basis for saying that "Jaspar" was the king of India, "Melchior" was the king of Persia, and "Balthazar" was the king of Arabia. ))
https://st-takla.org/Full-Free-Copti...xKk4Ogbjyp6QUA

And as we said, it is clear that the writer of the Gospel of Matthew was influenced by the Zoroastrian idea, and in fact he adopted it, as he wanted to portray Christ, peace and blessings be upon him, as the ASTVAṰ.ƎRƎTA, the promised savior according to Zoroastrianism, who is born from the sperm of Zoroaster, which is miraculously preserved at the bottom of a lake, where a virgin becomes pregnant as soon as she enters the lake .
We read from the Iranian Encyclopedia:
(( ASTVAṰ.ƎRƎTA, the Avestan name of the Saošyant, the future Savior of Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster, according to the tradition of his community, lived to old age, and must therefore have realized that he would not himself see the coming of Frašō. kərəti (transfiguration of the world; see Frašegird). It seems that he taught his followers accordingly to look for a man who would come after him, and who would lead mankind to final victory over the forces of evil, after which the kingdom of God would be established on earth.A direct reference to this teaching has been seen by H. Lommel in the difficult Gathic verse Y. 43.3, which in his translation runs: “And the man shall come who is better than a good man, who would teach us. . . the straight paths of salvation who is faithful, resembles you, O Mazdā, who possesses the right knowledge and is wise.”
Zoroaster's community held ardently to hope in the coming of this man, to whom was given the title Saošyant, “He who will bring benefit,” and gradually it came to be believed that he would be born of the seed of Zoroaster himself, miraculously preserved at the bottom of a lake, where it is watched over by the fravašis (see Frawahr) of the just. When Frašō.kərəti is near, it is held, a virgin will bathe in this lake and become with child, and will bear a son, the Saošyant; and a name was fashioned for him, Astvaṱ.ərəta, “He who embodies righteousness.” This name is evidently derived, with a small dialect difference, from Zoroaster’s own words in Y. 43.16: astvaṱ ašəm hyāṱ “may righteousness be embodied.” His virgin mother also received a name, Ǝrədaṱ.fəδrī “She who brings fulfillment to the father.” ))

As for what some of their sources, such as the Christian Encyclopedia, have boasted about, that the Magi were influenced by the beliefs of the Jews during the period of the Babylonian captivity, this is a rejected statement, since the doctrine of faith With the coming of the savior, Zoroastrianism was founded, crystallized, and settled in souls centuries before the Babylonian captivity. Indeed, the only culture that influenced this Zoroastrian belief was the Babylonian culture .
We read from the Iranian Encyclopedia:
((The Lake Kąsaoya (q.v.), where Astvaṱ.ərəta will be conceived, drew its waters from the river Haētumant (modern Helmand), and so can be identified as the Hāmūn lake in southeastern Iran (Sīstān) . It seems probable that the beliefs about the Saošyant's miraculous conception evolved in that region, during the centuries which passed between the lifetime of Zoroaster (perhaps between 1400 and 1200 BC), and the adoption of his faith in western Iran (perhaps in the late 7th century BC) . the lake came by popular etymology to be associated with the kavis (see Kayanids), ie, the dynasty of Vīštāspa, Zoroaster's royal patron, and So, it seems, with the prophet himself. Subsequently the Zoroastrian priests of western Iran evolved, presumably under Babylonian influence , a chronology for the events of world “history” as recorded or prophesied in the religious tradition.))

And for this reason the Iranian Encyclopedia went This idea influenced Jewish, Christian and even Buddhist ideas
.The basic Zoroastrian belief in a virgin-born Savior of the world must have become widely known throughout the Near East in the Achaemenid period, ie, from the 6th century BC onward, when almost all the eastern Mediterranean lands were under Persian rule; and it appears to have exerted some influence on Judeo-Christian thought . It is also considered possible that it contributed, in the eastern border-lands of the Achaemenid empire, to the evolution of the doctrine of Maitreya (q.v.), the coming Buddha, held by the northern Buddhists.))
https://www. iranicaonline.org/articl...294bWiyUBBvU_o

And after this, we are amazed at their denial of the false claimant Mani - the founder of Manichaeism - his call to believe in the prophecy of Zoroaster!!!
We read from the chapter on religions and beliefs by Ibn Hazm, may God have mercy on him, part one:
((And Daysan said it is a dead place, and Mani was a monk in Harran and he introduced this religion, and he is the one who was killed by King Bahram bin Bahram when he debated him in his presence with Idhrabadh bin Marksfand Mubadh Mu Badhan on the issue of cutting off offspring and hastening the end of the year. Then the Mobadh said to him: You are the one who says that marriage is forbidden in order to hasten the annihilation of the world and the return of every form to its form, and that this is a necessary right. Then he said to him: It is not necessary for the light to be helped in its salvation by cutting off the lineage from what it is in. Mixing, so he said to him, “Go ahead, for it is the right and obligatory right that this salvation that you call for should be hastened for you and that you should be helped to invalidate this reprehensible mixing.” So Mani was cut off, so Bahram ordered that Mani be killed, so he and a group of his companions were killed, and they did not see the slaughtering or the harming of animals, and they did not know of the prophets, peace be upon them, except Jesus, peace be upon him. Alone, they acknowledge the prophethood of Zoroaster and say that Mani was a prophet. Possible

objection:
Someone might say: There are some of your scholars who have stated that the Magi are among the People of the Book, such as Ibn Hazm, may God have mercy on him.
I say, by God, Tawfiq:

This is a rejected and false statement that was rejected by a group of scholars, even though some of them said it, and there is no text in the Book or Sunnah that proves that. As for those who lean towards this statement and prefer that they are from the People of the Book, the main basis of their evidence is based on three narrations:
the first... The second suspended hadith of Ali, may God
be pleased with him. The hadith of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, may God be pleased with him, in the Sahih about the Prophet,
may God bless him and grant him peace, taking the jizya from the Magians of Hajar. The third hadith of Ibn Abi Zayd, may God be pleased with him, which is the same as the hadith of Ali, may God be pleased with him, but with a different chain of transmission.

And he cited their evidence . Three:

First, the hadith of Ali, may God be pleased with him, which is suspended.
We read from the book of Abd al-Razzaq, may God have mercy on him, the book of the People of the Book, the chapter on taking the jizya from the Magians.
((10029 - Abd al-Razzaq informed us, on the authority of Ibn Uyaynah, on the authority of an elder among them called Abu Sa`d, on the authority of a man who witnessed that, I think he was Nasr ibn `Asim, that al-Mustawrid ibn `Alqamah was in a gathering of or with Farwah ibn Nawfal al-Ashja`i, and a man said: There is no jizya on the Magians. Al-Mustawrid said: You say this, and The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took from the Magians of Hajar, and by Allah, what you have concealed is more evil than what you have revealed. So he went with him until he entered upon Ali, who was sitting in a dome in a palace. He said: O Commander of the Faithful, this man claims that there is no jizyah on the Magians, and I know that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took it from the Magians of Hajar. So he said: Ali: Al-Bada says: “Sit down, by God, there is no one on earth today who knows this more than me. The Magians were people of the Book who knew it -[71]- and knowledge that they studied. One of their leaders drank wine and became drunk, then he had intercourse with his sister. A group of Muslims saw him, and when morning came, his sister said: You did such and such to her, and the people saw you.” A group of people who do not conceal their faults from you, so he called the people of greed and gave them, then he said to them: You know that Adam married his sons to his daughters, then those who saw him came and said: Woe to the one who is far away, there is a punishment for God on your back, so those who were with him killed them, then a woman came and said to him: Rather, I have seen you, so he said to her: Woe to the prostitute of the sons of Adam So-and-so said: Yes, by God, she was a prostitute, then she repented, so he killed her, then he was taken on the Night Journey based on what was in their hearts and their books, and nothing was authenticated to them.”

I say the narration is weak due to the fact that
Abu Sa`d is Sa`id ibn al-Marzban, and he is weak.
We read from Tahdhib al-Tahdhib by Ibn Hajar, may God have mercy on him, Part Four
((137- “Bukhari, Muslim, and Muslim - Sa`id” ibn al-Marzban al-`Absi1 Abu Sa`id al-Baqal al-Kufi al-`Awar, a client of Hudhayfah. He narrated from Anas, Abu Wa`il, Abu `Amr al-Shaybani, and `Ikrimah… `Umar ibn Hafs ibn Ghiyath said : My father abandoned his hadith. Ibn `Uyaynah said: `Abd al-Karim had a better memory than him . Ahmad said: I did not see Ibn `Uyaynah dictate to us from him except one hadith. It was said to him: Why? He said: Because of his weakness according to Ibn al-Mubarak said: I said to Sharik: Do you know Abu Sa`d al-Baqqal? He said: Yes, by God, I do not know him. He has a high chain of transmission. I told him on the authority of `Abd al-Karim al-Jazari on the authority of Ziyad ibn Abi Maryam on the authority of `Abdullah ibn Mu`qil on the authority of Ibn Mas`ud with the hadith of regret is repentance, so he left me and left `Abd al-Karim and left Ziyad. He narrated it on the authority of `Abdullah ibn Mu`qil. Abu Hisham al-Rafa`i said: Abu Usamah told us: Sa`id ibn al-Marzban told us, and he was trustworthy. Ahmad ibn Abi Maryam said on the authority of Ibn Ma`in: He is nothing, his hadith should not be written down . `Amr ibn `Ali said: He is weak in hadith and abandoned in hadith. Abu Zur`ah said: He is weak in hadith and mudallis . It was said: He is truthful. He did not lie. Al-Bukhari said : He is a denier of hadith. Abu Hatim said: His hadith should not be relied upon. Al-Nasa`i said: He is weak.He said once that he is not trustworthy and his hadith is not written down . Ibn Adi said that he is among the weak narrators of Kufa whose hadith is collected and not abandoned . I said that al-Sarifini died in the year 142 AH. Al-Barqani said that al-Daraqutni is abandoned . Abu Hatim said that he is a forger. How close he is to Abu Janab. Al-Saji said that he is trustworthy but weak . Al-Ajli said that he is weak. Ibn Hibban said that he often makes mistakes and is very erroneous. Abu Dawud said that he was one of the most knowledgeable people. Al-Uqaili said that Waki’ trusted him and Ibn Uyaynah considered him weak. I said that the story that was told about Waki’ does not indicate that he trusted him. Al-Saji mentioned it on the authority of Mahmoud bin Ghailan. He said that Waki’ was asked about Abu Sa’d al-Baqqal and Ahmad said that he used to narrate on the authority of Abu Wa’il and Abu Wa’il is trustworthy. The author mentioned it without attribution so I deleted it and then I needed it here so I mentioned it with attribution.

We read from al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, Book of al-Hiziyah, Chapter on those from whom the jizya is accepted
. Abu Ubayd said: I do not think that what they narrated on the authority of Ali is well-preserved in this , and if it had a basis, the Prophet - may God bless him and grant him peace - would not have forbidden their women, and he was more deserving of knowledge of that. It is permissible for this to be correct with the prohibition of their women and their slaughtered animals, because the book that permits that is the book revealed to one of the two groups, and these are not from them, and because their book was lifted, so it was not (It rises to permit it, and it proves the right to shed their blood))

Secondly, their evidence for taking the jizya from the Magians.
We read from Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Jizya, Chapter of Jizya and Truce with the People of War
((3156 - Ali ibn Abdullah narrated to us, Sufyan narrated to us, he said: I heard Amr say: “I was sitting with Jabir ibn Zayd and Amr ibn Aws, and Bajalah narrated to them in the year seventy, the year Mus’ab ibn al-Zubayr performed Hajj. Among the people of Basra at the steps of Zamzam, he said: I was a scribe for Juz’ ibn Mu’awiyah, the uncle of Al-Ahnaf, and a letter from Umar ibn Al-Khattab came to us one year before his death: Separate every mahram from the Magians, and Umar had not taken the jizya from the Magians.
3157 - Until Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf witnessed: That the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took it from the Magians of Hajar.

I say: What is meant is that their ruling on the jizya is the ruling on the People of the Book, so the commonality here is specific to the ruling on the jizya, not to calling them People of the Book. God forbid.
We read from the book al-Umm by al-Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, the chapter on the disagreement over who the jizya is taken from and who it is not taken from:
(([The disagreement over who the jizya is taken from and who it is not taken from]
(al-Shafi’i - may Allah have mercy on him - said): The Magians, the Sabians, and the Samaritans. People of the Book. Some people disagreed with us and said: As for the Sabians and the Samarians, you know that they are two groups of Jews and Christians.As for the Magians, I do not know that they are People of the Book, and in the hadith there is what indicates that they are not People of the Book, due to the saying of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, “Treat them as you treat the People of the Book,” and that Muslims do not marry their women nor eat their slaughtered animals. If he claims that if it is permitted to take the jizya from them, then every polytheist is an idol worshipper or… Otherwise, it is forbidden if he pays the jizya, that it will not be accepted from him, and their situation is the situation of the People of the Book in that the jizya is taken from them and their blood is spared by it, except for the Arabs in particular, so nothing is accepted from them except Islam or the sword.

And we read from Al-Mughni by Ibn Qudamah, may God have mercy on him, the Book of Jizya, the chapter on those from whom the jizya is accepted:
((As for those who have a semblance of a Book, they are the Magians, for it is narrated that they had a Book. It was lifted, and thus they had a doubt that required the shedding of their blood and the taking of the jizya from them.
No evidence was found to permit marriage to their women or their slaughtered animals.
This is the opinion of most of the people of knowledge, and it was narrated from Abu Thawr that they are from the People of the Book, and their women and slaughtered animals are permissible.
Because it was narrated on the authority of Ali - may Allah be pleased with him - that he said: I am the most knowledgeable of people about the Magians. They had knowledge that they knew and a book that they studied. Their king became drunk and had intercourse with his daughter or sister. Some of the people of his kingdom found out about him. When he recovered, they came to carry out the punishment on him, but he refused them and called the people of his kingdom and said: Do you know a religion? Better than the religion of Adam, and he married his sons to his daughters, so I am on the religion of Adam. He said: So a people followed him and fought those who opposed them until they killed them, and they became and their book was taken on the Night Journey, and the knowledge that was in their chests was removed, so they are the people of the Book. “And the Messenger of Allah - may Allah bless him and grant him peace - and Abu Bakr - and I think he said: and Umar - took from them “Al-Jizya.” Narrated by Al-Shafi’i, Sa’id and others. And because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: “Treat them as you did the People of the Book.” And we have the statement of Allah the Most High: {lest you say, “The Book was only sent down to two groups before us”} [Al-An’am: 156]. The Magians are not from the two sects, and the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, said: “Treat them according to the way of the People of the Book.”
It indicates that they are not them. Al-Bukhari narrated with his chain of transmission on the authority of Bajalah that he said: Umar did not take the jizya from the Magians until Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf told him that the Messenger of God, may God bless him and grant him peace, “took it from the Magians of Hajar.” If they were People of the Book, Umar would not have stopped taking the jizya from them despite the command of God. { And He, the Most High, took the jizyah from the People of the Book , and what they mentioned is what caused them to have the suspicion of the Book.}

We read from the collection of Fatwas and Letters of Ibn Uthaymeen, may God have mercy on him, the Book of Jihad, the Chapter on the Contract of Dhimmah
((Q. 117: His Eminence the Sheikh, may God have mercy on him, was asked: Why did the Muslims treat the Magians as the People of the Book, even though they were pagans?]
He answered by saying: The Muslims did not treat the Magians as the People of the Book at all, rather they treated them as the People of the Book in their acknowledgment of the jizyah only , citing as evidence what Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Abd al-Rahman ibn Awf, may God be pleased with him, that the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, took the jizyah from the Magians of Hajar (1).
As for the rest of the rulings, they do not share them with the People of the Book, so their women and their slaughtered animals are not permissible . Some scholars believe that taking the jizyah is not specific to the People of the Book and the Magians. Rather, it includes every infidel, whether he is from the People of the Book, the Magians, or others, due to the generality of the hadith of Buraydah, may God be pleased with him.))

Thirdly, the hadith of Ibn Abza, may God be pleased with him, on the authority of Ali, may God be pleased with him,
we read from Fath al-Bari, a commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari, Part Six, Book of Jizya
: ((And Abd ibn Humayd narrated in the interpretation of Surat al-Buruj with a sound chain of transmission on the authority of Ibn Abza, when the Muslims defeated the people of Persia, Umar said, “They gathered and he said, ‘The Magians are not People of the Book, so we should impose a penalty on them, nor are they idol worshippers, so we should impose a penalty on them.’ Their rulings, so Ali said: Rather, they are the people of the Book, and he mentioned something similar to it, but he said: It was applied to his daughter, and he said at the end of it: So he placed the groove for whoever disagreed with him, so this is an argument for whoever said: They had a Book.

I say: It is attributed to Ali, may God be pleased with him, and Ali, may God be pleased with him, is at the top of our list, we love him, respect him, and are pleased with him, except that we do not claim infallibility for him, and every statement that is not from the statement of the infallible one is taken from him and rejected, and this statement is rejected by the evidence that we will mention .
We read from the introduction to Sunan al-Bayhaqi, may God have mercy on him:
((30 - Abu Bakr ibn al-Harith informed us, Abu Muhammad ibn Hayyan informed us, Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan informed us, Abd al-Jabbar informed us, Safar informed us, on the authority of Abd al-Karim, on the authority of Mujahid, who said: “ There is no one whose words are not accepted and whose words are not accepted, except the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace.”
31 - And we narrated its meaning on the authority of Aamir. The people))

As for the evidence that prevents the saying that the Magians are from the People of the Book:
1. The hadith of Buraydah, may God be pleased with him, which explicitly states the permissibility of taking the jizya from some types of polytheists. This invalidates the argument of those who claim that the jizya should be taken from them .
((We read from Sahih Muslim, the Book of Jihad and Expeditions
3364 Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah narrated to us, Waki` ibn al-Jarrah narrated to us, on the authority of Sufyan, and Ishaq ibn Ibrahim narrated to us, Yahya ibn Adam informed us, Sufyan narrated to us, he said: He dictated it to us, and Abdullah ibn Hashim narrated to me, and the wording is his, Abd al-Rahman narrated to me, meaning Ibn Mahdi, Sufyan narrated to us, on the authority of Alqamah ibn Marthad, on the authority of Sulayman ibn Buraydah, on the authority of his father, said: Whenever the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, appointed a leader over an army or a military expedition, he would advise him in private to fear Allah and to treat those Muslims with him well. Then he would say: Fight in the name of Allah in the cause of Allah. Fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not commit treachery, and do not betray. Represent, and do not kill a child. And when you meet your enemy from the polytheists, call them to three characteristics - or traits - and whichever of them they respond to you, accept from them and refrain from them. Then call them to Islam. If they respond to you, then accept from them and refrain from them. Then call them to move from their home to the home of the emigrants. And tell them that if they do that, then they will have what the emigrants have, and they will be subject to what the emigrants are subject to. If they refuse to move from it, then tell them that they will be like the Muslim Arabs, and the ruling of God that applies to the believers will apply to them, and they will have nothing in the spoils and the booty unless they fight alongside the Muslims. If they refuse, then ask them for the jizya. If they respond to you, then accept it from them and refrain from it. On their authority, if they refuse, then seek help from Allah and fight them. And if you besiege the people of a fortress and they want you to grant them the protection of Allah and the protection of His Prophet, then do not grant them the protection of Allah or the protection of His Prophet, but grant them your protection and the protection of your companions, for it is easier for you to break your protection and the protection of your companions than to break the protection of Allah and the protection of His Messenger. And if you besiege the people of A fortress, and they wanted you to bring them down according to the judgment of Allah, so do not bring them down according to the judgment of Allah, but bring them down according to your judgment, for you do not know whether you will achieve Allah’s judgment regarding them or not. In another narration: When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent an emir or a military expedition, he would call him and advise him, and he cited the hadith with the same meaning as the hadith of Sufyan. ))

2. The many places in the Book that explicitly state the specificity of the Jews and Christians by calling them People of the Book.
God Almighty said: ((( Lest you say, “The Book was only sent down to two groups before us, and we were, of their study, unaware.” (156))
What is meant here are the Jews and Christians, so where are the Magians???

God Almighty said about Abraham, peace and blessings be upon him: ((And We gave him Isaac and Jacob, and placed among his descendants prophethood and the Book.And We gave him his reward in this world, and indeed, in the Hereafter, he will be among the righteous. So
the descendants of Abraham, peace and blessings be upon him, were singled out for prophethood and the Book. So where are Zoroaster and the Magi in this?? Allah the Almighty

said: (( He has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel (3) before as guidance for mankind, and He sent down the Criterion. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Owner of Retribution (4)))
So where is the Avesta here??

3. Omar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not know the ruling on them, whether to take the jizya from them or not. If they were people of the Book, he did not need to ask, and we have mentioned the evidence of Ibn Qudamah (may Allah have mercy on him) for this point above .