It's not that the emperor would but it would be demanded of him... Further things that large will not go unnoticed and the Khilafah will soon send envoys to collect Bayait (pledge of allegiance) from the Emperor and collect China's yearly Zakat as a new province. Let's say from my equally sparse knowledge of Chinese history, this would not go well and the Emperor would simply not convert at all.
AHC: Islamic China
- Thread starter Intransigent Southerner
- Start date
It's not that the emperor would but it would be demanded of him... Further things that large will not go unnoticed and the Khilafah will soon send envoys to collect Bayait (pledge of allegiance) from the Emperor and collect China's yearly Zakat as a new province. Let's say from my equally sparse knowledge of Chinese history, this would not go well and the Emperor would simply not convert at all.
Cueg
Banned
Did the Fatmid Caliphate demand submission of the Seljuk? Did the Abbasid demand submission of the Iberian Ummayad? All of this is assuming that the Caliph exists in any state that isn't de facto vassalage, as it was from its collapse onward.
It also depends on the sect of Islam that spreads to China. Whatever does end up spreading would, through assimilation, develop variation to such an extent as to render it different beyond measure.
The various dynasties of China would, given Islam's spread, gladly "accept" the faith if it can be used as a means of controlling the population. If it can't, they'll leave it alone if its harmless, or persecute and destroy it if it posses a threat to the dynasty. Basically, Buddhism of OTL.
The thing with Buddhism though is the profound impact it had on Chinese culture. The OP itself is a bit nonsensical, the implication being (my interpretation), a "pure" Islam. As it spreads, elements are both incorporated, and taken out. Every religion acts in such a way. Look at Buddhism in China. Look at Islam in Indonesia. Look at Christianity in Europe. Look at Islam in West Africa (before the Jihad of the 19th century). In all cases, the spread of religion is quickly followed by the "mixing" so as to incorporate it into the respective societies.
In that, a greater Islamic influence on dynastic China is most certainty plausible. From there, conversion by the central authority (the emperor) will be done, in most cases, on the basis of convenience.
I have heard these arguments before, but within Islam it is a clear cut issue that the Khilafah of Ahl Sunnah wa l'Jama'ah is due all Bayait and that ALL Wilayet must submit to the Caliph who then implements the Shariah upon the Muslim in the public sphere. This is how Islam is run and was run before the fall of the Abbasid and even in some wispy form afterwards. During the days of the Abbasid and Umayyad there were little to NO conversion outside of the lands of the Khilafah, I have argued this point on this site several months ago in relation to the Khazars, trust me do not take me down that ruote.
Now to answer individual points you made:
I do not argue for Shi'i, all Ulema and even some Shi'i agree that the Fatimids was Khilafah in name only, as much Khilafah as the Sokoto where (lol). Further, there was already a Caliph in Baghdad, how can there be two? There cannot be, the Fatimids claimed the title only to antagonize Sunni in its realm and abroad. It then further would continually give up any claim to that title by doing clear Kufr Akbar by attempting to hinder the Jihad upon Byzantium during the 11 century.
The Abbasids did demand obeidience from the Emirate/sultanate of Qurtubah, and threatened war, but the distance and problems at home were to much, not too mention that the Abbasid period was one of decadence and strife politically making it impossible to enforce many of the policies enforced by the Umayyad.
The problem is that Islam did spread to China, the Chinese were very exposed to it and like Christianity as a populace where not interested at all... This isn't a problem of getting Islam there, it has to do with China being willing to accept in mass, which I doubt will happen. In West Africa conversion was slow and in most cases never happened, many pasts of West Africa today are not Muslim and or Christian. Indonesia/Malaysia yes, but their conversion was by Sufi Mystics who accommodated native beliefs. These Mystics are not available to do so, because this style of living was not in existence during the Tang period and then when it was available China was now deep rooted in its belief and as Christianity would learn is very resistant to new religions and has a knack for swallowing them whole.
whats the point of adopting Islam?
The emperors of china adopt Confucianism for a reason, its good for ruling. The people would obey them, the officials would obey them and it creates a social order they desire.
Some adopt taoism for period of rest and nurture.
so is there aspect of islam that help the rule of China?
The emperors of china adopt Confucianism for a reason, its good for ruling. The people would obey them, the officials would obey them and it creates a social order they desire.
Some adopt taoism for period of rest and nurture.
so is there aspect of islam that help the rule of China?
I'd think that the Mongols would either get expelled or assimilated, no matter their religion.
Cueg
Banned
I know its a religious belief, but all Caliphs are Caliph in name only. You're debating this from a perspective of Sunni, but the Shi'i believe that Ali was the true successor to Muhammad. In that, they viewed the first three Caliphates, which includes the Abbasid, as illegitimate. What now? You have two sides, both of whom identify as Islamic, that view the opposing Caliphates as illegitimate. You go on to talk about the Fatimid "hindering" Jihad against the Byzantines. To my knowledge, the Seljuk were actually planning on smashing the Fatmid themselves when they defeated the Byzantines at Mazikerth. I really don't understand this point.
" but the distance and problems at home were to much"
From my recollection, China is a lot farther then Iberia relative to the Middle East. What, do you suggest that the Abbasid Caliph send a messenger across the Silk Road upon hearing of the Chinese Emperors conversion? Again, I really don't understand this.
Swallowing them whole? Religion isn't a static, monolithic force that is either imparted or destroyed. Its malleable and subject to extensive change. Remember that these are all just ideas, ideas that people both taken from, and change, at will. You don't even need the population to identify as being "Islamic". Although, the aforementioned isn't ASB as your suggesting. With that, I recommend you read the long history of Islam within China.
As a quick snippet, Islam has often been viewed as harmonious with Confucian ideology.
With that, a greater influence on Chinese culture by Islam is most certainty possible. The fusion of these the ideas found within Islam with that which already existed (the fusion of Taoism and Buddhism), would result in a new ideology, one that might call itself Islamic. From there, the rest is history.
Cueg
Banned
Yeah, I completely agree. There would have to be a pretext upon which a Chinese emperor formally converts. A pretext that would have to be pragmatic.
It can be spiritual, but the centrifugal forces working against such a conversion would likely result in its demise. Perhaps Islam merges with the Confucian-Taoist-Buddhist combo and creates something new that grabs the minds of the populace?
A way to get Islam in China is to localize it.
Buddhism is long enough to be considered local. The Chinese are extremely proud of their culture or thinking, they call themselves the Middle Kingdom and the others are barbarian. It is quite hard... to win over the hearts of the officials who consider Confucianism superior.
The spiritual way is doomed to fail. Confucianism is not interested in that. You really have to appeal to the populance but.... if you arouse the interest of officials that a 'foreign' and 'strange' religion is becoming popular, they may put it down as a rebellion.
Cueg
Banned
Are you saying that Confucianism/Taoism isn't spiritual? You may have heard of Yin and Yang somewhere in popular culture
I have debated subjects like this before. The Tang would not receive Islam as Indonesia did because at this time period (8th and 9th century) conversion of a populace to Islam meant inherently a submission to the Caliph and all Zakat in your nation would be due towards the Middle East. Further conversion of a ruler was sent by messenger to ruler asking for submission to Allah and that included submission to the Khilafah entity wherever it is. As well, Islam was very new during the Tang period and if it did not expand into Abyssinia right next to Arabia then there is no way to make the Tang convert that far away.
Then again it is possible if the Tang submit to the Khilafah, let's just say unlikely.....
Well, the Tang Emperor might just decide that HE is the Caliph
(yeah, I know, no Quraysh ancestry etc, but the concept of Khilafa itself was a lot more fluid then; still VERY unlikely. But then after the late eight century at latest it was clearly possible for a Muslim community not to be under any Caliphal political control without its Islamic status being questioned).The Caliphate had lost political control, for the most part, around 940 AD.
Its position had been deteriorating steadily since almost a century by then, and its legitimacy was struck hard by the Fatimid rebellion. In the early tenth century, there three big powers whose ruler claimed to be a Caliph, which would have made the whole "tribute" thing rather awkward.
A tentative Abbasid recovery in the twelfth century was strangled in the cradle by a big, angry Mongol army.
The Sultanate of Delhi was founded in 1206. By that point, the Islamic community had ceased to indentify itself with any state, at least in practice (allegiance to the Caliph in principle remained, but was not a matter of either government or taxation anymore).
Cueg
Banned
Yeah, the title of Caliph lost all temporal authority a mere two-three centuries after Islam's inception.
Now, lets discuss religion and assimilation for a moment. I'll make it short so as to open up discussion.
Yin and Yang, a Taoist tradition, was one of the five classics of Confucianism, meaning that its a central concept to the ideology. With that, the way in which the ideas of Islam spread become quite obvious; a la incorporation as per Buddhist and Taoist traditions.
My basis for argument; if Buddhism can do it, Islam can too.
One concept that can take hold and manifest itself in the form of a singular deity whilst subsequently being compatible with the pre-existing traditions is the First Cause, or Occasionalism. Through that, the pieces begin falling into place. Basically, the causal web rooted in the philosophical tradition is itself rooted in the being that is God. The being that defines and connects all things.
Last edited:
I know exactly what the Shi'i believe I know more about their Aqeedah and history than you suspect and own many of their Hadith and have read their scholars.... So do not go on as if I am someone to teach on Shi'i belief, I could write essays on them all day it is no problem. But to speak from the Shi'i perspective during the 9th century is worthless they possessed no political power except rising up and causing ruin in areas they lived, this is obvious to any with knowledge of primary sources.
I speak only of what the primary sources say, as well what the Ulema of today say which all agree that the Fatimid was illegitimate as Khilafah because there was already a Caliph in Baghdad and the Fatimids did not follow the correct procedure, thus except themselves no one else referred to them as Caliph. The Fatimids hindered the Jihad by making peace deals with Byzantium and planning incursions into Saljuk territory, before the Saljuks attacked them. Further the Fatimids attempted to ally with the Crusaders at many points to try and keep the Crusaders attacked their supposed Muslim brothers in Saljuk territory and remove their gaze from the Fatimids. Not to mention the Fatimids antagonizing position to the Abbasid and its wild Fiqh. Simply read from primary sources....
Oh yea recommend I read the long history of Islam in China, I am such a novice of Islamic history I agree. But on subject, of course religion is changeable (Shi'i, Khawarij, Murji'ah, Mu'Tazila
) but I doubt the poster wants some she'll of Islam that really is not Islam, he fell my understanding wanted Islam as is the typical conception to be dominant in China. This happens every time on these threads, I give my argument for why Islam to a place is unlikely in the major form and people who think they are defenders of the honour of Islam come to its rescue and preach on how changeable and harmonious the religion is, whenever that was not my argument and my argument was always Islam as seen in its majority and how I almost am sure the poster saw it.Further you answered none of my points, how is Islam spreading to China in the 9th century when there is such stipulations as I have said? Even if you change that, there has to be a reason to change it, religion does not change just at the whim of an Internet poster but it changes for social and political reasons. Which begs the question even if Islam is favored by the Emperor, why with his pedigree would he just decide to change Islam, it makes no sense. This instance has never happened not even in West Africa, where the rulers where correct in their Islam but opted not to convert its populace so that it could have a steady slave population. As well, the time that Islam could be easily changed and fixed for China would be with Sufi Mystics, but by this time that it would be easily possible, China was either in the Yuan period or Ming period. From my understanding periods of general religious intolerance from China.
All in all, threads like these are not enjoyable due to the fact everyone finds it very fun to espouse the changing of religions as the method for everything and never argue politics and social history of the time and create fantastical theories and viewpoints outside the realm of possibility, without acknowledging other arguments, this happens to often and if a poster would like my advice on a subject like this, they can just message me.
EDIT: Iberia was already Islamic at the time there is a difference, it was stuck with their religion. China is the one converting thus it must decide on if it should change the religion at the ruling level (why would they?) or accept it and challenge the Abbasid.
I second Falecius's response (one of the few who argues Islamic history correctly). That being said, the Indian sultanates minted coinage paying tribute to the Abbasid just as almost all Sunni regimes of the time period did. Many afterwards would pay tribute to the Abbasid through coinage during the Mamluk period in Egypt. Timur was probably one of the first who did not mint coinage under the insignia of the Abbasid and after him no one but the Burji of Egypt did. After then Ottoman conquest of Egypt and the Levant in 1517, the Abbasid insignia remained dead completely.
Cueg
Banned
I know exactly what the Shi'i believe I know more about their Aqeedah and history than you suspect and own many of their Hadith and have read their scholars.... So do not go on as if I am someone to teach on Shi'i belief, I could write essays on them all day it is no problem. But to speak from the Shi'i perspective during the 9th century is worthless they possessed no political power except rising up and causing ruin in areas they lived, this is obvious to any with knowledge of primary sources.
I speak only of what the primary sources say, as well what the Ulema of today say which all agree that the Fatimid was illegitimate as Khilafah because there was already a Caliph in Baghdad and the Fatimids did not follow the correct procedure, thus except themselves no one else referred to them as Caliph. The Fatimids hindered the Jihad by making peace deals with Byzantium and planning incursions into Saljuk territory, before the Saljuks attacked them. Further the Fatimids attempted to ally with the Crusaders at many points to try and keep the Crusaders attacked their supposed Muslim brothers in Saljuk territory and remove their gaze from the Fatimids. Not to mention the Fatimids antagonizing position to the Abbasid and its wild Fiqh. Simply read from primary sources....
Oh yea recommend I read the long history of Islam in China, I am such a novice of Islamic history I agree. But on subject, of course religion is changeable (Shi'i, Khawarij, Murji'ah, Mu'Tazila
Further you answered none of my points, how is Islam spreading to China in the 9th century when there is such stipulations as I have said? Even if you change that, there has to be a reason to change it, religion does not change just at the whim of an Internet poster but it changes for social and political reasons. Which begs the question even if Islam is favored by the Emperor, why with his pedigree would he just decide to change Islam, it makes no sense. This instance has never happened not even in West Africa, where the rulers where correct in their Islam but opted not to convert its populace so that it could have a steady slave population. As well, the time that Islam could be easily changed and fixed for China would be with Sufi Mystics, but by this time that it would be easily possible, China was either in the Yuan period or Ming period. From my understanding periods of general religious intolerance from China.
All in all, threads like these are not enjoyable due to the fact everyone finds it very fun to espouse the changing of religions as the method for everything and never argue politics and social history of the time and create fantastical theories and viewpoints outside the realm of possibility, without acknowledging other arguments, this happens to often and if a poster would like my advice on a subject like this, they can just message me.
EDIT: Iberia was already Islamic at the time there is a difference, it was stuck with their religion. China is the one converting thus it must decide on if it should change the religion at the ruling level (why would they?) or accept it and challenge the Abbasid.
I'm not going to respond to most of the post, because your still speaking from the biased perspective of Sunni Ulema. Let us instead talk about why aspects of Islam might be adopted by either the Emperor of China, or segments of the population.
In most all Chinese philosophy, there is a perspective on causality. In that, it often took a meta-physical form in trying to explain various forces of nature, like the rise and fall of dynasties. Essentially, the concept borne out of the various philosophical traditions was that of a universal web that connects all things. In Islam, causation was also discussed at great length and the winner of the battle of ideas made the perspective one of the First Cause, or Occasionalism. To the Confucian scholar or Buddhist monk, the First Cause offers an answer to a question that has created division for centuries, what is the origin of this web of inter-connected causation? From there, one must simply fill in the blanks.
On second thought, i'm going to address some of your post.
You stated but one "stipulation", that whatever Caliph exists would demand the submission of any Chinese emperor trying to convert, thus rendering the attempt moot. To that, I asked the following.
How does the Caliph "demand" submission of any Chinese Emperor? We do understand how difficult (near impossible) it was to communicate between East Asia and the Middle East, right? Again, I ask how the Caliph, assuming he is so inclined as to demand submission, even gets the message there. Do you propose he send a messenger along the Silk Road? Even still, when does he send this messenger? Historically, it took well over a year for trade to flow between the two regions of the Earth, so when does the Caliph send this messenger? Is it upon hearing of the Chinese Emperors conversion? You might forgive me if this makes zero sense to an unlearned internet poster such as myself.
Well, your understanding is wrong. The Yuan were not only tolerant of Islam and Muslims, but actively moved said persons over to China as a governing policy. They were exceptionally tolerant of both the religion, and the people, so as to alienate the Han bureaucrats.
The Ming were also exceptionally tolerant of Islam and Muslims. Many served as generals, admirals, and civil servants. You might recall Zheng He, one such famous Chinese Muslim.
But hey, what do I know. I'm just an internet poster.
"African kings contained Muslim influence by segregating Muslim communities, in the second stage African rulers blended Islam with local traditions as the population selectively appropriated Islamic practices"
http://spice.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/...form_from_the_eighth_to_the_twentieth_century
So, I guess your wrong again?
I fixed it for you.
If your wondering why this is important, not all Muslims are Sunni. The OP specified an Islamic China, not a Sunni Islamic China.
Before responding, I'd like for you to remember that we are all internet posters trying to change history.
Last edited:
First of all your source said first stage contained Muslim communities between whom? They contained them by having the ruling class be Muslim and the lower classes effectively slaves who were traditional religion. This information is easily obtainable in Arabic readings of Ibn Khaldun and other scholars of those days who did not write on the blending of Islam and traditional faith but if the segregation, but the blending came at a later period at a time when a en masse conversion of China to Islam would be effectively impossible.
The Caliph can send messages across the Silk Road, the Tang and the Abbasid had contact and competed for a time over Sogdia, as you probably know. It is more non sensical I believe to say that China as a whole converts to some extremely modified version of Islam. Especially when China resisted Christianity, Buddhism, Manichaeism, etc all in modified forms at the state level. Do not act like my ideas are non sensical whenever you are arguing for the conversion of an emperor.
The Ming I had thought in later periods where against the influence of new religions and of religions already in their midst, was this not the period that Chinese Christianity disappeared and Manichaeism effectively wiped out? And how non sensical is it to say the entire Ming dynasty converts to Islam at this late a stage in history? Especially when the ideals of the Chinese is being so emphasized, at least from my limited understanding of Chinese history.
Again your view of Islam as separate into sects in as far that you say Islam is Sunni vs Shi'i in regards to Ulema is essentially divisive and noxious. In my own thread on Islam I made it clear there is one Islam and one does not make Takfir on Shi'i except their entities which make Takfir upon Sunni, this is clear cut. Thus, you separating Ulema (which is just scholars) into Sunni is not effective. Further, Ulema where not separated in this manner, an Ulema was an Ulema, regardless of his creed or supposed sect. Further, to say "Sunni" sources are all bias and invalid means we know nothing about Islamic history except the conjecture of revisionist westerners and literature from various rebels groups like Khawarij and some exceptionally radical Shi'i. So.... I could not bring this point home any more, I beg of you try and be serious in Islamic history without so called bias sources. But then again it is clear you are not interested in acknowledging my knowledge and using it to assist the thread, but are only interested in taking the head of what this site considers biased Sunni viewpoints.
Also, I like how everything I say is bias according to you, conjectured and revisionist history has no love from me, I speak and say how it was according to the sources and mouths of the Arab both Shi'i, Sunni, Khawarij, whatever you like. Anyone who follows what I say knows this, but when I make posts from the Sunni perspective which was the meaningful line for the time period, I am called biased. I wipe my hands clean of this thread and of you and other accusatory posters.... If the poster of this thread or anyone else would like my view on certain aspects you can message me.
Last edited:
Cueg
Banned
West African rulers had slaves long before the arrival of Islam. Beyond that, the source I provided does indeed indicate that there was segregation early on, but of the Muslim communities linked to the Trans-Saharan trade.
Again, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of assimilation. China didn't "resist" the aforementioned faiths, they subsumed them. I will again cite the most basic of cases; Yin and Yang. You are aware that its a Taoist tradition adopted by Confucianism, right? Such is the nature of, as I said before, ALL assimilation. Do you think Islam took nothing from Persian culture after its conquest? Islam has been defined in large part by Persian culture through a process called assimilation. To use a different religion, Christianity in Europe became defined by various pagan traditions. Its a motion that goes both ways.
Yes, Manichaeism was wiped out by way of a systemic effort, something that never happened to the Muslim diaspora because the religion was tolerated and respected. With regard to "the entire Ming dynasty [converting]", we'll never get an opportunity to discuss that because you've chosen to leave the thread.
Perhaps theres an error in linguistics here. Bias is not inherently bad. In the context with which we were speaking, you were discussing this through the perspective of religious scholars of the Sunni sect of Islam. Whilst Sunni is most certainty predominant in the Islamic faith, there are other religious scholars that are not Sunni, that view the Fatmid Caliphate as legitimate. Not only do they view it as legitimate, but they also view the first three Caliphates as illegitimate on the basis of Ali, the original cause for the division. This is important because, as I said before, the OP did not specify a Sunni Islamic China, merely an Islamic China. In that, we know that there are many that prescribe to the Islamic faith that aren't Sunni. Therefore, whilst your perspective is certainty valid, it isn't the ONLY perspective within those that identify and practice the Islamic faith.
You're telling me that every single Shi'i scholar condemned the Fatimid Caliphate as being illegitimate? You yourself said the following in this very page.
Your own words suggest that many Shi'i viewed the Fatmid Caliphate as legitimate. Are your own words incorrect?
Last edited:
I think that the best chance would come in during the Tang Golden Age. We can have some sect fleeing from persecution under the Umayyad or Abbasid which go east and scatter, some heading northeast into China, having heard of the famed religious toleration.
In an attempt to perhaps spite the Abbasids who defeated China at Talas, the Tang graciously take them in. And then some scenarios others have mentioned already take place.
In an attempt to perhaps spite the Abbasids who defeated China at Talas, the Tang graciously take them in. And then some scenarios others have mentioned already take place.
Perhaps after the Tang take them in, they manage to become court eunuchs or something. Perhaps they could be court advisers for things like trade, and they could dominate the whole ministry in charge of trade. Maybe they then bribe the Emperor and other departments so that they gradually take control?
Is this too implausible?
Is this too implausible?