AHC: Baha'i-dominated Iran and the Malay Archipelago

The POD is either the Baha'i faith was established under an earlier version of Baha'ullah (17th or 18th century) or the scenario originally posted by Dorozhand in the "AHC: Baha'i State" thread:
A major famine hits Iran which coincides with the beginning of the Baha'ullah's popularity. Baha'i spreads despite attempts at persecution, and attracts the faith of a desperate people. The Qajarid Dynasty collapses during the crisis. The Baha'ullah returns to the country to lead the rapidly growing movement, but not before new philosophers within it have started to mold radical strains and ideas of creating a state and an army by which to spread the religion. Certain people who IOTL might have turned to Mahdism or other messianic Islamic ideas instead turn to Baha'i. After the return of the Baha'ullah, a large peasant army begins to coalesce around him and soon he and his cadre of philosophers, disciples, and clerics are in a position to take control of all of Iran. When the movement has conquered, they give the new state their blessing as a bulwark of the faith, and soon people around the world are converting in droves.

ITTL the religion might a have a slightly different character, as a bit less like a universalism and a bit more like a fourth Abrahamic religion with certain Buddhist and Zoroastrian ideas.

Will this alternate Persia affect the religious fabric of Southeast Asia, particularly the Malay Archipelago (Malay Peninsula, Borneo, Greater Sunda Islands, Celebes, even Mindanao)? AFAIK, Islam was introduced in these areas by traders from Arabia, particularly the Hadramaut region, and Persia, and it was traditionally syncretist in nature (incorporating animistic, Hindu and Buddhist traditions).
 
Last edited:
If Baha'ullah came earlier, the religion wouldn't be the same. It is possible that a similar religion could develop but it is ASB to assume that a religion could also evolve 100 years earlier.

Now I am not very sure about Dorozhands scenario, in this case we will surely have a larger Baha'i population but I doubt they can become the dominant religious group in Iran.
I fail to see why it would spread to South-East Asia, the situation is very different compared to when Islam spread in those areas and it took a considerable time for Islam to spread in the region. I do not see why Baha'i would do the same and I doubt many people would convert.
 
Now I am not very sure about Dorozhands scenario, in this case we will surely have a larger Baha'i population but I doubt they can become the dominant religious group in Iran.
So it means that Baha'is are a plurality (although not necessarily majority) in Iran,right?
 
Oh boy.

Islam does not accept any newer revelations than Mohammed - which is why Christians and Jews, for instance, were classically tolerated, but Baha'is were always persecuted badly. Moreover, apostacy (conversion away from Islam) even to Christianity or Judaism, was also forbidden.

If such a scenario led to Bahaiism making serious inroads into Iranian society, a) the civil war would be really nasty, and b) neighbouring Muslim states would support any side that WASN'T Baha'i.

You'd need total devastation of the whole Middle East/Southwest Asia for Baha'i to establish itself as a major religion in Iran.

And then Baha'iism would have to become a warrior religion, like Sikhism did, under constant attack from others.
 
Oh boy.

Islam does not accept any newer revelations than Mohammed - which is why Christians and Jews, for instance, were classically tolerated, but Baha'is were always persecuted badly. Moreover, apostacy (conversion away from Islam) even to Christianity or Judaism, was also forbidden.

If such a scenario led to Bahaiism making serious inroads into Iranian society, a) the civil war would be really nasty, and b) neighbouring Muslim states would support any side that WASN'T Baha'i.

You'd need total devastation of the whole Middle East/Southwest Asia for Baha'i to establish itself as a major religion in Iran.

And then Baha'iism would have to become a warrior religion, like Sikhism did, under constant attack from others.
Accurate. And, under colonial rule, I don't see how both the colonists and natives [or the Muslims] tolerate the cult. If the Bahai is strengthened by colonists, urban Muslims have bigger incentive to overthrow imperialists [assuming the latter permit Bahai'ism to spread in large amounts].
 
Accurate. And, under colonial rule, I don't see how both the colonists and natives [or the Muslims] tolerate the cult. If the Bahai is strengthened by colonists, urban Muslims have bigger incentive to overthrow imperialists [assuming the latter permit Bahai'ism to spread in large amounts].

How plausible is it that the hypothetical imperialists might promote Bahai'ism to "divide and conquer"?
 
How plausible is it that the hypothetical imperialists might promote Bahai'ism to "divide and conquer"?
Unlikely, but I'm thinking if the Bahai'i were there because of the imperialists, then, Muslims would be even angrier because it's after all, the imperialists' fault they're there in the atl.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
what about divided Iran ?

say Russian Empire successfully capture Azerbaijan and Gilan-Mazandaran ( Caspian Coasts ) while British Empire successfully capture Khuzestan and Persian Gulf coasts. Qajar weak and unstable, Afghan absorb Meshded and Herat, while Kurdistan region become semi-independent. during chaos and famine, Baha'ism become popular in Isfahan, it success and establishment of non autocratic and constitutional government, and embrace of Iranian-Persia nationalism making it more popular in Russian and British colony, during nationalism struggle, it successfully expel British and Russia from Iran.
 
Top