DBWI: The Persian Empire becomes Islamic

Using a POD since the birth of Mohammed for Persia to become Islamic or is this just ASB? Could Islam replace Zoroastrianism in Persia itself?
 
I think Persians have too much pride in their great and venerable civilization to allow its fundamental values to be changed by a few missionary traders.
 
I would assume that Islam would actually become assimilated into the Persian culture, and perhaps later Greek-Roman, so they probably would be adopt the culture of the two major groups to a large extent.
 
I think Persians have too much pride in their great and venerable civilization to allow its fundamental values to be changed by a few missionary traders.

Indeed. Islam has always been by its very nature a religion of trade- Islamic states work in the merchant city states of South East Asia, but it's hard to see an Islamic hegemony over Persia itself.
 
Maybe if Abu Bakr managed to keep control on the Bedouin tribes that had paid allegiance to Muhammad in later years, and use the forces as religiously-motivated land army. Ali ibn Talib brought most of them into the fold later, but as essentialy independent groups unable to act cohesively as a military. Last Muhammad expeditions and some occasional exploits under Abu Bakr himself and Ali proved that it was not a path set in stone.
However, trade and missions have proven to be highly successfully ways to spread Islam anyway... and I would like to remind that, more or less when Muhammad and his successors lived in Arabia, Persian emperors were really busy enforcing official Zoroastrianism at swordpoint upon a religiously diverse population, even if Pahlavist propaganda does not really like such things to be recalled.
By the way, there is actually an allegedly sizeable Muslim minority in some parts of southern Persia, though at the moment is not so wise to show up given the current policies of the Empire.
Historical accounts I know of seem to describe an highly syncretical, elusive group, adapted to survive the recurrent cycles of religious top-down uniformization Persia expereinced while keeping some core aspects of Islam. And of course there are the authorized traders, but I think any attempt on their part to proselytize Persian subjects is not taken joyfully by authorites.
 
Not sure, but airship travel to Medina would probably be more consistent.

Is there even some direct traffic to Medina from Persia? I thought the Hamadan line was closed after the last Qeshm controversy, when the Medina Shura offered backing to Dubai's claims.
 
Is there even some direct traffic to Medina from Persia? I thought the Hamadan line was closed after the last Qeshm controversy, when the Medina Shura offered backing to Dubai's claims.

Well there was some before that. Only once every three weeks though.
 

Sang

Banned
Persian emperors were really busy enforcing official Zoroastrianism at swordpoint upon a religiously diverse population, even if Pahlavist propaganda does not really like such things to be recalled.

Wrong.
Zoroastrianism does not allow converts.
The Persians tolerated each and every foreign religion before Islam.
 
and I would like to remind that, more or less when Muhammad and his successors lived in Arabia, Persian emperors were really busy enforcing official Zoroastrianism at swordpoint upon a religiously diverse population, even if Pahlavist propaganda does not really like such things to be recalled.

This is vile Anti-Persian propeganda spread by our Arabic and Roman enemies! They use it to hide their evil ways. Truly they are the followers of Ahriman.
 
Wrong.
Zoroastrianism does not allow converts.
The Persians tolerated each and every foreign religion before Islam.

OCC: currently Zoroastrianism is not proselytizing and much tolerant. Much less so in Sasanid times, when Christians and other dissidents were regularly persecuted. However, as I wrote, Sasanid Persia WAS religiously diverse.
 

Tsao

Banned
This is vile Anti-Persian propeganda spread by our Arabic and Roman enemies! They use it to hide their evil ways. Truly they are the followers of Ahriman.

Ugh, obvious Zoroastrian orc. And by the way, Rome hasn't been a real power since the 1920s, what with the whole Frenkish-Roman War.
 
Ugh, obvious Zoroastrian orc. And by the way, Rome hasn't been a real power since the 1920s, what with the whole Frenkish-Roman War.

The Franks aren't on our borders spreading vicious lies but the Romans do! Besides the heart of Christianity is Constantinople which is they never tire of pointing out.
 
This is vile Anti-Persian propeganda spread by our Arabic and Roman enemies! They use it to hide their evil ways. Truly they are the followers of Ahriman.

Nope. I am proudly a citizen of the Aleuto-Kamchatkan Socialist Commonwealth. I could not give a darn more of the silly imperialist clashes your obsolete religions bring about. But I have to say that Islam is somewhat the most advanced of them. Socialism was developed in the Islamic cities of Suwahil after all. Though I have to admit that our Revolution would not have been possible without the Persian Exile Legion of the Altaj.
 
Nope. I am proudly a citizen of the Aleuto-Kamchatkan Socialist Commonwealth. I could not give a darn more of the silly imperialist clashes your obsolete religions bring about. But I have to say that Islam is somewhat the most advanced of them. Socialism was developed in the Islamic cities of Suwahil after all. Though I have to admit that our Revolution would not have been possible without the Persian Exile Legion of the Altaj.


So you are a religion hating Socialist. Of course you see Islam as the most advanced it is the one that came up with your pathetic political system. It must be fun watching countries more advanced than yours pull farther and farther ahead while your power mad party chairmen put out one ludicrous 7 year plan after another. I am sure wasting a huge percentage of your population pushing paper to come up with these plans is the height of intelligence. :rolleyes:
 
Persian identity and Zoroastrianism are, in my opinion, inherently connected to one another in the way that Neo-Vedic religious practices are connected to many Indian cultures and the Suomi have their own religion.

It's a religio-cultural polity in a way that negates the need for the development of the nation-state, though I'd personally say that Persia ended up following that trend anyway.

It's just that imagining Islam as dominant in Persia is so very difficult, the impact of that would be so huge on the rest of Central and Western Asia as to completely redraw the map for the last millenia or more. This may even apply to Europe as well. It's so difficult to imagine Persia willingly subsuming their culture to Arabic influence so much, particularly since Persia has such a strong cultural tradition, from Elam to Persia/Media to Achaemenid Persia to Sassanid Persia, then the post-Mongol revival.
 
Can we get back to the topic of what Islam somehow achieving dominance in Persia would look like and stop this ridiculous bickering on socialism?

We all know the Roman Empire is half socialist - what do you think the grain dole for Constantinople's citizens was?

So anyway, I think it would probably require an exceptionally able string of leaders for Islam to spread by force. There just aren't enough Arabs for a massive army, and their military tactics weren't that special. So that leaves leadership.

Edit: Ninja overrode part of this post.
 
I suppose that depends on your definition of overran, the Persians very much like to think of the Mongols as a brief, easily forgotten moment in which a very small elite temporarily dominated the country before becoming culturally assimilated.

But yes, considering how they did in fact assimilate into Persian society shows just how unlikely it is that a new religion not even centuries old can be so suddenly and easily imposed on Persian society.

EDIT: OOC- Sorry Elfwine! >.<
 
I suppose that depends on your definition of overran, the Persians very much like to think of the Mongols as a brief, easily forgotten moment in which a very small elite temporarily dominated the country before becoming culturally assimilated.

But yes, considering how they did in fact assimilate into Persian society shows just how unlikely it is that a new religion not even centuries old can be so suddenly and easily imposed on Persian society.

EDIT: OOC- Sorry Elfwine! >.<

I suppose the Mongols do count, though its hard to tell from what we have in the West how much they changed anything except the names of the rulers. Its not like how for instance Francia has long since stopped being Roman cultured. Persia...what does that even mean for a country that has claimed to continue to be "Persian" across multiple polities?

I mean, there are Franks that refuse to accept that Constantinople is Roman because the capital isn't on the Tiber. Nonsense I know, but there has to be a point we can't say its the same country being reborn over and over again, I suppose.

OOC: No worries, you posted first, therefore you get to call it on if the Mongols took Iran in this scenario. I was assuming they got butterflied, but it doesn't matter.

For those who didn't see it before the edit, I posted "When's the last time nomads overran anywhere except China?" with an observation that China has been peculiarly inept at dealing with that (like OTL).
 
Top