Early Islamic Conquests if the Sasanids had defeated the Byzantine Empire

First, I wouldn’t say that all Muslims, or even a great number, act in the ways you say. It’s really unfair to define an entire group by the acts of those who happen to be in that group. In any case, it is not relevant to the conversation at hand.

Secondly, though I agree that there was some persecution of Zoroastrianism in Persia, it was mostly shunning and some forced conversions, which aren’t great, but are better than burnings at the stake, which was something Christian states praticed not unregularly. But really, this is the limit of intolerance in the early days of the caliphate. Like what @Byzantine fanatic said, the Umayyads actually discouraged conversion (or at least didn’t encourage it), because they relied on the Jizya for a significant portion of income. Those of abrahamic faith were respected, and a lot of the people incorporated into the caliphate saw the caliphate as tolerant liberators that allowed them to practice religion freely (especially repressed faiths like the monophysites and Jews)

Even in the later Islamic world, I don’t see evidence that they were any worse than European powers. Really, it’s only in very recent history that Europe can be argued to be more tolerant and “advanced” than Islamic countries in general, and even then, I’d be careful in making that judgement.

With all do respect, this is mostly incorrect regarding the Caliphate. The Muslims did not ‘respect’ these groups nor did they do them honor. Further, if you wish to discuss Islam, avoid these comparisons to ‘Christian states’. It cheapens genuine discussion on the topic.
 
@Sennacharib I I would suggest to delete your message within this thread. It will likely lead to a kick or ban. There is certainly a case to be made against the person’s argument that Islam discouraged conversion; as his/her argument pertains only to Christians and Jews and such, not to the totality of the experience of Islamic rule. Further it is not necessarily true even so.

However, your argument is quite inflammatory and dangerous.

Thanks John.

I'm not going to report his post and I don't think he should be banned. He was just expressing an opinion (albeit a very bigoted, incorrect and misguided one). Obviously I don't agree with what he said but I don't think it justified a ban, because he didn't use any insults or personal attacks.

@Sennacharib I has posted interesting historical posts about the Elamites in another thread and I really don't think his intention was to troll. He didn't start a thread about it and only posted in response to me.

I'd be the first person to admit I find Islamophobic propaganda irritating, and what he posted was inflammatory, offensive and wrong, but I don't think his intentions were suspicious. I just think he's probably badly misinformed about the topic. That may not even be his fault. We don't know where he is from or anything about him beyond his username, and I feel it would be unfair to just ban him on the basis of one post.

We should be chivalrous and defend others even if they disagree with us, if they at least appear to be doing so honestly (as I think it is in this case).

I could be wrong but I think he deserves another chance. For all we know he might be very young, or never heard about these topics before and read some wrong websites.

Also, to help him I can recommend some books - 'No god but god' by Reza Aslan, the biography of Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton, 'Heaven on earth - a journey through Sharia' by human rights lawyer Sadakat Kadri, 'Iran Empire of the mind' by Michael Axworthy, 'Silk roads' by Peter Frankopan, the biography of Ataturk by Lord Kinross, 'destiny disrupted' by Tamim Ansary.
 
Last edited:
With all do respect, this is mostly incorrect regarding the Caliphate. The Muslims did not ‘respect’ these groups nor did they do them honor. Further, if you wish to discuss Islam, avoid these comparisons to ‘Christian states’. It cheapens genuine discussion on the topic.
Not all Muslims respected them certainly but there were those who did. Abrahamic solidarity is after all very prominent within Islam. Also if we cannot compare Islamic states to Christian States in an argument against a person convinced of the latters superiority how are we to argue against him/her?
 
Honestly - I can't see it being that different a timeline - sure, the Romans have suffered, and hurt - but they didn't really have a great amount of control over the Levant after the Persian wars anyway. I expect we're likely to see the Romans hoping for an alliance with the Rashidun, and using that alliance to recover parts of Anatolia (if they could), and allow themselves to reconquer the areas lost in Europe. Persia now faces the full brunt of the Caliphate, whilst further overextended.

Other than the Romans being smaller, I don't see this timeline being significantly different from our own. Not unless the Persians can really bring the fight to the Caliphate.

I personally like the idea (whether it is likely i don't know) of a protacted series of wars between the Sassanids and Rashidun for the Levant, Egypt and Mesopotamia, especially if the Persians can put up a strong fight - but I full expect that the Romans would use this time to either rebuild, or attack the Persians as well - leaving the Romans with Anatolia.

Really, a hypothetically stronger Persia taking the full force of the Rashidun is an interesting TL. Especially if the PoD is that the Persians have a general/ruler of the calibre of Khalid ibn Walid that leads to their victory against the Romans.
 
"Honestly - I can't see it being that different a timeline"

This is an interesting idea but I think its correct.

IOTL, ignoring the theory I posted earlier, at the end of the day you had Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia all ruled by one empire, with Hellenic influence much diminished and with a dominant monotheistic but non-Christian religion. The Byzantine Empire survives but is limited to its territories in Anatolia, Constantinople, and a few outposts. Now this situation can happen with the historical turn of events, but it can also happen if Sassanian Persia just keeps its early 7th century conquests.

The main change is Islam vs Zoroastrianism but even that you could have the Persians just convert to Islam peacefully, as they largely did IOTL (the Arabs let the Zoroastrians alone, contrary to what an earlier commentator posted, so the conversion really was mostly peaceful) or for Zoroastrianism to absorb lots of elements from the other religion. The two religions are not THAT different. I think a peaceful conversion is most likely. Also, remember that in our timeline you did have Zoroastrian enclaves stay out of Caliphate control for centuries and then converting to Islam later, with the Islamic dynasties descended from Zoroastrian priests, and the Persia adopted a somewhat different from of Islam from the mainstream.

There will be a difference in the politics if Persia remains a mostly hereditary monarchy. And butterflies affecting the Western Mediterranean and the Punjab which could be big. The Persians might decide they are not interesting in expanding into the Maghreb and Spain but instead push harder than the Arabs into India. But these could still go as they did anyway.
 
I don’t know what book your reading but the Muslims were extremely brutal and had little to no respect in most instances for native cultures. Especially religions.
During their invasion of Persia they killed many Zoroastrian priests, burned their temples and erected mosques, and when a city didn’t want to be ruled by Muslims they destroyed it.
In their sack of Rome, easily one of if not the most holy city of Christendom during the time, they looted the city, killed many innocent civilians, and sacked saint peters basilica. This happened after the Arabs invaded Sicily unprovoked.
I could go on and on but to wrap it up even today Muslims are still practicing similar actions. They recently desecrated a holy Jewish site. Over the past few centuries thousands of not millions of Jews have been forced to leave or convert in Islamic countries. Let us not forget that a significant portion of Muslims(not one percent it’s more like 40% at least) support Sharia law which allows or even mandates stoning, beheading, and killing any one who converts from Islam. Over thousands of years Islam still remains one of the most barbaric religions in the world. In addition the worst place for Christians to live remains almost exclusively in Islamic countries. Christians in Egypt which make up 10% of the population suffer horrible treatment, discrimination, terror attacks, and beheadings.
Most of this information is not very accurate and very Islamic phobic.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I don’t know what book your reading but the Muslims were extremely brutal and had little to no respect in most instances for native cultures. Especially religions.
During their invasion of Persia they killed many Zoroastrian priests, burned their temples and erected mosques, and when a city didn’t want to be ruled by Muslims they destroyed it.
In their sack of Rome, easily one of if not the most holy city of Christendom during the time, they looted the city, killed many innocent civilians, and sacked saint peters basilica. This happened after the Arabs invaded Sicily unprovoked.
I could go on and on but to wrap it up even today Muslims are still practicing similar actions. They recently desecrated a holy Jewish site. Over the past few centuries thousands of not millions of Jews have been forced to leave or convert in Islamic countries. Let us not forget that a significant portion of Muslims(not one percent it’s more like 40% at least) support Sharia law which allows or even mandates stoning, beheading, and killing any one who converts from Islam. Over thousands of years Islam still remains one of the most barbaric religions in the world. In addition the worst place for Christians to live remains almost exclusively in Islamic countries. Christians in Egypt which make up 10% of the population suffer horrible treatment, discrimination, terror attacks, and beheadings.
Outside of the remarkable historic inaccuracies presented in this rant. Rome was sacked at least eight times, once before the birth of Christ, followed by three attacks between 410-546 CE, a single raid that did not reach into the walled portion of the city by Arab raiders in 846, then three sackings by Christian forces. If you are keeping score, that makes it 4 Germanic pagan, three Christian, one Arab sacks, with the Arab raid not even reaching the inner city.

Compared to how Christians treated Jews and Muslims when they invaded an area (See: Crusades), be it in the Iberian Peninsula or in the Middle East, the treatment of other "People of the Book" was Muslims was mild indeed.

I understand that the above paragraph was an utter waste of time since religious bigotry and facts rarely meet, but it was still worth posting.

So is this:

I have no doubt that if you remain a member here we will be treated to addition religious bigotry based rants. Not going to happen.


We divorce you.

To Coventry with you.
 
Not all Muslims respected them certainly but there were those who did. Abrahamic solidarity is after all very prominent within Islam. Also if we cannot compare Islamic states to Christian States in an argument against a person convinced of the latters superiority how are we to argue against him/her?

In terms of the Islamic thought, there is no Abrahamic solidarity, especially in those days. The issue is very clear cut, the world is divided generally in only two basic forms, Dar al-Harb (abode of war) and Dar al-Islam (abode of submission to Allah [SWT]). All other classifications of abode are subdivisions of these major two; including the Dhimmi. As the Dhimmi are subjugated, humiliated and no longer spread fitnah (mischief) as they are under the law of shariah. So no, there is no solidarity between the Caliphate or the other faiths of this period, and the consensus of the time is clear cut on this point.

Most of this misunderstanding is that Islamic viewpoints of the IX century revolve entirely around this idea of the Khilafah. This related to the idea that is still dogma if you will, that the physical jihad is that it is related not to the imaan (status of the faith) but ending the fitnah and tyranny of manmade laws. Thus, the idea was that the jihad is to conquer the powers and polities as the command, not necessarily to bring the entire world to Islam by the sword, but through the shadow of the sword as the saying goes.
 
In terms of the Islamic thought, there is no Abrahamic solidarity,

@John7755 يوحنا is very knowledgeable about this and I respect that.

I do think though that the Qur'an contradicts what you've said. Verse 2.62:

"The believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans - all those who believe in God and the last day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve."

This isn't the only example either. There are plenty of examples from the sunnah and the Rashidun Caliphs that confirm tolerance and respect to Christians and Jews.

I've noticed before a tendency in your Islam posts to opt for a rather Salafist interpretation of Islam. It's not my place to judge but I suspect we will tend to disagree from time to time, though I hope I'm wrong inshallah.

That's the thing with Islam (and other faiths) though- they are ultimately open to infinite interpretation and our understanding usually depends on who we are, what our experiences were, and what our character. So one cannot definitively say any individual is right absolutely, since that is rarely likely to be the case, and perhaps not even possible given the complexity of the subject and the ultimately unknowable nature of god.
 
Last edited:
@John7755 يوحنا is very knowledgeable about this and I respect that.

I do think though that the Qur'an contradicts what you've said. Verse 2.62:

"The believers, the Jews, the Christians and the Sabeans - all those who believe in God and the last day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve."

This isn't the only example either. There are plenty of examples from the sunnah and the Rashidun Caliphs that confirm tolerance and respect to Christians and Jews.

I've noticed before a tendency in your Islam posts to opt for a rather Salafist interpretation of Islam. It's not my place to judge but I suspect we will tend to disagree from time to time, though I hope I'm wrong inshallah.

That's the thing with Islam (and other faiths) though- they are ultimately open to infinite interpretation and our understanding usually depends on who we are, what our experiences were, and what our character. So one cannot definitively say any individual is right absolutely, since that is rarely likely to be the case, and perhaps not even possible given the complexity of the subject and the ultimately unknowable nature of god.

To begin, there is nothing wrong with this term Salafist, it is certainly superior than being called Shi'i or other titles that conform to a single person, thus in some ways, making them an idol. Salafist only means that you supposedly follow the predecessors and or earliest Muslim. If a Muslim sees this as a negative and not exemplifying his faith, then what minhaj (path) are they upon that has a difference to that of the followers of Muhammad (SAW) or a difference to that of Muhammad himself (SAW). No offense to you, however, you should perhaps look into whom you look toward as examples, is it the Salaf, or is it later innovators (not even using this in a negative form)? Remember that if you insult the Salaf or nullify their practices, the old saying goes 'one is judged by his friends and by whom he pays his time'. It should also be remembered the sunnah, that those who are the first generation is the best generation, in our sunnah, the student never surpasses the teacher. However, I would not term myself as Salafi, even though this would be an honorable title indeed, to be an assured follower of those who learned from the Prophet (SAW). Rather, I espouse Hanbali Fiqh generally and this would be the school that I associate most with and the Faqih whom I consider the most correct. Otherwise, the term remaining is only Muslim as was intended by Allah (SWT) and thus afterwards, I do not discriminate unless one asks me, as you inadvertently do as to who of the main scholars that I find most correct.

Concerning Quran 2:62

“What is meant is that every group believed in Allah and the Last Day, which is the appointed Day of Reckoning, and did righteous deeds. But after Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was sent to both mankind and the jinn, true belief can only be in accordance with the way of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Whoever follows his way will not fear the future or grieve for what they leave behind." -Ibn Kathir

This is gained through the combination of a similar surah soon after:

“Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” -Quran 5:69

Relating to Quran 5:69, the tafsir is clear, those among the Jews, Christians, etc,,, who held to their faith prior to Muhammad (SAW) and did not indulge in the shirk or kufr, were blameless. Allah (SWT) does not confer sins retroactively, the Jew who followed the code of Moses, did not abandon the laws given by Allah (SWT) and did not deviate into the shirk that the Jewish people indulged in, are blameless in regards to not being born to accept Muhammad's (SAW) message. Likewise, the Christians or followers of Jesus the Messiah, who worshiped the One God and did not exaggerate (al-ghulat) in their love of Jesus to the point of giving him a divine status or attributing separate divinity to the breath (Holy Ghost) of Allah (SWT) are so too blameless in regards to accepting Muhammad (SAW) prior to his message (even when Muhammad(SWT) was alive, but yet to receive the message and died upon their Islam before the message).

In short, Islam is submission to the Monotheism of Allah (SWT) and all of its implications, as well as submission to His Shariah and acceptance of His prophet(s). Only those who accept these points are destined for the eternal life with Allah (SWT) in the afterlife. The persons who were Jews and Christians that followed the teachings of Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc, are not Jews or Christians per se, rather to us, they are Muslims. Likewise, all those whoa re born, are born Muslim and upon the truth, there were Muslims of the past before Muhammad(SAW). Islam if we remember is the religion commanded and owned by Allah (SWT) not by the most honored Muhammad (SAW).

This description however does not apply to the majority of Christians (none of them now) or Jews (none of them now), only to those prior to Muhammad (SAW) who did not indulge in the kufr of their religions. One who associates partners with Allah (SWT) is not a beloved person, nor will he taste paradise, regardless of the prophet whom he supposedly received knowledge from. This is a clear-cut issue further, not that of any particular school and is something that is known by necessity, as a Muslim, it is required of you to reject the faiths that practice the idolatry and associate partners to Allah (SWT) or similar innovations.
 
Top