WI Khosrau II converts to Islam?

Khosrau II is remembered in Muslim tradition to be the Persian king to whom Muhammad had sent a messenger, together with a letter to preach the religion of Islam...
The Persian historian Tabari continues that in refusal and outrage, Khosrau tore up Muhammed's letter and commanded Badhan, his vassal ruler of Yemen, to dispatch two valiant men to identify, seize and bring this man from Hijaz (Muhammad) to him. Meanwhile, back in Madinah, Abdullah told Muhammad how Khusraw had torn his letter to pieces and Muhammad's only reply was, "May his kingdom tear apart"....
WI Khosrau II decides to accept Islam in Persia? How is that altering History? Any thoughts?
 

Philip

Donor
Khosrau II is remembered in Muslim tradition to be the Persian king to whom Muhammad had sent a messenger, together with a letter to preach the religion of Islam...
The Persian historian Tabari continues that in refusal and outrage, Khosrau tore up Muhammed's letter and commanded Badhan, his vassal ruler of Yemen, to dispatch two valiant men to identify, seize and bring this man from Hijaz (Muhammad) to him. Meanwhile, back in Madinah, Abdullah told Muhammad how Khusraw had torn his letter to pieces and Muhammad's only reply was, "May his kingdom tear apart"....
WI Khosrau II decides to accept Islam in Persia? How is that altering History? Any thoughts?

IIRC, most historians dismiss this letter as a later invention. That being said, the likely result is that Khosrau is quickly deposed.
 
Someone produced a forgery much later, tore it up, then claimed Muhammad wrote it?

The theory is that the idea of the letter was a forgery.

I doubt that the shreds of paper would survive the amount of time needed.

Just a thought, but how plausible is this? This involves one of the two great powers of the middle east spontaniously converting to a religion which sprung up out of the ground in one of the more backward parts of the region, despite having a well established religious heirarchy and all that. Or at least, that is how the persians will view things. I cant really imagine why Khosrau would do this?

On the other hand, stranger things have happened... This is just incredibly implausible.:rolleyes:

But wouldnt it be better for muhammed to write to the Byzantine emperor? After all, Islam had more similarities with Christianity then Zoroastrianism. He might be able to find enough common ground to work with.
 

Ak-84

Banned
In OTL with the fate of both empires up for grabs, and with Arabs in the thick of things (being a border people as it was) well there was great potential either way for the empires, for the Romans Muhammad could replace or threaten their lackeys in the region, the Ghassanids, while for the Perians, they could help deliver Hejaz out of Roman control.
 
In OTL with the fate of both empires up for grabs, and with Arabs in the thick of things (being a border people as it was) well there was great potential either way for the empires, for the Romans Muhammad could replace or threaten their lackeys in the region, the Ghassanids, while for the Perians, they could help deliver Hejaz out of Roman control.

At this time, both empires were recovering from a long and brutal war. The Byzantines had won, but been devastated in the process. The Persians had actually lost the war, and were worse off. Neither viewed the arabs as a potentially powerful ally or threat, and were to busy to care about the penninsula at the time.
 
You know, an interesting WI would be if such a letter really did exist, but Khosrau II managed to follow up on his threat, and succeeded in it. Let's presume that this is before Persia's military might is thoroughly destroyed, to where Persia is able to mount an expedition into Arabia and make good on Khosrau's threat.

Of course, this means two things. First, Islam is more or less stifled in its cradle. Second, I doubt Arabia would be an easy conquest - meaning that Persia is weakened enough for the Byzantines to make more headway than OTL, perhaps resulting in earlier and more total Byzantine victory. While this may lead to a world not too dissimilar from Turtledove's "Agent of Byzantium", it would be interesting to see what happens in this ATL-Arabia. Does it convert to Christianity, seeing as Byzantium may pick up pieces of broken Persian Empire? Does someone else rise instead of Muhammad, and take his place? After all, Abu Bakr and Omar are still around, unless they were somehow killed or incapacitated in Persian attack, and they probably should get more credit for Islam's lightning-fast advance through the Mediterranean. Without Muhammad, but after Muhammad's teachings have been somewhat formalized, would they still pick up where he left off, and spread his religion, or would his earlier death cause a completely different turn of events in Arabia and the Mediterranean?
 

Philip

Donor
While this may lead to a world not too dissimilar from Turtledove's "Agent of Byzantium", it would be interesting to see what happens in this ATL-Arabia. Does it convert to Christianity, seeing as Byzantium may pick up pieces of broken Persian Empire? Does someone else rise instead of Muhammad, and take his place? After all, Abu Bakr and Omar are still around, unless they were somehow killed or incapacitated in Persian attack, and they probably should get more credit for Islam's lightning-fast advance through the Mediterranean. Without Muhammad, but after Muhammad's teachings have been somewhat formalized, would they still pick up where he left off, and spread his religion, or would his earlier death cause a completely different turn of events in Arabia and the Mediterranean?

Interesting ideas. There might also be a stronger Jewish presence.

Did Persia still control Yemen at this point? It was not that long after Christian Aksum was expelled from southern Arabia.
 
Top