WI: Saman Khuda doesn't convert?

Dorozhand

Banned
Saman Khuda, founder of the Samanid Dynasty of medieval Persia, came from the Zoroastrian Persian nobility, and only later converted to Islam. What if he hadn't done so, and instead tried to reinstate Zoroastrianism as the state religion?
 
Saman Khuda, founder of the Samanid Dynasty of medieval Persia, came from the Zoroastrian Persian nobility, and only later converted to Islam. What if he hadn't done so, and instead tried to reinstate Zoroastrianism as the state religion?

Disclaimer: My knowledge of Zoroastrianism mostly extends until the time of the flight of the Parsis to India, so the Safavids are mostly unknown to me.

That said, Zoroastrianism probably wouldn't be restored as late as the 1500s. The Mongols killed off most of the remaining Zoroastrians in Persia, and they aren't often mentioned in the historical records of Persia until centuries later, if my sources were correct.

If you want a resurgent Zoroastrianism, I would suggest having a POD sometime in the Umayyad Caliphate (maybe Abbasid at latest). Muslim rulers complained that Zoroastrians had to be bribed to come to Friday prayers, and that there was much resistance to conversion. Maybe make the administrators and caliphs opt for open persecution instead of treating them as dhimmis, sparking a revolt? This could come from a strict interpretation of the Qu'ran Surah 2. Only Christians, Jews, and "Sabaeans" are EXPLICITLY mentioned as People of the Book. "Magians" (i.e. Zoroastrians) are mentioned in 022.017, but the Qu'ran's view on them seems unclear to me: "Those who believe, those who follow the Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists, Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things". Make of that what you will.
 
Naw, these are the Samanids, a 9th century dynasty in Transoxiana apparently descended from Bahram Gur.

That being said: the political winds are prevailing towards the Arabs. If he doesn't convert, perhaps one of his descendants will. If you want a Zoroastrian reconquest, have the Umayyad-Abbasid conflict spiral out of control, with a Zoroastrian revolt in Persia. Perhaps the Zoroastrian Samanids could take advantage of the chaos to come back (as could the Romans).

By the mid-9th century, the Abbasids are at the beginning of the Muslim Golden Age, and it will be hard to defeat them unless there is a massive crisis.
 
Naw, these are the Samanids, a 9th century dynasty in Transoxiana apparently descended from Bahram Gur.

That being said: the political winds are prevailing towards the Arabs. If he doesn't convert, perhaps one of his descendants will. If you want a Zoroastrian reconquest, have the Umayyad-Abbasid conflict spiral out of control, with a Zoroastrian revolt in Persia. Perhaps the Zoroastrian Samanids could take advantage of the chaos to come back (as could the Romans).

By the mid-9th century, the Abbasids are at the beginning of the Muslim Golden Age, and it will be hard to defeat them unless there is a massive crisis.

¡Qué asco! I can't read today. :eek:

Good point about the Byzantines. They may see the opportunity to drive a wedge between the Muslims.
 
IIRC, Islamization in the Persian lands (including Khorasan and Transoxania) only really got started in the 9th century, and that due to the heavy infusion of Persians into the ruling elite of the Caliphate after the Abbasid Revolution and the civil wars of the 810s, both of which were won by the Khorasani troops.

While Saman Khuda might hold out, the overwhelming trend among his peers in the region would still be towards Islamization, because this was the way to get legitimacy and become part of the wider Muslim world, with all its riches and possibilities. In such an atmosphere, Zoroastrianism could only hold out in isolated, inaccessible enclaves that retained a de facto autonomy, like the mountains of Tabaristan or Sistan (or Transcaucasia, Lebanon and northern Spain, for that matter). The plains would be dominated by the Caliphate, and hence be subject to Islamization.

One way to pre-empt this would be to have the Abbasid Revolt fail quickly and the much more Arab-minded and exclusive Umayyads remain in power. The strains of holding their vast empire together were already evident before the Revolution, and it is rather likely that without the Abbasids, who used Islam as a unifying force and introduced non-Arabs to positions of power, the breakup of the Caliphate would have begun earlier. A Damascus-based Caliphate would also remain dominated by Syrian and Mesopotamian elites and be focused on the Mashriq, so less attention to the Persian lands of the East and less incentive for local rulers there to convert.
 
Last edited:
I for one believe he can hold out. He was in a strong position to start with and had no lack of wealth. Should he take control of all of the Kwharzimenian (I'm using them as a marker) lands he could survive and build a safe haven for the Zoroastrians.
 
Saman Khuda, founder of the Samanid Dynasty of medieval Persia, came from the Zoroastrian Persian nobility, and only later converted to Islam. What if he hadn't done so, and instead tried to reinstate Zoroastrianism as the state religion?

Then he gets shortened by the Moslem rulers. His OTL career took off when converted to Islam and entered the Moslem regional governor's service. He had relatively little power of his own.

He didn't seem to have the kind of position that would support a major rebellion.
 
Top