WI: The Seljuks Convert to Buddhism instead and Conquer Persia

Status
Not open for further replies.
'It held that by considering the impugned statements as going beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate, and by classifying them as an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam which could stir up prejudice and threaten religious peace, the domestic courts put forward relevant and sufficient reasons.'

Hmm, yes, I see how "beyond the permissible limits of an objective debate" is a complete and blanket safeguard from all criticism, no matter how well founded or dispassionate. There's absolutely no way that you're overreacting to someone being rightfully punished for rabble rousing against a religious minority.
Was Muhammad a paedophilic bexsise Aisha was six or was he a normal man because his wife wasn’t actually six but older? That’s an actual debate right there
 
How many hundreds, if not thousands of famous historical figures married women well below what we would consider the age of adulthood? How many girls were deflowered at the time of their first menustration? Are we going to start considering all of them pedophiles? Perverts? Sickos? Context is important.

And the modern context is important, too. Like how instead of placing Mohammed in proper historical context, Ms. S used the story of Aisha to darkly fulminate about what a sicko pervert Mohammed was. How her plain intention was not to create dispassionate debate, but to incite people against a religious minority?

I mean, if I went around a country where Christians were the minority and gave ominous lectures about the MADMAN CHRIST beating up innocent bankers at church and yelling at fig trees, you couldn't honestly say I'm presenting him in proper context, could you? No, more likely, I'm trying to make him look like a dangerous nut, and therefore all Christians are either dangerous nuts or followers of a dangerous nut.

Also, on a personal note, I find it hilarious that a 480 Euro fine for hate speech is what has got you all hot and bothered about the ILLEGALITY OF CRITICISING MOHAMMED. I was hoping there was something juicier, here!
 
How many hundreds, if not thousands of famous historical figures married women well below what we would consider the age of adulthood? How many girls were deflowered at the time of their first menustration? Are we going to start considering all of them pedophiles? Perverts? Sickos? Context is important.

And the modern context is important, too. Like how instead of placing Mohammed in proper historical context, Ms. S used the story of Aisha to darkly fulminate about what a sicko pervert Mohammed was. How her plain intention was not to create dispassionate debate, but to incite people against a religious minority?

I mean, if I went around a country where Christians were the minority and gave ominous lectures about the MADMAN CHRIST beating up innocent bankers at church and yelling at fig trees, you couldn't honestly say I'm presenting him in proper context, could you? No, more likely, I'm trying to make him look like a dangerous nut, and therefore all Christians are either dangerous nuts or followers of a dangerous nut.

Also, on a personal note, I find it hilarious that a 480 Euro fine for hate speech is what has got you all hot and bothered about the ILLEGALITY OF CRITICISING MOHAMMED. I was hoping there was something juicier, here!
If she hadn’t presented her claims in a proper manner than that’s on her. However, there is a debate to be had there on Aisha, as she’s considered a key part of Islam and Muhammad’s life.

And yes I do consider it an issue, because I’m not sure what the purpose was. But I can see we’re not going to agree here. And I’d rather not derail this thread any further.
 
Love how eager these sorts of people always are to have a "debate" on Aisha, but always seem to end up just vomiting slander. Funny how that works.

But sure, let's bow out to give this thread a chance.
 
It's also embarassing outdated Orientalism to see Islam as a religion spread and enforced purely by the sword. Easy answers informed by old bigotry should hardly be let stand.
I disagree. Judaism and Buddhism perhaps, but Christianity and Islam were forced upon imperial subjects, and where there were conversions (i.e. slavs), they forced it upon their subjects.
 
I disagree. Judaism and Buddhism perhaps, but Christianity and Islam were forced upon imperial subjects, and where there were conversions (i.e. slavs), they forced it upon their subjects.

Islam wasn't really enforced. I mean, The Middle East had a decent share of Christians during the eve of the Crusades. Christianity within the Roman borders was also not largely enforced. There was some forcing after Theodosius and in the lands of Germanic Tribes.
 
This is seriously offtopic and have nothing to do with op question.

On op question, i doubt it as someone say before, Islam give legitimacy that made Otl Seljuk very successful. With the title sultan personally given to them by the Caliph. Their role as protector of Sunni and Caliph gives them legitimacy agaisnt the Shia Buyid and later Fatimid. But if they expand to Afghanistan and later punjab they may have chance to be very successful and stay as Buddhist.
 
I disagree. Judaism and Buddhism perhaps, but Christianity and Islam were forced upon imperial subjects, and where there were conversions (i.e. slavs), they forced it upon their subjects.

I will defend Christianity here.

Although you're right that the Romans did use oppressive religious measures once Christianity became the state religion, this overlooks the fact that Christianity had already been growing and spreading for over 300 years by then, often in the face of outright persecution.

Christianity wasn't only spread by force either. Many people joined because they were attracted by the message of Jesus, not because they were forced.

Sometimes attempts to attack both Islam and Christianity are coming from fanatic anti-religious sources such as Dawkins. While I'm not saying organised religions are free of guilt (that wouldn't be true either), one does have to be a bit careful. Christianity and Islam are complex subjects and reducing them to "bad guys doing bad stuff" wouldn't be fair.

On the subject of Seljuk Buddhists, I think this is unlikely. By the time they converted, the heyday of central Asian Buddhism was long since over. A PoD before the 8th century would probably be needed.
 
Last edited:
Islam wasn't really enforced. I mean, The Middle East had a decent share of Christians during the eve of the Crusades. Christianity within the Roman borders was also not largely enforced. There was some forcing after Theodosius and in the lands of Germanic Tribes.
Granted. Muslim Empires tend to use taxes and incentives to bring about religious conformity, not that persecutions did not exist. Compare that to the Edict of Thessalonica in 381 which made all religions other than Christianity ILLEGAL, Justinian closing down the last bastions of Pagan Hellenstic thought in Athens, etcetera. I'd agree with you, now come to think of it, Christians historically have been more heavy handed.
 
I will defend Christianity here.

Although you're right that the Romans did use oppressive religious measures once Christianity became the state religion, this overlooks the fact that Christianity had already been growing and spreading for over 300 years by then, often in the face of outright persecution.

Christianity wasn't only spread by force either. Many people joined because they were attracted by the message of Jesus, not because they were forced.

Sometimes attempts to attack both Islam and Christianity are coming from fanatic anti-religious sources such as Dawkins. While I'm not saying organised religions are free of guilt (that wouldn't be true either), one does have to be a bit careful. Christianity and Islam are complex subjects and reducing them to "bad guys doing bad stuff" wouldn't be fair.
I'm Orthodox Christian, so I'm not Christian bashing here :)
 
Typical western propaganda.

Some people just can't accept that anyone, not even a single person, embraced Islam because they actually believed it, or because they wanted to.

It's quite insulting and wouldn't be accepted for any other religion, but somehow any one who follows Islam "must" have been forced. How demeaning, insulting and disrespectful this attitude is.

Thinking like this reduces the people of the Middle East to hapless pawns and denies the possibility that they could have had any free will or agency of their own. This is all part of a wider mentality that seeks to portray Islam and Muslims in as negative a light as possible - and to justify myths such as "the white man's burden" and other outdated, Orientalist tropes about the supposed inferiority of eastern people and the superiority of the west.

In England under the Recusancy Act, it was illegal not to go to church between the 16th century until as late as 1888 and you could be imprisoned for it. Yet I don't see anyone using that to denigrate Christianity. Typical double standards.

I'm sick of this BS and people need to stop doing it. We all deserve better.

... what?

I'm not saying everyone who follows Islam was forced. At least any more or less than any other religon initially adopted mainly through socializatiin. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that high risk of social backlash (Which, when in cases you're talking about a community where cultural-religious factors like many historically make that social punishment severe) is a huge disincentive for an individual to overtly convert and, more importantly, pass that beleif on to their children or try to convert others

Now, ia Islam as a strixt monotheistic religion which by the structure of its holy text makes is more deeply intertwined with the other aspects of a society and focuses more on its follower within society than primarily individual focused faiths more likely to produce those conditions? Yes, i'd argue that, especially if we're talking a medieval comtext.

Please don't resort to immediate accusations of bigotry or shove hostile intentions into people.
 
... what?

I'm not saying everyone who follows Islam was forced. At least any more or less than any other religon initially adopted mainly through socializatiin. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that high risk of social backlash (Which, when in cases you're talking about a community where cultural-religious factors like many historically make that social punishment severe) is a huge disincentive for an individual to overtly convert and, more importantly, pass that beleif on to their children or try to convert others

Now, ia Islam as a strixt monotheistic religion which by the structure of its holy text makes is more deeply intertwined with the other aspects of a society and focuses more on its follower within society than primarily individual focused faiths more likely to produce those conditions? Yes, i'd argue that, especially if we're talking a medieval comtext.

Please don't resort to immediate accusations of bigotry or shove hostile intentions into people.

Oh ok. My apologies. This is rather more thoughtful than expected.

The idea that Islam from a structural perspective is more community based as opposed to individualistic is an interesting question, although I'm not sure I'm scholarly enough to say an opinion one way or the other. On the one hand, certain facts such as the Constitution of medina imply that it could be true.

On the other, Christianity (at least the version agreed at Nicaea in the 4th century) could be argued to have a more organised structure, in the sense that the church as an institution and it's clergy were intermediaries between the faithful and god, whereas in the Islamic format in theory there is no formal clergy or "church" as such, and no "intermediary" between the believer and god.

Then again, many ulama "behave" as though they are the custodians of what constitutes the faith or not, so it could be considered the distinction is more theoretical than real. It's a bit of a complex topic though and I wouldn't feel confident that I know enough about the specifics to be sure.

Broadly speaking, it seems few countries that had adopted Christianity reverted to paganism either - I can't think of a single example where this happened.
 
Last edited:
Granted. Muslim Empires tend to use taxes and incentives to bring about religious conformity, not that persecutions did not exist. Compare that to the Edict of Thessalonica in 381 which made all religions other than Christianity ILLEGAL, Justinian closing down the last bastions of Pagan Hellenstic thought in Athens, etcetera. I'd agree with you, now come to think of it, Christians historically have been more heavy handed.

The late Roman Emperors put the last nails in the coffin of paganism. It is enforcing, I agree, but it is different a la Charlemagne in Saxony and Frisia or how Norway was Christianised. A few of the many examples.
 
This is seriously offtopic and have nothing to do with op question.

On op question, i doubt it as someone say before, Islam give legitimacy that made Otl Seljuk very successful. With the title sultan personally given to them by the Caliph. Their role as protector of Sunni and Caliph gives them legitimacy agaisnt the Shia Buyid and later Fatimid. But if they expand to Afghanistan and later punjab they may have chance to be very successful and stay as Buddhist.
What if the Seljuks turn to conquer Afghanistan and Punjab first, and *then* turn towards Persia? Would they stay Buddhist, or even stay in power for long?

In a similar vein, could the conquering Seljuks convert to Zoroastrianism? I understand that there was still a significant non-Muslim community still in Persia (and anywhere else in the Middle East, for that matter) for hundreds of years following the Arab conquest, so it's not completely impossible. I understand that Zoroastrianism would be less attractive still than Islam, but is it just less likely or wholly implausible for the Seljuks to convert to Zoroastrianism?
 
... what?

I'm not saying everyone who follows Islam was forced. At least any more or less than any other religon initially adopted mainly through socializatiin. Far from it. I'm just pointing out that high risk of social backlash (Which, when in cases you're talking about a community where cultural-religious factors like many historically make that social punishment severe) is a huge disincentive for an individual to overtly convert and, more importantly, pass that beleif on to their children or try to convert others

Now, ia Islam as a strixt monotheistic religion which by the structure of its holy text makes is more deeply intertwined with the other aspects of a society and focuses more on its follower within society than primarily individual focused faiths more likely to produce those conditions? Yes, i'd argue that, especially if we're talking a medieval comtext.

Please don't resort to immediate accusations of bigotry or shove hostile intentions into people.
Im really glad you responded. I read your initial post, and was super confused at how it created a backlash on both sides. I thought it was quite innocent and/or that I was going crazy XD

On to the topic at hand, I think that it would depend on what type of Buddhism we are talking about.
Vajrayana Buddhism of the Tibetan style I think has a somewhat decent chance, although it may be too late. It is worth noting how it was reasonably succesful in areas with a large muslim population OTL (like Mongolia) although I cant off the top of my head think of a specifically Islamic leadership which converted to it.
 
What if the Seljuks turn to conquer Afghanistan and Punjab first, and *then* turn towards Persia? Would they stay Buddhist, or even stay in power for long?

In a similar vein, could the conquering Seljuks convert to Zoroastrianism? I understand that there was still a significant non-Muslim community still in Persia (and anywhere else in the Middle East, for that matter) for hundreds of years following the Arab conquest, so it's not completely impossible. I understand that Zoroastrianism would be less attractive still than Islam, but is it just less likely or wholly implausible for the Seljuks to convert to Zoroastrianism?
I believe if they turn to Punjab, rather than turn back to Persia they will more likely expand to the east like to Ganges or Deccan. They will do this to further secure Punjab and essentialy with time become an Indian based power. There is chance they become Hindu instead. To be fair Buddhist Seljuk as Indian power will make an interesting tl i say, not to mention its consequence to Buddhist in India.

Well for Zoroastrian, I think is possible, granted not the most likely. But I don't think seljuk will expand as far west as their otl counterpart if they do this. Beside as a ruler, they will more likely to follow urban population religion rather than rural one, Not to mention prestige of the religion matters too with Islam associated with high culture and administration. Yeah.. consider even Native Persian dynasty with Zorastrian roots before seljuk time like Saffarid and Samanid exist as muslim, the chance not much i say.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Not Alex Jones or Geert wilders but from speaking to ex Muslims I know, but thanks for shooting their experiences down

I agree the Old Testament abd New Testament are insane and yet criticism of them is allowed and even encouraged.

And oh piss off, I know what’s happening in my own continent I follow the news and know what the ECHR ruling stands for.
You were doing so well right up to the last sentences.

Well, chance to reinvigorate yourself, review the rules, talk the dog for some long walks, is often a good thing.

You now have seven days to do all that and much more.

Kicked for a week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top