Kashmir (tag) Should be Sunni

[JKiller96]

Much like the Bahmanids, Kashmir was a Sunni polity at the beginning of the game's history.

Currently, Kashmir is Shi'a, led by Zain-ul-Abadin. Zain ruled until 1470; during this time, Sunni Islam was the official sect of the Shah Mir dynasty. It can be argued that Kashmir could be of the Hanafi or Shafi'i school; I would argue that due to the origin of Islam in Kashmir, through Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani, who was of the Kubrawiya Order originating in Khwarezm, Kashmir should be Shafi'i. This is due to the close relations between the Khwarezmian dynasty and Mamluk Egypt. Edit: This article (p. 199) states that the Sultans of Kashmir were Hanafites.

Kashmir converted to Shi'a Islam in 1505, after the arrival of Mir Shams-ud-Din Araqi. This means the first Shi'a sultan would be Fateh Shah, whose first reign was in 1486 but became sultan again in 1505.

Much like the Bahmanids, Kashmir should be presented with a choice to become Shi'a later on, but should begin as a Shafi'i Sunni.

Additionally, Gilgit should belong to Kashmir at the start of the game due to Zain solidifying its conquest prior to game start.

 

[Aramenian]

Countries like Bahmanis, Shirvan and Kashmir should be Sunni.
I wonder if by any chance Mecca (Hajez) should not be a Shi'ite country?
Shouldn't Medina be a Shi'ite country?

 

[JKiller96]

Countries like Bahmanis, Shirvan and Kashmir should be Sunni.
I wonder if by any chance Mecca (Hajez) should not be a Shi'ite country?
Shouldn't Medina be a Shi'ite country?

That's a good point, they are Husaynids, but I'm unsure as to these two's particular sect. I guess it could go either way. The only info I've been able to dig up on Medina is a ruler list but nothing substantial, however the actions of the Medinan Husaynids in their interactions with Mamluks (rebeling, assassinations of sharifs loyal to the Mamluks) would be more in line with Shi'a, if I were to guess. I and another user were searching through JSTOR for info on the Medinan Husaynids.

If there were any changes that could benefit the Shi'a in a historical manner, Medina can be made Shi'a as well as a province around Kedah to represent the Shi'a influence there. There was a Husaynid dynasty in Perlis but it was later.

I do strongly support events or decisions for Kashmir, Bahmanis, and Shirvan to convert to Shi'a however.

 

[JKiller96]

I also want to mention an event that happens when Shi'a or Ibadi surpass Sunni in the game that's called "The Rise of (Shiite or Ibadi)" which variably causes some provinces and tags to convert to either. Perhaps this can be made to trigger more easily for the Shi'a to give it a mid-game boost

 

[macky527]

Should Gilgit be Shia or Sunni at the start?

 

[JKiller96]

Should Gilgit be Shia or Sunni at the start?

It could go either way. Gilgit was a very diverse area. However, descriptions in the 1800's (Source: Relations between Gilgit, Chitral, and Kashmir by Munphool Pundit written in 1869) describe the Gilgit-Baltistan region as wholly Shiite. The most concrete evidence does not date back to 1444 aside from noted conversions to Sunni Islam. Ideally, Gilgit would be a vassal of Kashmir, ruled by the Maqpon dynasty,

I believe, however, that the predominance of Shi'a Islam in Gilgit-Baltistan was not achieved until around 1501-1527. See the wikipedia page on Noorbakshia Islam and the Maqpon dynasty. It's around this time that the Maqpons seemingly start to adopt Persian names, beginning with Sher Shah in 1515. The earliest I would put the conversion of Gilgit to Shi'a would be only as far back as 1487, with the arrival of Shams-ud-Din Iraqi to the region.

 

[macky527]

It could go either way. Gilgit was a very diverse area. However, descriptions in the 1800's (Source: Relations between Gilgit, Chitral, and Kashmir by Munphool Pundit written in 1869) describe the Gilgit-Baltistan region as wholly Shiite. The most concrete evidence does not date back to 1444 aside from noted conversions to Sunni Islam. Ideally, Gilgit would be a vassal of Kashmir, ruled by the Maqpon dynasty,

I believe, however, that the predominance of Shi'a Islam in Gilgit-Baltistan was not achieved until around 1501-1527. See the wikipedia page on Noorbakshia Islam and the Maqpon dynasty. It's around this time that the Maqpons seemingly start to adopt Persian names, beginning with Sher Shah in 1515. The earliest I would put the conversion of Gilgit to Shi'a would be only as far back as 1487, with the arrival of Shams-ud-Din Iraqi to the region.

Isnt the Maqpon Dynasty based in Skardu (and thus vajrayana in 1444), Gilgit was the trakhan dynasty

 

[JKiller96]

Isnt the Maqpon Dynasty based in Skardu (and thus vajrayana in 1444), Gilgit was the trakhan dynasty

They were, but also had the Trakhans as vassals after 1500. Under the Maqpon dynasty is when Shi'a Islam became predominant, after the acceptance of Shiite missionaries by the Maqpons and neighboring Kashmir. That is my interpretation. There are conflicting accounts, of course. The founder of the Maqpon could have been posthumously named Ibrahim as has been done in Islamicizing places before, but Islam became the governing (not necessarily the majority) religion at least before 1500.

Either way, Gilgit would be Sunni whether under Trakhan or Maqpons. Skardu is more up to the interpretation of the sources. It's noted that Noorbakshia is much more syncretist than other forms of Islam.

Also, Skardu is the capital of both Gilgit and Skardu in game and it cannot be unseen.