Rise of Islam

[aruon]

If Muhammed is a woman, would a direct daughter be considered a legitimate successor to the caliphate or would it have to be a son?

in addition to Omegas' question, can Muhammed even BE a woman? even today in the middle east, women's rights in most places basically put them somewhere slightly above or equal to cattle. and a female prophet in the middle east in the 7th century...

 

[Omega124]

in addition to Omegas' question, can Muhammed even BE a woman? even today in the middle east, women's rights in most places basically put them somewhere slightly above or equal to cattle. and a female prophet in the middle east in the 7th century...

- Could be a women, gives a more egalitarian religion, but less chance of success

Says so in the OP.

 

[aruon]

Says so in the OP.

well no one ever asked me to pay attention!

 

[loup99]

in addition to Omegas' question, can Muhammed even BE a woman? even today in the middle east, women's rights in most places basically put them somewhere slightly above or equal to cattle. and a female prophet in the middle east in the 7th century...

I don't see why a women could not get a vision and become the prophet of a religion. However, as specified in the OP, the religion would have less chance of success given the unequal situation of women at the time.

If Muhammed is a woman, would a direct daughter be considered a legitimate successor to the caliphate or would it have to be a son?

Good question, haven't considered it. I think that if the first prophet is accepted to have been a woman, then a daughter should have the possibility of inheriting in the absence of sons.

 

[Erik W]

Good question, haven't considered it. I think that if the first prophet is accepted to have been a woman, then a daughter should have the possibility of inheriting in the absence of sons.

Maybe a possibility of a matriarchical religion? Daughters above sons in succession and such?

 

[TheAnguishedOne]

Maybe a possibility of a matriarchical religion? Daughters above sons in succession and such?

I imagine that should be quite difficult, but certainly possible.

 

[starwarsfan541]

in addition to Omegas' question, can Muhammed even BE a woman? even today in the middle east, women's rights in most places basically put them somewhere slightly above or equal to cattle. and a female prophet in the middle east in the 7th century...

Before Islam there were some examples of female rulers of some tribes, so its definitely plausible, or at least I think so

 

[aruon]

Maybe a possibility of a matriarchical religion? Daughters above sons in succession and such?

that would be awesome. i'd love to see a matriarchal religion. every daughter will be named wonder woman.

 

[housemartell]

There was also Sajah, a woman who claimed to be a prophet after the death of Muhammad and gained over four thousand followers, so the idea is definitely not implausible.

 

[starwarsfan541]

There was also Sajah, a woman who claimed to be a prophet after the death of Muhammad and gained over four thousand followers, so the idea is definitely not implausible.

Exactly, it should be a fun playthrough imo

 

[aruon]

There was also Sajah, a woman who claimed to be a prophet after the death of Muhammad and gained over four thousand followers, so the idea is definitely not implausible.

really? damn. a helpful rating from me then!

 

[Numahr]

Impressive plan...
On female Islamic leaders, don't forget Ghazala Haruriyah
In LI we gave her descendants a pretty feminist religion.

A suggestion: from my readings, I understand that the deserts of Palestine and the Middle East were hosts of many heterodox variants of mainstream monotheisms, which the Sassanid and Byzantine capitals could not really bring to the mainstream. It then seems that these populations saw the new Prophet as an attractive alternative and coalesced into what became Islam (hence all these variant stories on the same topics such as the narrative of Mary and Jesus, and the fact that Jesus is given such a prominent role in the Quran, more than the Prophet himself).

-> in game mechanics, you could simulate this dynamic quite easily I think:
- encourage monotheism heresy spread in desert provinces of the right region, depending on certain conditions for MTTH parameters of course (MA etc.)
- facilitate conversion of these provinces to the new Islamic faith upon its creation
- upon such conversion, make them part of the Islamic realm, as becoming Muslim at this point in time means accepting the Prophet's / Caliph's authority

This way you could have a form of "organic" spread of Islam at the margins of the other empires.

 

[loup99]

A suggestion: from my readings, I understand that the deserts of Palestine and the Middle East were hosts of many heterodox variants of mainstream monotheisms, which the Sassanid and Byzantine capitals could not really bring to the mainstream. It then seems that these populations saw the new Prophet as an attractive alternative and coalesced into what became Islam (hence all these variant stories on the same topics such as the narrative of Mary and Jesus, and the fact that Jesus is given such a prominent role in the Quran, more than the Prophet himself).

-> in game mechanics, you could simulate this dynamic quite easily I think:
- encourage monotheism heresy spread in desert provinces of the right region, depending on certain conditions for MTTH parameters of course (MA etc.)
- facilitate conversion of these provinces to the new Islamic faith upon its creation
- upon such conversion, make them part of the Islamic realm, as becoming Muslim at this point in time means accepting the Prophet's / Caliph's authority

This way you could have a form of "organic" spread of Islam at the margins of the other empires.

Good idea, this is something that would add the dynamic that existed and contribute to historical plausibility.

 

[DaDerpyDude]

Dead thread, but I'm gonna ask anyway.

You say that the prophet will go to war with Medina if Mecca refuses to convert, but from what I just read, Medina converted peacefully, with minor, landless clans converting first, until some important guy converted and a lot followed him. I suggest that there should also be a multi-option of what happens in Medina, if Medina refuses to convert then the prophet should move to abbysinia (irl he sent some followers there before fleeing mecca), as he had no chance of conquering medina by force (all his stuff was confiscated after he fled mecca due to an assasination plot against him).

Also, there should be an event for an assasination attempt against the prophet, if it succeeds there should be a couple of options IMO:

1. Religion ceases to exist forever.
2. Religion ceases to exist for a while, some decades/year later another prophet rises, claiming to have recieved the rest of the Quran which the original prophet didn't recieve*.
3. Religion continues to exist, however with no clear leader it splits into a couple of branches based on each follower's interpretations and own theology.
4. Religion continues to exist, however instead of one leader a council rules the religion, kinda like a pentarchy but with equal powers and in one place.
5. Religion continues to exist, however an undisputable leader is chosen to be the successor to the prophet.

*This could possibly be a thing with the other options too, with one of the successors claiming to also recieve revelations.


Also thank god that this has a redo thingy, I deleated half of what I wrote accidently twice.

 

[loup99]

Dead thread, but I'm gonna ask anyway.

What do you meany by "dead"? That you are worried about necromancy? Two months isn't a very long time for a thread, and we try to answer all posts in this forum, so don't be scared of asking. I believe 6 months or so is usually considered as necromancy, unless the thread starter brings it up.

You say that the prophet will go to war with Medina if Mecca refuses to convert, but from what I just read, Medina converted peacefully, with minor, landless clans converting first, until some important guy converted and a lot followed him. I suggest that there should also be a multi-option of what happens in Medina, if Medina refuses to convert then the prophet should move to abbysinia (irl he sent some followers there before fleeing mecca), as he had no chance of conquering medina by force (all his stuff was confiscated after he fled mecca due to an assasination plot against him).

Historically, Medina did indeed convert without Muhammed and his followers going to war against it. Within this plan, the idea was that Mecca and Medina would always be the two nerve centres of Islam, given the importance the two cities had for the faith. The choice to make it into a declaration war against Medina was mostly technical with that in mind, given that the realms of the Islamic religion would use it as a powerbase, rather than having troops out of nowhere or a more railroaded option around Mecca. As for the path to Abyssinia, some followers were indeed sent to there, but it was a very small number.

Also, there should be an event for an assasination attempt against the prophet, if it succeeds there should be a couple of options IMO:

1. Religion ceases to exist forever.
2. Religion ceases to exist for a while, some decades/year later another prophet rises, claiming to have recieved the rest of the Quran which the original prophet didn't recieve*.
3. Religion continues to exist, however with no clear leader it splits into a couple of branches based on each follower's interpretations and own theology.
4. Religion continues to exist, however instead of one leader a council rules the religion, kinda like a pentarchy but with equal powers and in one place.
5. Religion continues to exist, however an undisputable leader is chosen to be the successor to the prophet.

*This could possibly be a thing with the other options too, with one of the successors claiming to also recieve revelations.

This I don't think would be a good idea, as plots to kill characters already exist in the game. With that in mind I don't see why a railroading event should be in place, as the game already allows for this. But thinking upon the consequences of a such assassination is something we could work upon.

 

[aruon]

i think if the Prophet dies through violence prior to forming an empire to support a caliphate, i could see #5 happening simply because of mechanics along with moral authority plummeting spectacularly. then it's more likely that the suuni-shia split can never happen, and that islam begins to play more like vanilla judaism- simply just trying to keep the land you have and/or expanding without converting for decades.

 

[Raga-Zun]

The Arabs managed to conquer so many peoples of the Byzantine and Sassanian empires so easily because both empires pushed for a religiously homogeneous empire thus alienating the non state religions in the empires. Many of the people who did not hold the state religions were persuaded by the Arab leaders saying that they would NOT attempt to force convert them, and apart from the tax on non-muslims, they would be mainly left alone. This in many cases forced tolerance among the early caliphs helped them stop civil strife and major religious uprisings while their rule remained tenuous. Over the centuries they became more strict on other religious groups prompting most to convert rather than live as second class citizens.

I think it would be a good idea to give a decision or event decision to the first Caliph before his/her conquest begins. The decision being, will you be tolerant to other religious groups or not? If you choose yes you have a lower conversion chance but also lower unrest in your regions. If you choose to not tolerate the heretical religions you gain a bonus to conversion chance but much higher unrest. Ideally you could incorporate this into an event chain around the Arab conquests but that's unnecessary.

What do you think?

 

[loup99]

The Arabs managed to conquer so many peoples of the Byzantine and Sassanian empires so easily because both empires pushed for a religiously homogeneous empire thus alienating the non state religions in the empires. Many of the people who did not hold the state religions were persuaded by the Arab leaders saying that they would NOT attempt to force convert them, and apart from the tax on non-muslims, they would be mainly left alone. This in many cases forced tolerance among the early caliphs helped them stop civil strife and major religious uprisings while their rule remained tenuous. Over the centuries they became more strict on other religious groups prompting most to convert rather than live as second class citizens.

I think it would be a good idea to give a decision or event decision to the first Caliph before his/her conquest begins. The decision being, will you be tolerant to other religious groups or not? If you choose yes you have a lower conversion chance but also lower unrest in your regions. If you choose to not tolerate the heretical religions you gain a bonus to conversion chance but much higher unrest. Ideally you could incorporate this into an event chain around the Arab conquests but that's unnecessary.

What do you think?

My preferred system for tolerance would be a more general one similar to the one Numahr suggested (being the one LI uses):

You could have a look at how we dealt with this issue:

- different religions have different "mentalities" affecting conversion: Ancestral (unreformed) do not convert well but resist conversion better, Bastion of the Faith (reformed pagan) are super resistant to conversion but still not very potent at converting, Proselyte religions are good at converting but vulnerable to conversion from same religious group (dynamic swap within the same group, so Sunnis can easily become Shias but it more difficult to turn them orthodox). This cannot be changed by the player as it is deeply rooted in the religion's doctrine (Judaism cannot be turned into a proselyte religion).

- in addition some religions have more or less "sectarianism": this gives an negative general_opinion but roughly double same_religion_opinion. So a communitarian religion like Judaism has -20 opinion from the rest of the world but a net +20 with fellow Jews.

- finally we have a 3-level tolerance law. The scope of the tolerance law is affected by sectarianism: sectarian religions cannot go very tolerant. Tolerance helps you deal with religious diversity but intolerance goes as far as giving you a special CB.

That would allow for a more standardised mechanics which is not only specific to Islam.

 

[Raga-Zun]

Fair enough, i thought you were going for more historicity in that area that's only why i suggested it.

 

[Tabris01]

Fair enough, i thought you were going for more historicity in that area that's only why i suggested it.

One could give Islam the ability to change its character depending on the circumstances of its creation