Tinto Talks #66 - 4th of June 2025

[jfrimpong945]

It was claimed by multiple people. By the 19th century you have 3 sunni (Morocco, Ottoman, Egypt) and 1 shia (Persia) countries claiming the title. It wont work.

The ottomans were the undisputed caliphs at that point, being custodians of the two holy sites

 

[GeneralNoob]

The ottomans were the undisputed caliphs at that point, being custodians of the two holy sites

The Ottomans did agree to share the title of caliph. Abdülhamid II. claimed to be the sole one, one-sidedly leaving the agreement his forefathers agreed upon, alienating the Ottoman Empire. You can argue that they are the most legitimate one for sunnis in the area, not that they were the only one, undisputed or most recognized.

The call for jihad did pretty much nothing during WW1. An attempt to start a revolt in Egypt in the early months of WW1 resulted in nothing either. It is simply more nuanced than just "there was this one caliph everyone agreed upon".

 

[Lazlo93]

Just to summarize my thoughts in a way that might be easier for the devs:

The current system is nonsensical and needs to be done away with.

Sunnis should choose between the four major schools of jurisprudence: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, Hanbali. Zahiri was pretty much extinct at the time of the game. The schools should mostly have good relations with each other and it should be possible to switch between them for a stab hit. Propagation of trade should be based on the schools' control of trade in a node, not countries' control. The Mamluks should have a special feature allowing them to switch between schools of jurisprudence more easily, as they were the only country that treated all four schools as coequal.

Shias should be Twelvers, Isma‘ilis, or Zaydis. These are not schools of jurisprudence, they are full-fledged denominations. Relations between the three should be generally poor and it should not be possible to switch between them. Zaydis should have good or at least slightly better relations with Sunnis, particularly Hanafis, as they're widely considered the most "Sunni-like" of the Shias and Abu Hanifa was himself a Zaydi in terms of his political leanings.

Not really sure how to treat heterodox Shia-offshoot sects like the Alawis, maybe model them on weird heterodox Christian heresies in terms of how they interact with the wider Muslim world.

I don't think Ibadis need to have internal schools/denominations. They should just be treated as their own school of jurisprudence.

Schools of theology are mostly irrelevant and don't need to be modeled.

Sufi orders are not "schools," they're closer to international organizations, building-based countries, or military orders. Nations didn't generally choose an "official" Sufi order, though on occasion this does happen (like with the Safavids, who were a nation that originated as a Sufi order). Patronage of Sufi orders should not in any way be mutually exclusive with selecting a school of jurisprudence.

I agree with other suggestions that the mana-like system currently in place for piety interactions is bad. Legalism and mysticism should indeed give bonuses to the things they give bonuses to currently, but a more elegant solution needs to be found than simply clicking a button to cash in your points.

nah, i disagree that school of theology is irrelevant. it's 1337 and i think Ibn Taymiyyah just died less than ten years from the game start. he re-started Hanbali-Ashari/Maturidi beef and the only thing that make it seemed 'irrelevant' was because no state at this timeline adopted Athari/Hanbali.

 

[Abu Ahmar]

nah, i disagree that school of theology is irrelevant. it's 1337 and i think Ibn Taymiyyah just died less than ten years from the game start. he re-started Hanbali-Ashari/Maturidi beef and the only thing that make it seemed 'irrelevant' was because no state at this timeline adopted Athari/Hanbali.

So how exactly is this theological dispute relevant to anything EU5 is trying to do? Atharism is basically just the Hanbali school of theology, if you really want to model it just fold it into the Hanbali school and call it a day.

 

[Oglesby]

Well, if GH keeps their -0 MP units, it's still a possibility, all but an inevitability if they lose their land but keep their army.
It's not I think is likely to happen, but the fact that it can happen is interesting.

I am hoping that the -0 MP on that unit was a typo and not intended as that does break their system. We also do not know enough about Military-Based-Polities, or any of the non Land-Based-Polities, to know how it handles this. I would think that it would make sense for them to use a system that is more akin to levies (i.e. pops 'taken' when raised) then regulars (i.e. pops 'taken' when damaged).

 

[AHumpierRogue]

All characters are considered adults at 16 years old, and they can marry at 21 years old. Take into account that this is because of compliance with PEGI and other equivalent rules.

Wait what, CK3 has marriage at 16. What changed?

 

[Sizvahstar]

I am hoping that the -0 MP on that unit was a typo and not intended as that does break their system. We also do not know enough about Military-Based-Polities, or any of the non Land-Based-Polities, to know how it handles this. I would think that it would make sense for them to use a system that is more akin to levies (i.e. pops 'taken' when raised) then regulars (i.e. pops 'taken' when damaged).

How, exactly, does it break the system?
And how would they keep their troops around if they lost all their land and only had their army left? I don't know if the Manpower pool is just a magic number or if the men in it are tied to the land. Even so, if the Horde has an army, but no land, and has run out of manpower, it would die out really fast if it did not have -0 Monthly Manpower. Or so I believe, at any rate.

Food will still be an issue, the auxilliary unit still ran on monthly MP, and with no land you'll have no access to the market, no food storage, etc.

 

[Tollie69]

IMO schools of theology and schools of thought should be two separate things a muslim nation can both choose. Not only is it more accurate but also more fun as you can have more combinations

 

[Pavía]

Hi there! I couldn't put much time on this week's posts, except yesterday's, as it was a super busy week, so I'll try to do some more additional replies on the different posts.

Let's start by addressing something: we've noted what you dislike the most regarding the Islamic mechanics (piety, actions, etc.), so we've already discussed to make some changes and adjustments. We'll probably come back to you with them when they're in a 'presentable' state (so, no 'progammer art', but actual art, etc.), but take into account that it will take at least some days/weeks.

 

[Pavía]

---

Unless already done so, Dhimmi status should only apply to Abrahamic and Dharmic religions, as they historically did.

Over 2.3 million Tengri tribal pops in the Golden Horde for example are now Dhimmi estate because of it not being so.

Also, tribal pops in general shouldn't be considered for Dhimmi, because they are by nature not part of any group.

---

We've made tweaks, and the pops of following religious groups can be part of the Dhimmi estate: Christian, Israelite, Zoroastrian, Dharmic, and Buddhist.

 

[matfer13]

Do the Druzes, Zoroastrians, Yazidis and Israelites religions have their own unique mechanics in game and will they get a TF?

 

[Pavía]

Also I think Shari'ah law should be policy in every muslim country and depending on our schhol of jurisprudence it should change so there shouldn't be any muslim country without Shari'ah

This is how it works. And the Shari'ah policy is different depending on the school of jurisprudence of the country.

 

[matfer13]

This is how it works. And the Shari'ah policy is different depending on the school of jurisprudence of the country.

But in the dev diary it says "Implementing the Shari'ah law", does that mean that every muslim country in the game starts with it and it's possible to remove/change it?

 

[HansFlammenwerfer]

View attachment 1312650

The Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Shiite faith?!

Short-lived Shia Rule:
The Fatimid Caliphate's (which was Shiite) control over the Hejaz (the region including Mecca and Medina) was relatively short-lived, lasting from the 10th to the 12th centuries. Saladin, a Sunni ruler, eventually overthrew the Fatimids in 1171.

Subsequent Dynasties:
After the Fatimid era, the Hashemite Sharifs of Mecca (a branch of the Prophet Muhammad's descendants) gained significant control in the Hejaz, often subject to the suzerainty of various empires, including the Mamluks of Egypt and later on the Ottoman Empire.

Unless you can provide a solid source that backs up the fact that some Shiite dynasties/rulers were in control of Mecca and Medina at 1337; this should be changed to make the Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Sunni faith.

Also, for everything else I have to say great work, but I'm curious to know if the caliphate will be an international organization like the Catholic church for example?! Maybe with the ability to call for jihads in a similar mechanism to calling for crusades?!

Al Rumaythis ruled in Mecca during the 1300s who were Zaydi shias and converted to Sunnism because of pressure from the Mamluks in the latter half of the century.

 

[Pavía]

View attachment 1312650

The Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Shiite faith?!

Short-lived Shia Rule:
The Fatimid Caliphate's (which was Shiite) control over the Hejaz (the region including Mecca and Medina) was relatively short-lived, lasting from the 10th to the 12th centuries. Saladin, a Sunni ruler, eventually overthrew the Fatimids in 1171.

Subsequent Dynasties:
After the Fatimid era, the Hashemite Sharifs of Mecca (a branch of the Prophet Muhammad's descendants) gained significant control in the Hejaz, often subject to the suzerainty of various empires, including the Mamluks of Egypt and later on the Ottoman Empire.

Unless you can provide a solid source that backs up the fact that some Shiite dynasties/rulers were in control of Mecca and Medina at 1337; this should be changed to make the Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Sunni faith.

Also, for everything else I have to say great work, but I'm curious to know if the caliphate will be an international organization like the Catholic church for example?! Maybe with the ability to call for jihads in a similar mechanism to calling for crusades?!

We'll double-check it, thanks!

 

[SuperLexxe]

View attachment 1312650

The Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Shiite faith?!

Short-lived Shia Rule:
The Fatimid Caliphate's (which was Shiite) control over the Hejaz (the region including Mecca and Medina) was relatively short-lived, lasting from the 10th to the 12th centuries. Saladin, a Sunni ruler, eventually overthrew the Fatimids in 1171.

Subsequent Dynasties:
After the Fatimid era, the Hashemite Sharifs of Mecca (a branch of the Prophet Muhammad's descendants) gained significant control in the Hejaz, often subject to the suzerainty of various empires, including the Mamluks of Egypt and later on the Ottoman Empire.

Unless you can provide a solid source that backs up the fact that some Shiite dynasties/rulers were in control of Mecca and Medina at 1337; this should be changed to make the Sheikhdoms of Mecca and Medina embrace the Sunni faith.

Also, for everything else I have to say great work, but I'm curious to know if the caliphate will be an international organization like the Catholic church for example?! Maybe with the ability to call for jihads in a similar mechanism to calling for crusades?!

---

You will find sources for that in the Arabia thread(s).

---

---

 

[Froonk]

@Pavía since the previous posts I made here were more immediate reactions without examining what exists in the game well and because I couldn't make heads or tails of the Sharia Law and its attached Jurisprudence existing separate from Main Schools I recommend paying attention to this post instead which is more coherent and conclusive:

As showcased in latest Tinto Talks Islam is split as religions between its sects, then these sects each have a Jurisprudence selection under its Sharia Law. Which is an adequate representation of how things should be.

However it also made a puzzling decision as to give you ability to select an Islamic School, which conflates not only Schools of Jurisprudence which is available in the Sharia Law with Schools of Theology which is not exclusive with Jurisprudence but something used in tandem but also includes various Sufi Orders and Heterodox belief systems as Schools of Thought. This is extremely inaccurate to point of being an outright disinformation on how Islamic Law, Islamic Theology and Islamic Philosophy works and is just completely misinforming history of Islamic thought in general. This as if you would choose between Roman Rite, Jesuits and Order of Santiago as an exclusive choice within Catholicism. It makes no sense whatsoever and is a gross ignorance.

"Main School" should be School of Theology, not Jurisprudence nor order. Simply put, each of Islam's sects should have a list of orthodox schools of Jurisprudence allowed to them plus a Ibadi Jurisprudence separate from the other two which should be split as follows:

Sunni:

Ḥanafī
Ḥanbalī
Mālikī
Shāfi'ī
Ẓāhirī

Shia:

Ismā'īlī
Ja'farī
Zaydī

After this Jurisprudence selection is made under Sharia law then a selection of Main School can be as follows:

Available for Sunni:

Ash'arī
Māturīdī
Aṯarī
Mu'tazilī
Wahhābī (Rename as Salafi to be accurate to time period, this was a very obscure thing at the time)

Available for Shia:

Ismai'ili: Nizari, Musta'li
Ja'fari: Usuli, Akhbari, Shayki
Zaydi: Batri, Jarudi

Available for Ibadi:

Wahbi
Azzabas
Nukkari

Main Schools can also allow following when a state is sufficiently heterodox as options:

Sunni:
Din-i Ilahi

Shia:
Alevi
'Alawi

However frankly it wouldn't be amiss to make these Heterodox Beliefs Religions under the Islamic religious group much like Ibadi also but I will leave this discretion to Paradox.

Various Orders too should be removed from Main School and attached directly be their own thing and either allowed, tolerated or forbidden depending on Sect, Jurisprudence and School of Theology.

I also want to reemphasize since this seems to be a point missed regularly by Paradox, "Sufism" is not a sect within Islam, it is a way of religious practice equivalent to orders like Jesuits. Sufi orders are mainly a thing in Sunni Islam and there are very Orthodox Sunni Sufi orders such as Naqshbandi, however there are heterodox orders that were present with Shia beliefs due to religious circumstances like Bektashi Order or ones which over time became incorporated into Shia sphere due political circumstances such as Safaviyya order associated with Safavid Iran or Ni'matullāhī order also founded by a Sunni but became associated with Shia Islam when Safavi state mandated Shia beliefs.

The level of attention given to Islam in comparison to Catholic Orders or even Orthodox structure is honestly both disappointing and frankly bewildering in how off it is even with absolute basics.

 

[Pavía]

@Pavía since the previous posts I made here were more immediate reactions without examining what exists in the game well and because I couldn't make heads or tails of the Sharia Law and its attached Jurisprudence existing separate from Main Schools I recommend paying attention to this post instead which is more coherent and conclusive:

I've bookmarked more than half a dozen in-depth posts regarding the schools, including yours; thanks for the feedback, we'll try to improve it as well!

 

[vyshan]

We've made tweaks, and the pops of following religious groups can be part of the Dhimmi estate: Christian, Israelite, Zoroastrian, Dharmic, and Buddhist.

What about the Druze, Mandeans, and Yazidi? will they be part of the dhimmi estate?

 

[Oglesby]

How, exactly, does it break the system?

Every single unit so far has a manpower(MP) maintenance to unit strength ratio. The ratio makes it hard to have the standing army outstrip the MP creation buildings and making a regular unit both costs MP and then imposes a MP upkeep reducing and eventually stopping the refill rate of the MP pool. That unit (it if wasn't a typo) remove that limitation and breaks the pattern set.

And how would they keep their troops around if they lost all their land and only had their army left? I don't know if the Manpower pool is just a magic number or if the men in it are tied to the land. Even so, if the Horde has an army, but no land, and has run out of manpower, it would die out really fast if it did not have -0 Monthly Manpower. Or so I believe, at any rate.

Food will still be an issue, the auxilliary unit still ran on monthly MP, and with no land you'll have no access to the market, no food storage, etc.

The MP pool in a intermediate currency that is not directly tied to pops. Pops are not affected when the current MP value is increased or decreased. The MP pool is a limit on how fast you get spin up an army and how fast you can recover from a loss. Pops are connected to regular units through damage/attrition.

As Pops are removed on damage/attrition to regular units we do not know how this will work for any of the non-land based countries.