From an email from Ahmed:
"About mutazelites, traditional Islam, shia and sufi. While I apreciating what
is already done, if everything would be started right now, I would advice to
make that there is muslim/sufi conflict.
Wanted to say that story must to be edited that shia was not accepted but like
"assimilated" through arguments. Maybe madhabs and taqleed policy was abadoned
and people returned to arguments of sources - Quran, Sunna and how Companions
of Muhammed (SAW) understanded them.
(Madhabs - 4 schools of Islam. There were 4 great sholars, who developed their
understanding of Islam and its rulings, but they sometimes did not have hadiths
which had sholars after them. Still, there was adopted "taqleed" (blind
folowing) policy that those early sholars being closer in time to time of
Muhammed (SAW) and information (dispite that hadith collections was collected
after them) so they could understood better. So every muslim should just choose
one of those 4 sholars schools and blindly follow them. But even after was
movement of "salafiyya" - that is - that muslims should understood Quran and
Sunna the way how it was understood by companions of Muhammed (SAW) and early
muslim generations (salafi). So their view must be taken as first.
So I advice that after some painful history (succesful crushade, losing persia
to mongols), muslims either had some "reformation" becouse of feeling need to
changes and return to true Islam (to strenght), or either rulers think that
that would give masses to think about something else not about their ruler
impotence, rulers gave support to sholars and medresses supporting "sallafiyya"
(salafi Islam) against taqleed (blind foloowing) (or madhabs) sholars. Also it
could be done for ensuring more unity cos sometimes people tend to go crazy
with those madhabs and do not marry each other, do not pray behind other madhab
imam etc. May be in interregnum history there was low level and intensity civil
war between shia (with their madhabs), Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki
madhabs (each against everyone). So Caliphate (and other fallowed)
"unification" on salafi Islam.
I just started this cos "sunni" can not accept shia as legitime schools. They
make serious errors in their beliefs. That is question of "Imamate". Shia claim
that "Imams" has absolute knowledge and understanding (thats ir unique
characteristics of God), and infalligility - that they do not make any
mistakes, even not in their thinking - that everything what they think and
decides and intent and do is corect and absolute without defect (that again is
only God). So muslims can not accept theese wrong believes as legitime. So
while shia maintains these politeistics believes they will not be accepted as
normal muslims. Some scolars do not recognise them as muslims, some just as
deviant muslims who commit shirk (politeism).
So it is not possible that they are part of "Traditional Islam".
There was some discussion what did make mutazelitism more than just some deviant
elitist thinking? I think that what is missing in INT history is sufi. May be
mutazelites mixed with sufi? That would explain better why there is casus belli
on them? So we get mutazelite-sufi mix who in sufi way ignores some obligatory
practise and introducing different bida (religios innovation which in all cases
ir forbidden and seen as evil even if people think that it has some good in
it.). Malwa could be sufi order as janisares of osmans were. Their advances
would innovativness (mutazelites - sufi), more missioanries (sufi sheikhs),
more colonists (here always would be normal muslims running away, also maybe
some philosofy of colonising wilderness...), may be better morale (becouse of
military sufi orders like malwa and other janisaries kind). Also may be in
conversion they recieve positive DP changes. Like +2 quality, +3 inno (colonist
harm could be cured by there religion stats, so they get tonns of colonist) and
others depend on ideas. May be their sufi philosofy includes one big sufi order
with main shaikh as almost patriarch? So it would give more centralisation
becouse patriarch would make more easy to govern like orthodox do. On oposite I
would like that Salafi Islam would turn to salafi understanding not selectivly
- so instead of kings there would some kind of election of ruler. Like shura
(concil) of ulemah (Islamic sholars), tribal leaders, diferent elites (You can
not get plebiscite at that time!) would choose some well known and honorable
man to be as caliph or emir. That is what I suggested in Champa. In INT for now
it would mean that just at death of one caliphs just apears event with elction
as Dithali has. So for start would be that A choice is those caliphs which we
already have. So difernet rutes for now would be just between like one who is
proposed by military wing (difernt groups propose morre military capable
leader) and another more administrative better proposed by differnet groups and
strongly by trader elite. May be in some case traders would propose military
man to fight for trade routes of persia and india or against pirates of
mediterian (crete, cyprus).
But those mutazelite sufi would support traditional (unislamic) kings by their
shaikhs (patriarhs
) as sometimes as grey cardinals.
So Sufi-mutazelites would be by religion stats unstable, but salafi Islam would
be stable except that elections always would bring -2 stab hit.
Salafi would have CB on sufi becouse of acusing them as lefting Islam or
strongly deviated and spraeding disorder and falsehood.
Sufi would have CB becouse salafi would destroy sufi shrines. (Becouse it is
forbidden in Islam to build an building on grave (shrines, mousoleums).)
Also salafi would recieve events about destroy or not destroy some sufi shrine:
"~~~~~ At Syria town *** is a 4 centuries old sufi shrine and people are coming
and praying to that dead shaikh. We should level to ground that transagression
of command of Prophet becouse bulding building on graves. Also we should stop
this awful shirk (politeism) of praying to people about Prophet warned. While
this act would make angry local and foraign sufi, if we do not do this we will
lose some legitimity in eyes of ordinary and sholary muslims (becouse they are
somehow informed about taking decidion about sufi shrine). Also there is risk
that unopposed sufi would gain some support in ignorant masses"
A. Destroy
+4 BB (mutazelite-sufi states look)
-1 stab
+100 D (Shrine has some gold... )
rebel at location
rebel at random location
-100 relations with some mutazelite states
flag "shrine1_destroyed"
-600 or more trade loss (trade loses with mutazelite country)
-2 adm for 120 months (worsened trade with mutazelites and sufi unrest)
+1 RR for 60 month
B. Not to destroy.
-2 stab
-2 BB (some prestige better)
quite a many random rebels
soem desertions
+100 relations wih mutezelite states
flag "shrine1_notdestroyed"
-6 misioanries
+1000+ trade (becouse of better relations with mutazelites states, trade is
better)
+1 innovative
+1 dipl rating for 60 month
+1 dipl rating for 240 month (better diplomatic options with mutazelites, but
still litlebit worse with salafi states)
-1 adm for 12 months (angry salafi)
-1 adm for 60 months
+2 RR for 12 months
+2 RR for 60 months
+1 RR for 120 months
Flag "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite spreads" (diferent
from those already have) about that not only that "Syria" turns to mutazelite,
but some other too. Also "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite
revolts" and "Salafi revolts" - in one case mutazelite are bolder and spreads
and on another case rules which did not destroy shrine has less legitimity.
So these destroy or not to destroy shrines events would be some 3-4 times in
interregnum period. If that one shrine is destroyed at ~1480, then at ~1600
trigers another almost the same event in basra, jordan or elsewhere. Is not
destroyed then ruler again solves problem or Syria shrine. So again ~1720. If
destroyed then ofcourse flags ar "shrine2_destroyed" etc..."
"About mutazelites, traditional Islam, shia and sufi. While I apreciating what
is already done, if everything would be started right now, I would advice to
make that there is muslim/sufi conflict.
Wanted to say that story must to be edited that shia was not accepted but like
"assimilated" through arguments. Maybe madhabs and taqleed policy was abadoned
and people returned to arguments of sources - Quran, Sunna and how Companions
of Muhammed (SAW) understanded them.
(Madhabs - 4 schools of Islam. There were 4 great sholars, who developed their
understanding of Islam and its rulings, but they sometimes did not have hadiths
which had sholars after them. Still, there was adopted "taqleed" (blind
folowing) policy that those early sholars being closer in time to time of
Muhammed (SAW) and information (dispite that hadith collections was collected
after them) so they could understood better. So every muslim should just choose
one of those 4 sholars schools and blindly follow them. But even after was
movement of "salafiyya" - that is - that muslims should understood Quran and
Sunna the way how it was understood by companions of Muhammed (SAW) and early
muslim generations (salafi). So their view must be taken as first.
So I advice that after some painful history (succesful crushade, losing persia
to mongols), muslims either had some "reformation" becouse of feeling need to
changes and return to true Islam (to strenght), or either rulers think that
that would give masses to think about something else not about their ruler
impotence, rulers gave support to sholars and medresses supporting "sallafiyya"
(salafi Islam) against taqleed (blind foloowing) (or madhabs) sholars. Also it
could be done for ensuring more unity cos sometimes people tend to go crazy
with those madhabs and do not marry each other, do not pray behind other madhab
imam etc. May be in interregnum history there was low level and intensity civil
war between shia (with their madhabs), Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki
madhabs (each against everyone). So Caliphate (and other fallowed)
"unification" on salafi Islam.
I just started this cos "sunni" can not accept shia as legitime schools. They
make serious errors in their beliefs. That is question of "Imamate". Shia claim
that "Imams" has absolute knowledge and understanding (thats ir unique
characteristics of God), and infalligility - that they do not make any
mistakes, even not in their thinking - that everything what they think and
decides and intent and do is corect and absolute without defect (that again is
only God). So muslims can not accept theese wrong believes as legitime. So
while shia maintains these politeistics believes they will not be accepted as
normal muslims. Some scolars do not recognise them as muslims, some just as
deviant muslims who commit shirk (politeism).
So it is not possible that they are part of "Traditional Islam".
There was some discussion what did make mutazelitism more than just some deviant
elitist thinking? I think that what is missing in INT history is sufi. May be
mutazelites mixed with sufi? That would explain better why there is casus belli
on them? So we get mutazelite-sufi mix who in sufi way ignores some obligatory
practise and introducing different bida (religios innovation which in all cases
ir forbidden and seen as evil even if people think that it has some good in
it.). Malwa could be sufi order as janisares of osmans were. Their advances
would innovativness (mutazelites - sufi), more missioanries (sufi sheikhs),
more colonists (here always would be normal muslims running away, also maybe
some philosofy of colonising wilderness...), may be better morale (becouse of
military sufi orders like malwa and other janisaries kind). Also may be in
conversion they recieve positive DP changes. Like +2 quality, +3 inno (colonist
harm could be cured by there religion stats, so they get tonns of colonist) and
others depend on ideas. May be their sufi philosofy includes one big sufi order
with main shaikh as almost patriarch? So it would give more centralisation
becouse patriarch would make more easy to govern like orthodox do. On oposite I
would like that Salafi Islam would turn to salafi understanding not selectivly
- so instead of kings there would some kind of election of ruler. Like shura
(concil) of ulemah (Islamic sholars), tribal leaders, diferent elites (You can
not get plebiscite at that time!) would choose some well known and honorable
man to be as caliph or emir. That is what I suggested in Champa. In INT for now
it would mean that just at death of one caliphs just apears event with elction
as Dithali has. So for start would be that A choice is those caliphs which we
already have. So difernet rutes for now would be just between like one who is
proposed by military wing (difernt groups propose morre military capable
leader) and another more administrative better proposed by differnet groups and
strongly by trader elite. May be in some case traders would propose military
man to fight for trade routes of persia and india or against pirates of
mediterian (crete, cyprus).
But those mutazelite sufi would support traditional (unislamic) kings by their
shaikhs (patriarhs
) as sometimes as grey cardinals.So Sufi-mutazelites would be by religion stats unstable, but salafi Islam would
be stable except that elections always would bring -2 stab hit.
Salafi would have CB on sufi becouse of acusing them as lefting Islam or
strongly deviated and spraeding disorder and falsehood.
Sufi would have CB becouse salafi would destroy sufi shrines. (Becouse it is
forbidden in Islam to build an building on grave (shrines, mousoleums).)
Also salafi would recieve events about destroy or not destroy some sufi shrine:
"~~~~~ At Syria town *** is a 4 centuries old sufi shrine and people are coming
and praying to that dead shaikh. We should level to ground that transagression
of command of Prophet becouse bulding building on graves. Also we should stop
this awful shirk (politeism) of praying to people about Prophet warned. While
this act would make angry local and foraign sufi, if we do not do this we will
lose some legitimity in eyes of ordinary and sholary muslims (becouse they are
somehow informed about taking decidion about sufi shrine). Also there is risk
that unopposed sufi would gain some support in ignorant masses"
A. Destroy
+4 BB (mutazelite-sufi states look)
-1 stab
+100 D (Shrine has some gold...
)rebel at location
rebel at random location
-100 relations with some mutazelite states
flag "shrine1_destroyed"
-600 or more trade loss (trade loses with mutazelite country)
-2 adm for 120 months (worsened trade with mutazelites and sufi unrest)
+1 RR for 60 month
B. Not to destroy.
-2 stab
-2 BB (some prestige better)
quite a many random rebels
soem desertions
+100 relations wih mutezelite states
flag "shrine1_notdestroyed"
-6 misioanries
+1000+ trade (becouse of better relations with mutazelites states, trade is
better)
+1 innovative
+1 dipl rating for 60 month
+1 dipl rating for 240 month (better diplomatic options with mutazelites, but
still litlebit worse with salafi states)
-1 adm for 12 months (angry salafi)
-1 adm for 60 months
+2 RR for 12 months
+2 RR for 60 months
+1 RR for 120 months
Flag "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite spreads" (diferent
from those already have) about that not only that "Syria" turns to mutazelite,
but some other too. Also "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite
revolts" and "Salafi revolts" - in one case mutazelite are bolder and spreads
and on another case rules which did not destroy shrine has less legitimity.
So these destroy or not to destroy shrines events would be some 3-4 times in
interregnum period. If that one shrine is destroyed at ~1480, then at ~1600
trigers another almost the same event in basra, jordan or elsewhere. Is not
destroyed then ruler again solves problem or Syria shrine. So again ~1720. If
destroyed then ofcourse flags ar "shrine2_destroyed" etc..."
