Christian European State converting to Islam

Maybe Italy? Sicily is an easy target, but possibly the rest of Italy over time. A southern Muslim Italy would be a very interesting Muslim State, assuming that it lasted of course.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
So excluding Albanians,Bosnians,etc who were converted only recently and are only nominally Muslim,Tatars,Bashkirs and the Caucasians are the only three.
 
So excluding Albanians,Bosnians,etc who were converted only recently and are only nominally Muslim,Tatars,Bashkirs and the Caucasians are the only three.

Tatars and Bashkirs were never Christian, at least not in any sizable numbers I've ever heard of before the Russians conquered them. The Volga Turkic peoples (including Volga Bulgaria) were mostly either pagan or Muslim. There was probably some small Nestorian communities in that area, but they would be vastly outnumbered by pagans and Muslims (or really syncretic Muslims).
 
Any state that existed between 1400-1700 AD. So Kingdom of Hungary for example (unlikely example...). Or the Tsardom of Vidin.

What about a state being established after a revolt by some kind of dissident Chrisitians? Would such a state be more open to accepting Islam?

The Bosnian Church in Bosnia would be a a possibility. There were not a revolt, but it is my impression that this area was more open to change of religion than other areas. A large part of the population there are Muslims now. If you wank Islam in the area it might be a possibility.
 
Last edited:
Which European Christian state had the biggest potential to turn Islamic? PoD is 1200 AD.

For the sake of the topic, Which Muslim State had the biggest potential to turn Christian? PoD for this is 1400 AD
The Rus could have become Islamic. Or Islamic Armenia. The the other challenge maybe Christian Persia ? Christian Nubia, Christian Egypt.
 
For the sake of the topic, Which Muslim State had the biggest potential to turn Christian? PoD for this is 1400 AD
As you said, probably some state in the Caucasus, like one of the various small khanates or Shirvan. Have Timur die on New Years Day 1400, or otherwise have his armies suffer a shock defeat by the Georgians (pretty much by having Timur be in the wrong place at the wrong time). This should strengthen Georgia quite a bit for the 15th century, and if Timur's empire collapses in just the right way and the Ottomans remain focused on Europe, then Georgia could have a free hand in things for a while given strong leadership.

1400 is pretty late so limits the potential. Maybe very late in the Kazan Khanate's existance it's ruler (installed by Russia) could end up converting to Christianity to defeat Muslim rivals, which I suppose would be similar to OTL instances of Georgia princes/kings converting to Islam. I don't know if Granada could ever have converted, but it would be one of the few which had that potential.
 
I assume that this 'christian european state' is supposed to adopt Islam while being independant to some degree.

Therefore Albania and Bosnia don't count.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
What? Why are those groups only "nominally" muslims? What does that even mean?
I mean,these Muslim societies are quite Secular and reformed,and as I said,and are somewhat more non religious is what I meant. I think some others would qualify as well like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.
 
I mean,these Muslim societies are quite Secular and reformed,and as I said,and are somewhat more non religious is what I meant. I think some others would qualify as well like Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan.
Classifying muslims that way is dangerously close to wahabist talking points. Those people would never self identified as "nominal" (fake?) muslims, in fact is sound like an insult that salafists would use for them. The "fake secular 'muslims' vs real salafist muslims" is prime wahabist worldview. People don't stop being part of a religion just because they are lax on observance of rituals and some public obligations. They stop being part of it when they stop believing in it.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Classifying muslims that way is dangerously close to wahabist talking points. Those people would never self identified as "nominal" (fake?) muslims, in fact is sound like an insult that salafists would use for them. The "fake secular 'muslims' vs real salafist muslims" is prime wahabist worldview. People don't stop being part of a religion just because they are lax on observance of rituals and some public obligations. They stop being part of it when they stop believing in it.
I don't know. We use it for Christians too. We say "Secular Christians","Reformed Christians","Christian Deist","Christian Transhumanist",etc along with "Nominally Christian" and such with no objections. So whats wrong if used for Muslims too?
 
I don't know. We use it for Christians too. We say "Secular Christians","Reformed Christians","Christian Deist","Christian Transhumanist",etc along with "Nominally Christian" and such with no objections. So whats wrong if used for Muslims too?
As I understand, calling someone "nominally X" means that person isn't a truth believer in X religion but only identifies with it as part of a group. You mentioned "nominal christians" so I found this definition in an evangelical site: "Nominal Christians are church-goers or otherwise religious people whose “faith” does not go beyond being identified with a church, Christian group, or denomination. They are Christians in name only; Christ has no bearing in their lives. Nominal Christians may attend church and Christian functions, and they self-identify as “Christians,” but it is just a label. They view religion primarily as a social construct, and they do not allow it to require much of them in terms of morality or responsibility. Nominalists take a minimalist approach to their faith." So now we know that is just an insult that fundamentalist in both christianity and islam use against people of their fate that experience religion without the same "fervor" of the fanatic. I wouldn't use this label for christian or people of any religion either.
 
Top