After I quickly got my backside kicked by rebels when playing as the Seljuks, I have decided to move to another great dynasty ruling over mostly Muslim subjects, the Fatimids that are the leader of Egypt and the rest of the Mediterranean bound states in the Middle East at the start of the game.
Here the money is tight but the risk of rebellion is limited, which allowed me the luxury of peace as I grabbed two worthy wives and produced some children in order to drop the size of my demesne and limit my decadence problems.
I also fabricated some claims to my South and West and expanded a little to give my various sons titles and I was getting ready to use another claim in order to attack the Seljuks, who are plagued by rebels and by the Byzantines (sound familiar?).
I even had time to assassinate some rivals and settle some inter vassal disputes while increasing the authority of the crown.
But my long rule finally came to a bitter end, brought on by my attempt to hold the entire Ramadan fast, and my young heir proved unable to hold the mighty empire together.
Revolts quickly broke out from the corners of my kingdom and I was quickly forced to fight for my own life just as my Decadence level crept even higher.
My conclusion so far is that the Islamic rulers have a much harder time keeping hold of their own territory than Christian ones because of the crippling problems with Decadence and the morale drawbacks that it causes in most situations.
I would have much preferred to see the monetary income reduced further and the penalty to morale diminished a little but, as usual, the Paradox development team is very capable of creating mechanics that feel natural but nevertheless have very big effects on the player nation.