Okay, so lets say that Muhammad isn't born. How would world religion look by the modern day without it. What would be the main worship in North Africa? Arabia? Central Asia? Indonesia? And how would the western world evolve without it?
World Religions without Islam
- Thread starter Anekcahdep
- Start date
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Christianity; St Augustine is influential perhaps, though more likely the Arian Vandals survive longer as well. Whichever sect predominates, their influence is likely to spread to West African kingdoms like Ghana, changing that region's history as well.
Arabia, I suppose it depends on the exact PoD and butterflies; possibly, if Ethiopia's campaign against Mecca does better, Coptic Christianity becomes predominant.
I can see the Turks becoming Nestorian Christians (Tengrism just limits your empire building and FP ability), in which case Persia will fall in the next century or two to one form of Christianity or another.
Probably still Hindu, as is much of Southeast Asia. Actually, Hinduism doing so much better overall is a really interesting aspect of this kind of TL; likely they continue dominating Indian Ocean Trade, meaning Ethiopia and East Africa are the first "western" civilizations to get word of new ideas and technologies from the China et el.
Well to start, the Eastern Roman Empire does better. That said, I can still see Egypt breaking away on religious grounds (their population being mostly Coptic), which has implications all its own.
Beyond that...?
Without Islam, Hinduism would likely be the predominant religion in Indonesia. As it was, Majapahit was Hindu, IIRC, and was the hegemon of the area for quite a while. Regardless of who becomes most powerful amongst the Malay states, the proximity to India and a lot of trade between the two makes Hinduism a very strong contender for regional dominance.
In North Africa we would see a continuation of Christian dominance. Prior to the Islamic conquests, Christianity was extremely strongly entrenched there, to the extent that if the area didn't get converted to another religion, we would say that it would be ASB for it to do so.
Arabia would likely be either Jewish or Christian. Persia would either remain Zoroastrian or become Nestorian or Manichaean.
Basically, without Islam, we would see many more surviving forms of Christianity, to the point where they may not even really be considered a single religion. There were a lot more schisms than simply the Great Schism, and given the vast geographical reach of Early Christianity, it will be impossible for the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church to snuff them out.
Wasn't there a Sogdian King who was known for making his state the first and only state to ever convert to Manicheism? Central Asia is really going to be a mish-mosh of religions. OTL it was a conglomeration of Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Manicheists, Nestorians... Hell, IIRC, there was even a single Nestorian Church in Chang'an during the Tang Dynasty. I don't see why it wouldn't continue to be a melting pot as far as religions go.
Wasn't Arianism dead long time before Mohammed's birth? I could see North Africa being very well Donatist.
I think that Persia could still remain as Zoroastrist. There might be notable Manichean influence in Central Asia.
To begin I will address each region in question and more and give possible answers to the question. I will also tie in some political features with the religions as well.
For Arabia, I can see a continued Pagan presence in many areas primarily in the interior amongst the more "backwards" Bedouin. These Bedoiun, without Islam will continue to raid and attack surrounding tribes and without Islam will not be messed with. In the Hejaz I can see a good mix of Jews(Qurayza), Arians, Copts and Pagans. Most likely with the strong and healthy Jewish community in power, Christianity does not gain traction through missionaries and Arabia is much to far out of the way for Byzantium to conquer. Around Yemen the area is a mix between Jews (Himyarites) and Copts from Ethiopia and Axum. Oman and Haasa, will have primarirly pagan Arabs and Zoroastrian Persian immigrants.
In the Overall Middle East (not Iran) Christianity and Gnosticism reign supreme with a large diversity of sects (destroyed by Islam) these groups would resurface as popular religions in and around the Levant and Near East for many years (Cathars/Bogomils). In Iraq, Christianity (extremely diverse here), Manichaeism, Mandaeism and Zoroastrianism will be the primary religions with none gaining the upper hand due to no political power willing to side with any one side. The Caucus will be primarirly Christian forwarded to Byzantium, with Golestan and Azerbaijan being Yazidi and Zoroastrian. Overall the Kurds will remain Yazidi.
In Iran Zoroastrian continues to remain strong with the huge amount of the lower class following the religion and the empereorstates using it as a stabillizer. There will be even larger restrictions of Christian and Buddhist prostelization in Iran then otl.
In Indonesia, Hinduism and Buddhism continue to battle it out for followers. With some states adopting Hinduism as a link in trade to India, this then leads to rival states turning Buddhist to counter their rivals religion.
In central Asia, an enormous mosh pit of religions are created, with no winner and mystery cults all along the Silk Road. The Turks however, would most likely be like the otl Mongols having no religious preference and adopting the religion of those they conquer. I overall disagree with the notion of a Turkish conquest of Persia, as it was probably due to Islam that Persia was made vulnerable to the Seljuks. Also pre Islamic-Persia has had a good track record against nomad hordes (Hephthalotes, Kushan and Gokturks). More likely though, the Turks without the allure of Islam, they go after the juicer price; India. This would likely make earlier Mughal empires who are a mixture of Manichaen,Buddhist,Nestorian and Hindu.
North Africa remains Christian, orientated with Rome. Any conversion of West Africa would be by surviving Arian monks. I addressed this in another thread in more detail.
I will try and cover more later and address the effect on the West and politics later after I get some feedback.
For Arabia, I can see a continued Pagan presence in many areas primarily in the interior amongst the more "backwards" Bedouin. These Bedoiun, without Islam will continue to raid and attack surrounding tribes and without Islam will not be messed with. In the Hejaz I can see a good mix of Jews(Qurayza), Arians, Copts and Pagans. Most likely with the strong and healthy Jewish community in power, Christianity does not gain traction through missionaries and Arabia is much to far out of the way for Byzantium to conquer. Around Yemen the area is a mix between Jews (Himyarites) and Copts from Ethiopia and Axum. Oman and Haasa, will have primarirly pagan Arabs and Zoroastrian Persian immigrants.
In the Overall Middle East (not Iran) Christianity and Gnosticism reign supreme with a large diversity of sects (destroyed by Islam) these groups would resurface as popular religions in and around the Levant and Near East for many years (Cathars/Bogomils). In Iraq, Christianity (extremely diverse here), Manichaeism, Mandaeism and Zoroastrianism will be the primary religions with none gaining the upper hand due to no political power willing to side with any one side. The Caucus will be primarirly Christian forwarded to Byzantium, with Golestan and Azerbaijan being Yazidi and Zoroastrian. Overall the Kurds will remain Yazidi.
In Iran Zoroastrian continues to remain strong with the huge amount of the lower class following the religion and the empereorstates using it as a stabillizer. There will be even larger restrictions of Christian and Buddhist prostelization in Iran then otl.
In Indonesia, Hinduism and Buddhism continue to battle it out for followers. With some states adopting Hinduism as a link in trade to India, this then leads to rival states turning Buddhist to counter their rivals religion.
In central Asia, an enormous mosh pit of religions are created, with no winner and mystery cults all along the Silk Road. The Turks however, would most likely be like the otl Mongols having no religious preference and adopting the religion of those they conquer. I overall disagree with the notion of a Turkish conquest of Persia, as it was probably due to Islam that Persia was made vulnerable to the Seljuks. Also pre Islamic-Persia has had a good track record against nomad hordes (Hephthalotes, Kushan and Gokturks). More likely though, the Turks without the allure of Islam, they go after the juicer price; India. This would likely make earlier Mughal empires who are a mixture of Manichaen,Buddhist,Nestorian and Hindu.
North Africa remains Christian, orientated with Rome. Any conversion of West Africa would be by surviving Arian monks. I addressed this in another thread in more detail.
I will try and cover more later and address the effect on the West and politics later after I get some feedback.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
I think you might be right here; it seems Arianism was being put down, at least in Europe, by 600 AD.
Yeah, as far as I know Arianism was only practiced by monks in various deserts in the Middle East and North Africa at the time. In many ways, Islam took the torch of Arianism preaching a somewhat similar doctrine.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
See, I really doubt Persia can stay Zoroastrian long term -- at some point, the Sassinids are going to go into political and/or social decline (probably sooner rather than later), and the fact here is TTL Christianity (of various sects, admittedly) is so dominant in all areas surrounding them that the logic of Christian allies, trade with Christian lands, etc will be eventually become too powerful to overcome. Now my guess is Nestorianism is best suited to take advantage of this -- they're already heavily established in Persia, they've got a major presence in Central Asia, and they're not that far off theologically from their Coptic and Othodox neighbors.
I agree with you that it is likely for the Sassanids to fall, yet I do not believe that the survival of Zoroastrianism is tied to the Sassanid state. Zoroastrianism is tied to the Iranian plateau and the Iranian people as long as they remain Zoroastrian, the religion has life, similar to how Hinduism (or the many religions of Hinduism) is alive as long as it holds sway over India.
The belief that Christianity was a huge threat to Persia does have some ground, yet it is often over exaggerated. For one thing the Persian empire's base of power after the fall of Persepolis to Alexander was moved westward to Babylonia/Seleucia/Cteshipon, overtime the non persian ethnicities (the majority) became either Christian or Gnostic (including Manichaeism). Due to Iraq being possibly the larger population region of the empire, makes the religion that is the majority there seemingly the most popular in Persia. Yet, this is most likely untrue as the vast majority of ethnic Persians were still Zoroastrian at the conquest of Islam, only Iraq had the large Christian/Yazidi/Gnostic populations.
Also we have to understand the Sassanids were the first Persian regime to really deal with Christianity therefore had no knowledge and way to defend itself, as we go along the Sassanids began created measures to limit Christian power in the Itanian parts of the empire. Theoretically, a new Persian dynasty would remedy the "Christian problem" by moving the capital/power base back to Iran (with its main supporters). In this scenario, yes Zoroastrianism would survive, survive as it always did as the religion of the Iranian people and culture. The only way to change that would be a large empire with a fearsome army and a powerbase close enough to give the people a true incentive to convert (Abbasids).
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Ooh, here's a thought -- if Hindus continue to dominate trade in the Indian Ocean, does that mean East Africa sees Hindu city states and empires emerge in later centuries? That'd be cool.
So, with the Eastern Roman Empire to the East, the Ethiopians to the South, the (TTL, Nestorian or Gnostic) Turks from the Northeast, plus their sizable non-Persian population, you don't think that when the Sassanid political power starts to crumble the Zoroastrian faith won't be facing an existential crisis?
So, with the Eastern Roman Empire to the East, the Ethiopians to the South, the (TTL, Nestorian or Gnostic) Turks from the Northeast, plus their sizable non-Persian population, you don't think that when the Sassanid political power starts to crumble the Zoroastrian faith won't be facing an existential crisis?
Couldn't have put it better. Zoroastrianism was the way of life for the ancient Iranians and even to this day it Iranian culture, even though it's Islamic, has retained many of it's older traits.
Last edited:
This will have butterflies en masse:
1) Will Spain be divided like OTL or one nation with less intrest in having an empire?
2) No hostile religion sitting across the trade lines with India and age of exploration will miss one thing that got it started, the need to find new trade routes to India.
1) Will Spain be divided like OTL or one nation with less intrest in having an empire?
2) No hostile religion sitting across the trade lines with India and age of exploration will miss one thing that got it started, the need to find new trade routes to India.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Well, considering this is eight centuries after our PoD, I'd say the butterflies involved will simply be too massive to speculate. Though on the subject, Ethiopia (Askum) will not be isolated TTL, meaning they'll likely be enjoying a good deal of trade from the Indian Ocean.
In case of Arabia, there's a chance that Ebionitism would be spread across the peninsula, especially in the Hejaz region.
Indonesia? Hinduism and Buddhism will remain the main religion of the archipelago's population, although there would be a minimal Ebionite/Oriental Orthodox presence as Hadhrami traders were a regular fixture in the coast, especially Sumatra and Malay Peninsula.
Central Asia? A religious potpourri: Tengriism, Nesrorian Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeanism, even Ebionitism
Indonesia? Hinduism and Buddhism will remain the main religion of the archipelago's population, although there would be a minimal Ebionite/Oriental Orthodox presence as Hadhrami traders were a regular fixture in the coast, especially Sumatra and Malay Peninsula.
Central Asia? A religious potpourri: Tengriism, Nesrorian Christianity, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeanism, even Ebionitism
Last edited:
Agreed, I think the persistence of Zoroastrian festivals amongst the Indo-Iranian peoples, and their spread to neighboring Turkic speakers (Nowruz, the Persian New Year, is popular from Azerbaijan to the Salar Turks of Gansu, China), as well as the continued persistence of Zoroastrian communities in Iran and India suggests that Iran minus Islam will hold on to Zoroastrianism, or at least that any foreign religion that takes sway even by force will have to borrow heavily from Zoroastrianism.
I guess so, Zoroastrianism was pretty strong. It was not too prozelitysig, that's true, but it doesn't equal weakness.
Sub-Saharan Africa is another interesting question in this world. Persian traders built a Zoroastrian temple in Zanzibar, but that doesn't necessarilly mean Zoroastrianism is going to spread very far in the absence of Islam. I guess the reason we didn't see more Zoroastrian temples in the Swahili coastal cities is due to the rise of Islam in Persia at the same time Persians were becoming active in the region, but I'm not certain. Arab, Ethiopian, Coptic, and Indian traders might bring Hindu, Orthodox Christian, and maybe even Jewish communities to East Africa, creating a hodgepodge alongside native Bantu religious beliefs. I wonder if peaceful interactions with foreign religions might create some native-born organized religions in East Africa, and maybe some African ideas might head north.
In West Africa, I've read that it took a long time for Islam to take sway amongst the common peoples of the great Sahel empires, even long after the rulers converted. Even today, animist ideas are still woven into rural Islam in Mali and its neighbors. I wonder if contact with Christian North Africans might bring Christianity south in the same way that Islam arrived there. Obviously, there will be Christian northerners trading in Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, but how strong of a spiritual impact will they have? With North Africa in communion with Rome, and presumably tied to a much stronger destiny with European Christiandom, maybe we would see "crusades" based in Morocco targetted toward pagan nations to the south, or earlier Christian sea routes down the coast of West Africa. Christian Kongo of OTL might still develop in some form, several centuries earlier!
In West Africa, I've read that it took a long time for Islam to take sway amongst the common peoples of the great Sahel empires, even long after the rulers converted. Even today, animist ideas are still woven into rural Islam in Mali and its neighbors. I wonder if contact with Christian North Africans might bring Christianity south in the same way that Islam arrived there. Obviously, there will be Christian northerners trading in Ghana, Mali, and Songhai, but how strong of a spiritual impact will they have? With North Africa in communion with Rome, and presumably tied to a much stronger destiny with European Christiandom, maybe we would see "crusades" based in Morocco targetted toward pagan nations to the south, or earlier Christian sea routes down the coast of West Africa. Christian Kongo of OTL might still develop in some form, several centuries earlier!
To be blunt, yes. As long as one of them does not completely conquer Iran with a a codified set of laws on how to deal with infidels(Sharia), a powerbase very close or in Iran, and the abillity to hold the area. I do not think that outside of Islam there is an immediate force that can pull it off. As I have said before the Turks will have little engagement with Persia as they rush into India.
Your theory that their conversion would be done for political reasons and from being surrounded, sounds good but it lacks in an understanding of Zoroastrianism and Indo-European religions (in Asia). The empereors of Persia used Zoroastrianism as a religion of power it asserted their superiority over its subjects and against its neighbors, without a conquest and meeting the criteria above there is no reason for them to convert. We also need to look at the history, in India a similar religion fought off this encroachment you speak of, Hinduism. Hinduism by the late Middle Ages was surrounded on all sides by Islam and was eventually dominated politically by them. However, the conversion was not done at the same level as the Muslims expected, because the powerbase of Islam was in Mecca or Baghdad and there was no impetus for conversion, as the Hindus stood steadfast with their religion that they believed defined their culture,their home and their way of life. If Islam had started in Afghanistan, invaded India like it did the Middle East it would've been a different story. But you get my point, that just encircling (which I don't think will happen) does not mean the fall of Zoroastrianism.
Last edited: