I would like you to create a world where Christianity is seen by most as a terrorist religion and Islam is the norm.
Last edited:
AHC: Reverse the Roles of Christainity and Islam
- Thread starter GriffinFTW
- Start date
Sior
Banned
The sane parts of the world deplores the murder by beheading, stoning, drowning and shooting of innocent Muslims and Christians! If drone strikes removes the cancer of terrorism then why don't we have more?
With a POD of pre-1900 is my guess since that is where this is posted.
Resounding win for the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years War so that by 1648 the continent is a Catholic theocracy (or theocracies) which stagnate(s) for the following three centuries?
Make what you will of the Islamic world. I am unsure how to make that more dynamic.
Resounding win for the Habsburgs in the Thirty Years War so that by 1648 the continent is a Catholic theocracy (or theocracies) which stagnate(s) for the following three centuries?
Make what you will of the Islamic world. I am unsure how to make that more dynamic.
Fairly certain the Emperor would never submit peacefully to being ruled by the papacy, hadn't done so for the last 650 years, why start now? If anything an overwhelming Habsburg victory would probably lead to a stronger imperial control over the princes and bishops of the empire.
I don't know how to make Europe (I assume this is what you mean, Christianity and Islam or too wide concepts) be an equivalent of the Middle East today, the historical development is just too different and the geographical differences are huge. I have tried to come up with ideas, written 700-800 words and deleted them all brainstorming. None of it came out right. Europe obviously needs to go through rough times and never really recover, a kind of defensive mindset about religious values, having religion be a dominant part of your identity, making language and nationality less important. In short have religion be the most important identity for Europeans.
Also the view of Christianity as modern and Islam as backwards today is heavily reflective of the societies they are dominant in. To make Christianity viewed as more backwards, you have to make Europe more backwards. So you have to screw Europe's development in some way, and I think the 30 years war is too late.
I think for a start we need to reduce the amount of states in Europe, so many states vying for dominance means that they all, or at least the successful states will be the ones adopting new technology and ideas and becoming more competitive. While the fall of the Western Roman Empire did a lot of initial damage to Europe's population and development, since then it has mostly gone in one direction. In contrast during most of the past 500 years the Middle East has been dominated by mostly 2 states, the Ottomans and the Persian/Iranian dynasties, there were other states, but they wielded less influence. So I think you need to do something similar in Europe, have a few states dominate it and grow complacent, then have them fall behind and grow religiously orthodox during the 19th and 20th century due to whatever reason. Very vague i know, but I am just brainstorming here. I find it much easier to switch the place of China and Europe, Europe and the Middle East just have so many inherently geographical and resource differences.
As for the Islamic world, I find this much easier to make it viewed better. A popular butterfly avoiding the Mongol invasion of the Islamic world, starting with Central Asia. How that changes the Middle East and Central Asia is anyone's guess, it's a huge history defining event. But at this point conservative Islam was already becoming more influential, but at the same time you can't argue that avoiding the immense destruction caused by the Mongols would be anything but beneficial for Central Asia and the Middle East.
The problem with that is that it would have not only huge consequences on Islamic world, but also Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia. The events afterwards are very unpredictable, anything could happen. Another issue is that I do not think a successful Middle East would naturally make Islam or the region mirror the development of our Europe and Christianity, it would still be very different. I am not even sure which areas of the Middle East has major coal deposits, is any area ripe for industrialization?
Incredibly subjective question. Your opening sentence implies that Islam is seen by most as a terrorist religion. I disagree with this on two levels.
1). I don't believe that most people do, in fact, see it as a terrorist religion. They don't. The only people who think like that are ignorant and probably also racist.
2). Islam is not a terrorist religion (obviously, I can't believe I even have to spell this out). In fact Muslims are not allowed to start wars, and are only given permission to fight as a last resort, in self defence, after all other options have been tried. Hurting or killing a civilian is haram (forbidden).
To respond to the premise of the thread, if we just take it at face value and make the Muslim countries Christian and the Christian ones Muslim, I am not sure it changes anything. I suspect everything would be exactly the same, given that human nature is universal.
Drone strikes don't work. They make things worse.
I'll give you an example, from Malala Yousafzai's book I am Malala. In case you don't remember who she is, she is the teenage girl shot by the Taliban for trying to support women's right to education in Pakistan.
In her book, she says that when the drone strikes began in Pakistan, one of the first targets that got hit by the drones was a school full of 12 year old children. Hundreds were killed. Immediately afterwards, many of the young men in that area were so upset that they went and joined the Taliban, so they could fight back against the US oppressor who had just killed their families.
So you see, drone strikes actually create terrorists.
That's easy, we need a POD which either stops the Ottoman Empire from declining after 1700, or we need to free the Arab nations much earlier, so that they develop on their own in the period c.1700- present. If we could come up with a scenario by which the Arab nations are already independent of Ottoman rule by the early 18th century, then it should be possible.
Of course, the real divergence began in the Middle Ages. From about 1300 or so, the western University began to make progress while at the same time, the Muslim world increasingly closed itself to innovation. The roots of this go back to the 9th century Caliph al-Mutazim, who persecuted traditional Islam in favour of neoplatonism. Unfortunately this triggered a backlash, which was picked up in the 12th century by al-Ghazali, who published a book on the Incoherence of philosophers. This book was an attack on the rationalism of the Greek tradition, and an argument in favour of mysticism and belief in God as the only cause of events.
The Mongol invasion certainly would have played a major role as well, as it destroyed Baghdad and the House of Wisdom, where the books and knowledge of all the world had been gathered and stored. The destruction of the ancient irrigation systems seem to have caused massive drop in population and urbanisation in Iraq and Iran, which also hugely damaged the potential for civilisation in that region, turning it from the centre of world civilisation into a backwater.
The conquest of al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) by the Catholic powers was another blow, since some of the most brilliant achievements of the Islamic culture were made in Andalusia. Yet despite all that, the Safavids and Ottomans still stood equal or superior to Europe until around 1700. But after that, their paths rapidly diverged as Europe surged forward into the modern age, while the Ottomans declined and fell apart.
I'd certainly say avoiding the Mongol invasion would leave the Muslim world in a far better place. It's possible that al-Ghazali's book would have had less impact in a world where the Muslim world has not been turned upside-down by the equivalent of a Medieval nuclear holocaust (up to 90% of Iran's population is estimated to have died in the Mongol invasions). And if a way can be found for the Arab states to gain independence much earlier from the declining Ottoman Empire, they could have avoided being dragged down with it and might instead have had the chance to plot their own course. Perhaps they could have pulled off a Meiji restoration. Certainly, having a number of competing independent states in that region offers a lot more opportunity for innovation and progress than a bunch of neglected and impoverished provinces under a declining Ottoman power.
In many ways, OTL is about the worst possible scenario for the Muslim countries imaginable.
jahenders
Banned
In addition to the things mention that adjust the relative strengths ("Christian" world for "Muslim" world), you also need to change the Christian "church" (or set of churches) so that it's more radical and likely to encourage violence.
I can see two different PODs for this
1) Christianity is less centralized, but still with strong leaders, such that you have multiple large Christian bodies, any of which can declare a crusade or the equivalent of a fatwa. This could have happened either by having the original bishops never agree on any primacy of Rome, but remain independent equals and evolve somewhat differently OR by having some of the Protestant religions maintain a single church leader with Pope-like powers (i.e. a Lutheran or Episcopal pope).
2) Have the Catholic Church maintain a portion of its power (with government and the people) from the Middle Ages.
Then, in either case, these leaders would have to have an outlook where declaring a crusade for religious goals is a logical activity, but where it can't actually field armies, but instead supports assassins or terrorists.
I can see two different PODs for this
1) Christianity is less centralized, but still with strong leaders, such that you have multiple large Christian bodies, any of which can declare a crusade or the equivalent of a fatwa. This could have happened either by having the original bishops never agree on any primacy of Rome, but remain independent equals and evolve somewhat differently OR by having some of the Protestant religions maintain a single church leader with Pope-like powers (i.e. a Lutheran or Episcopal pope).
2) Have the Catholic Church maintain a portion of its power (with government and the people) from the Middle Ages.
Then, in either case, these leaders would have to have an outlook where declaring a crusade for religious goals is a logical activity, but where it can't actually field armies, but instead supports assassins or terrorists.
One in which you were born in the "other side".
There isn't really much else to it. You have two groupings, each with over a billion people in it, having highly negative perceptions of the other as perpetrators of violence against innocents. There is no "norm". There is no "what most people see". There's just lots of innocent people dying.
How do you make Christians more violent? How about a Spanish Inquisition WANK?
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that yet. Then again . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE
I'm surprised nobody mentioned that yet. Then again . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WJXHY2OXGE
I'm surprised more people haven't responded to this thread, particularly as the OP was so provocative and the subject is so topical. If this had been posted on a certain other history related forum I know, it would have had hundreds of posts by now and be at least 10 or 20 pages long...
Yuelang
Banned
mainly because Mongol invasion hurt Islamic world so hard, they still never recovered feom it yet, and choose to blame Europeans, who merely kicking them hard while they are down...
This isn't exactly what the OP asked, but it reminded me of a conversation i had years ago. A friend of mine said something dismissive, like "oh, they (people in the Middle East) have been killing each other for thousands of years, this is nothing new." Addressing the role the West has played in the current state of the Cradle is a long conversation, so i decided to try and give him a bit of depth into the way things were. Using alternative history, of course.
I said to him, "Alright man, imagine things went differently. Doesn't matter when, but bring it to the present day. The states on the eastern seaboard are generally the same, but poorer and no longer united. Across the ocean is the Ottoman Empire, the most powerful state in the world. Stretches from Morocco into Central Asia. Bases everywhere. And the Ottomans, they have been messing with Americans for a long time. Your still a twenty something guy in Ohio, but things are different. They backed a dictator in Pennsylvania, engineered a coup in Kentucky, have troops stationed in the coalfields of West Virginia. Battleships in Lake Erie, carpet bombed Indiana.. so on and so forth. And so they invade Ohio, and all the sudden your picking up where your father left off. Your buddies have been killed in a midnight raid. Your sister died in an airstrike. So you go to church and someone says "hey, you should help us get back at these guys." Wouldn't you?"
I'm simplifying the situation a great deal. My point, if it was missed, is that everything is a matter of perspective. If you add together the prisons, the drones, shock and awe, depleted uranium rounds, the coups, the dictators, all of it, it might not be "terrorism" but its not something good.
I said to him, "Alright man, imagine things went differently. Doesn't matter when, but bring it to the present day. The states on the eastern seaboard are generally the same, but poorer and no longer united. Across the ocean is the Ottoman Empire, the most powerful state in the world. Stretches from Morocco into Central Asia. Bases everywhere. And the Ottomans, they have been messing with Americans for a long time. Your still a twenty something guy in Ohio, but things are different. They backed a dictator in Pennsylvania, engineered a coup in Kentucky, have troops stationed in the coalfields of West Virginia. Battleships in Lake Erie, carpet bombed Indiana.. so on and so forth. And so they invade Ohio, and all the sudden your picking up where your father left off. Your buddies have been killed in a midnight raid. Your sister died in an airstrike. So you go to church and someone says "hey, you should help us get back at these guys." Wouldn't you?"
I'm simplifying the situation a great deal. My point, if it was missed, is that everything is a matter of perspective. If you add together the prisons, the drones, shock and awe, depleted uranium rounds, the coups, the dictators, all of it, it might not be "terrorism" but its not something good.
Actually the Spanish Inquisition was set up to introduce more judicial good practice into heretic trials and reduce the number of false convictions. Of the c. 150,000 people investigated by the Inquisition, only around two to five thousand were actually executed. So if you want a more violent Christianity, it would probably be better to butterfly away the Spanish Inquisition, rather than wanking it.
A few possible PoDs:
Get rid of the Avingon abduction shit. That really did a number on papal prestige. Of course, the Church was already very unified at that point, and would continue to be so for another couple centuries. A larger, earlier Protestant movement would be beneficial to achieving the OP. Perhaps in response to a failed abduction?
Keep HREmperor very stronk- but really loyal to the Church (whichever branch. Super non-secularist powers and really fundamental general mindset would further push such an agenda.
EOrthodox vs. Catholicism, like Shia vs. Sunni. Have Islam focus on the Eastern lands, like India, Central Asia, China, and Siberia, while (mostly) leaving the Byzzies alone. The Romans and Franks can duke it out. Keep the Carolingian dynasty strong, as an alternative to HRE. Sure, there was a brief intellectual awakening. But the kings were closely tied to the Vatican. Perhaps foster that connection. That gives a cool Byzantine survivor scenario, while allowing an Islamicwank, keeping the Franks in charge of a centralizing, but ultimately stagnating Europe. The Byzzies might end up separating Ottoman style, a little later than Mega!France, allowing an OTL-like situation, especially with Hellnized, Orthodox (mostly) and integrated (until 19th and 20th centuries of this ATL) Slavs + Christian Arabs/Armenians forming nationalist movements. Europe splits up later. Franks = White People Safavids, Byzzies = Ottomans in this scenario. Asia (with the exception of possibly Korea, Japan, and a few things in SEAsia, and far eastern Russia is Islamic, prosperous, and split into economically and militarily competitive states. Balkanize China! Islamic Americas! Super poor and backwards Europe! Other similar, but bigger and grander things from OTL that might end up appearing:
-A huge ass, much more ornate and grand Xian Great Mosque (or whatever that's called
-The Great Wall of KOREA! To keep out jihadist Mongols and Jurchen. kekeke...
- Japanese(!) colonizing Muslim majority mainland areas, like Europe in Africa and Middlle East. Or Muslims taking over parts of Europe, but not suppressing Christianity.
-Other stuff. Don't really want to write more right now. You guys can think up much better stuff than I can.
Get rid of the Avingon abduction shit. That really did a number on papal prestige. Of course, the Church was already very unified at that point, and would continue to be so for another couple centuries. A larger, earlier Protestant movement would be beneficial to achieving the OP. Perhaps in response to a failed abduction?
Keep HREmperor very stronk- but really loyal to the Church (whichever branch. Super non-secularist powers and really fundamental general mindset would further push such an agenda.
EOrthodox vs. Catholicism, like Shia vs. Sunni. Have Islam focus on the Eastern lands, like India, Central Asia, China, and Siberia, while (mostly) leaving the Byzzies alone. The Romans and Franks can duke it out. Keep the Carolingian dynasty strong, as an alternative to HRE. Sure, there was a brief intellectual awakening. But the kings were closely tied to the Vatican. Perhaps foster that connection. That gives a cool Byzantine survivor scenario, while allowing an Islamicwank, keeping the Franks in charge of a centralizing, but ultimately stagnating Europe. The Byzzies might end up separating Ottoman style, a little later than Mega!France, allowing an OTL-like situation, especially with Hellnized, Orthodox (mostly) and integrated (until 19th and 20th centuries of this ATL) Slavs + Christian Arabs/Armenians forming nationalist movements. Europe splits up later. Franks = White People Safavids, Byzzies = Ottomans in this scenario. Asia (with the exception of possibly Korea, Japan, and a few things in SEAsia, and far eastern Russia is Islamic, prosperous, and split into economically and militarily competitive states. Balkanize China! Islamic Americas! Super poor and backwards Europe! Other similar, but bigger and grander things from OTL that might end up appearing:
-A huge ass, much more ornate and grand Xian Great Mosque (or whatever that's called
-The Great Wall of KOREA! To keep out jihadist Mongols and Jurchen. kekeke...
- Japanese(!) colonizing Muslim majority mainland areas, like Europe in Africa and Middlle East. Or Muslims taking over parts of Europe, but not suppressing Christianity.
-Other stuff. Don't really want to write more right now. You guys can think up much better stuff than I can.
Definitely Baghdad, I give Tehran the benefit of the doubt at least for a majority moderate opinion.