Schisms of Islam

[eliphas8]

Why would it be called Monophysite Islam? Isnt Islam already "monophysite" given how the name comes from the more hard line stance on monotheism that the Patriarch of Alexandria took (the whole Son, Father, Holy Ghost being exactly the same thing is important). Not to mention how Nestorianism was the primary religion in that region OTL and Nestorianism wasn't a monophysite creed (it was in fact Dyophysite making far more distinction between god and Jesus rather than Monophysites tradition of saying they are completely and totally the same thing).

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

Why would it be called Monophysite Islam? Isnt Islam already "monophysite" given how the name comes from the more hard line stance on monotheism that the Patriarch of Alexandria took (the whole Son, Father, Holy Ghost being exactly the same thing is important). Not to mention how Nestorianism was the primary religion in that region OTL and Nestorianism wasn't a monophysite creed (it was in fact Dyophysite making far more distinction between god and Jesus rather than Monophysites tradition of saying they are completely and totally the same thing).

Nestorianism was the primary faith of Mesopotamia, while Monophysite Christianity was the most popular form in Syria, and seeing as that the Western Aramaic group that created this new form of Islam, to me it makes sense that they would take most of their influence from the Monophysites.

However, I just noticed that it indeed would make more sense if it were the Mesopotamian Aramaic speakers, not the Syrian Aramaic speakers, that create the new form of Islam, at least in this TL, as that is where Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman was stationed, saw the corruption of the Qu'ran and, in this instance, murdered. I will be changing that promptly.

EDIT: But no, Islam isn't Monophysite, or Dyophysite or anything else for that matter, since they don't believe any being was half, full, part or entirely God, so this whole distinction and Theological debate is meaningless to them. Atleast it was, until Muhammed was also considered to be the son of God, making such a debate relevent to those certain Muslims in this TL.

[eliphas8]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

EDIT: But no, Islam isn't Monophysite, or Dyophysite or anything else for that matter, since they don't believe any being was half, full, part or entirely God, so this whole distinction and Theological debate is meaningless to them. Atleast it was, until Muhammed was also considered to be the son of God, making such a debate relevent to those certain Muslims in this TL.

I phrased that kind of poorly but it was a dumb question anyway, anyway glad I could provide some constructive criticism.

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by eliphas8

I phrased that kind of poorly but it was a dumb question anyway, anyway glad I could provide some constructive criticism.

Indeed, thanks for your input good sir.

[Delvestius]

The Calm Before The Storm, Mid-1100s

By far the most significant change in this TL is that there are no crusades, as the Levant is in Christian hands. While the Pope isn't too happy these Christians don't pay homage to him, it's better than the heathen Saracens, he thinks.

The Seljuks have settled in Anatolia, giving rise to new Persian and Aramaic dynasties. Although fragmented, all it will take is an opportunistic leader to rally the Turks to another campaign.

Asturia and Galicia become united by a royal marriage, while Provence, Bohemia and Venice gain autonomy under the Empires. The Kieven Rus had set up a number of trading cities that have grown to become prosperous principalities.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

There are religious schisms caused by different interpretations of the Qu'ran, let alone different translations of it... Islam is founded on Arabic, and in many ways vice-versa. If you know anything about Islam, you know that in the faith Mohammed was an illiterate trader who was revealed the word of God by the angel Gabriel. His was a linguistic mircle, which has great meaning to a culture that put much pride in the poetry and richness of their tongue. Muslims are very serious about the sanctity of unchanged Arabic prose in the Qu'ran, because they believe that it is God's very words themselves and that even the slightest change is a corruption of God's truth. Christians don't have this as a part of their faith, so to them translation isn't a big deal.
.

1) thats the standard view today. It wouldnt be if history were different.
2) the beauty of the arabic prose is well and good. To an arab. But these people dont speak arabic.
3) i know that there have been more than movement during history to treat translations by pious and otherwise orthodox moslems as secondary versions of the quran, not as mere study guides. Clearly they didnt feel the same way you do.
4) jews officially believe that the pentateuch was written, every word, by moses. While that is clearly one step removed from 'dictation by Gabriel', it is more similar a comparison than, for instance, other scriptures. And jews have no problem with translating the pentateuch. True, they want the use in a service to be the original hebrew, but ive never heard of anyone who said a translation wasnt scipture. Im sure someone claimed that, some time somewhere, but its sure not standard. In fact theres good evidence that in the time of christ that the greek version was far more used than the hebrew one.
4a) if you dont like that argument, consider the ten commandments. They are not only His word directly, but written by His hand.

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

1) thats the standard view today. It wouldnt be if history were different.

That's usually what the PoD is for..

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

2) the beauty of the arabic prose is well and good. To an arab. But these people dont speak arabic.

... Exactly.

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

3) i know that there have been more than movement during history to treat translations by pious and otherwise orthodox moslems as secondary versions of the quran, not as mere study guides. Clearly they didnt feel the same way you do.

That wasn't really until modern times..

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

4) jews officially believe that the pentateuch was written, every word, by moses. While that is clearly one step removed from 'dictation by Gabriel', it is more similar a comparison than, for instance, other scriptures. And jews have no problem with translating the pentateuch. True, they want the use in a service to be the original hebrew, but ive never heard of anyone who said a translation wasnt scipture. Im sure someone claimed that, some time somewhere, but its sure not standard. In fact theres good evidence that in the time of christ that the greek version was far more used than the hebrew one.
4a) if you dont like that argument, consider the ten commandments. They are not only His word directly, but written by His hand.

k but muslims arnt jews

[Blackfox5]

Wouldn't it have been easier to use the existing divisions with Islam to create the schism? You could have Ali live, but not be able to hold onto the entire Caliphate, so there would be a division immediately between Shi'ite and Sunni (although both would develop very differently than they did IOTL). You could have the Kharijites successfully create their own domain.

It seems unnecessary to create a "monophysite Islam".

[XanXar]

Wow, interesting concept you got here, I remember starting a thread on this sort of subject. I'll be following this closely

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by Blackfox5

Wouldn't it have been easier to use the existing divisions with Islam to create the schism? You could have Ali live, but not be able to hold onto the entire Caliphate, so there would be a division immediately between Shi'ite and Sunni (although both would develop very differently than they did IOTL). You could have the Kharijites successfully create their own domain.

It seems unnecessary to create a "monophysite Islam".

I really wanted to create something big enough that would actually not be considered actual Islam by the Hijazi Caliphate. Sunni and Shi'ite can be comprable to Catholic and Protastant. I want to go for more of a Morman thing, where they themselves identify with Islam, but earlier versions consider them heresy. And frankly, this is more of an interesting way to do things for me than sticking with what already exists.

Originally Posted by XanXar

Wow, interesting concept you got here, I remember starting a thread on this sort of subject. I'll be following this closely

Thankya sir.

[euromellows]

This is awesome Delvestius, looking forward to more.

I also followed your signature link to your Norman Italy timeline. I really enjoyed that - have you considered updating it? I don't want to divert you too much from this excellent timeline as well, but it was also really good too!

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by euromellows

This is awesome Delvestius, looking forward to more.

I also followed your signature link to your Norman Italy timeline. I really enjoyed that - have you considered updating it? I don't want to divert you too much from this excellent timeline as well, but it was also really good too!

Thanks! As far as the Norman one goes, I don't know where I'm going with it next, so I'm just going to keep it around as a potential project. As of now, I think that one would take a bit too much time to work with as it's not a region I have great knowledge in and the style requires it to be well written. This one won't take too much time though, I'll definitely be able to get an update in a few times a week between classes and such, and to be honest I kind of like where this one is going more

[Dirk_Pitt]

So where is the Holy Roman Empire gonna turn up? France?

[Roger II]

Er, translating the bible into Syriac and Armenian and Greek and Latin arguably did cause schisms, or at least made it possible for different regional churches using different liturgical and literary languages to come to different conclusions or at least think they came to different conclusions-and it creates a sense of "they do things differently" that supports a lot of these theological splits. In Islam, because the Qu'ran is seen as essentially Arabic and because there's a serious push(especially under the Umayyads, which is admittedly rather later) to favor Arabic literacy in the governing classes, virtually all religious scholars are communicating in a mutually intelligible language. And that's not even getting into the messes that would be caused by widespread variant recensions-a problem that would be much, much worse if the recensions were not all in the same language after a while(making it much easier to check them against each other).
Anyhow, this idea of Monophysite Islam seems really, really cool. Could you flesh out how Islamic cultures have developed with a very different form of Islam in Syria and in Persia-do we have the same "persianification" that happened somewhat? And how does Coptic culture develop in Egypt-does it have close ties to Monophsyite Islam or not so much?

[Delvestius]

Posts! Rather, inspiration to start this back up

Originally Posted by Roger II

Anyhow, this idea of Monophysite Islam seems really, really cool. Could you flesh out how Islamic cultures have developed with a very different form of Islam in Syria and in Persia-do we have the same "persianification" that happened somewhat? And how does Coptic culture develop in Egypt-does it have close ties to Monophsyite Islam or not so much?

I feel like the areas of Aramaic Islam would be heavily Parsified, and eventually regarded as being in the Persian culture sphere.

The Copts have little in common with the Monophysites, as they consider them Islam.

Originally Posted by Dirk_Pitt

So where is the Holy Roman Empire gonna turn up? France?

Yop

[Delvestius]

The Coming of the Horde - Mid 1200s

The Mongols come and, of course, mix everything up.

The Middle East gets torn apart, particularly the Persians, Caucasians, Armenians and Turks. The Byzantines however are able to hold their own, thanks to continued growth and prosperity over the the past few centuries they had not experienced IOTL.

The Egyptians hold strong in the Levant, and continue to exist as a powerful entity, recently adding the lands of Tunis and Sicily to their domains.

Lithuania is converted to Orthodoxy and, along with the Russian principalities and Byzantium, are subjugated and turned into vassal states by the Mongols. The hordes be stopped by a coalition group of Magyars, Germans, and Poles.

French and Norwegian forces agree to split the Britain between themselves, Scotland to the Norwegians and Anglican England to French lords.



Note- The Western faction groups (Spain, France, Germany) have not really changed because I need some help in figuring out how they would grow and progress in their current positions and divisions, as well as how the Eastern situations will influence their change. Any feedback would be appreciated!

[ImmortalImpi]

You are massively overstating the swiftness of the conversions of these peoples by a ridiculous margin. Islam wasn't a majority in the Fertile Crescent until the late 700s. And in general how fusing of religions work.

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by ImmortalImpi

You are massively overstating the swiftness of the conversions of these peoples by a ridiculous margin. Islam wasn't a majority in the Fertile Crescent until the late 700s. And in general how fusing of religions work.

Such constructive feedback, I can extrapolate tons of help from this!

I already noted the unlikely speed of conversion and plan on editing it in the complete rewrite.

As for religious fusion.... Enlighten me.

[ImmortalImpi]

Originally Posted by Delvestius

As for religious fusion.... Enlighten me.

You don't really get that sort of 'Monophysite Islam' you're trying to create here. When Islam takes inspirations from other religions it doesn't do it so bluntly or so fast. You wouldn't get an Islamic heresy popping up like that, even with a later conversion date. I'm not sure what your thought process was when you thought it up?

[Delvestius]

Originally Posted by ImmortalImpi

You don't really get that sort of 'Monophysite Islam' you're trying to create here. When Islam takes inspirations from other religions it doesn't do it so bluntly or so fast. You wouldn't get an Islamic heresy popping up like that, even with a later conversion date. I'm not sure what your thought process was when you thought it up?

Christians believe Jesus, a prophet, is the son of god.

Muslims believe Jesus and Mohammad are prophets, but neither are the son of god.

However, if you get a group of Christians to accept Muhammad as a the final prophet, as opposed to Jesus, then why not have them think that it is indeed him that is the son of God meant to be worshiped instead.