Islam dies out

Inspired by "What if the Turks don't migrate", what if the Turks don't convert to Islam and stay Buddist or something? The Christians convert most of the Moslems in the west back to Christianity and the east goes back to Buddism in the 11th and 12th centuries. Islam turns into a small, ignored cult in the 13th century. What happens?

It would be intresting to find a way to get Zoroastrianism to reconquer Persia

Xen said:

It would be intresting to find a way to get Zoroastrianism to reconquer Persia

Click to expand...

Sounds good to me, go with it.

A POD for the decline of Islam would probably involve the Turks converting to a different faith (some sort of Christianity most likely, though Leo suggested Manicheanism) or the Mongols being less religiously tolerant.

I only mentioned Manichaeism because it was the state religion of the Uighur Turks until they were overrun by the Kyrgyz (744-840). Manichaean Uighurs developed one of the first Turkic alphabets by adapting one of the Manichaean scripts (possibly Psalter, but my memory's fuzzy at this point). The Uighurs were displaced and ended up in the Tarim basin, where a large repository of Manichaean art and literature was discovered by Sir Aurel Stein and Albert von le Coq (my university contributed to the funds for that expedition and received some of the pottery in return). I believe that the Uighurs preserved Manichaean religion until the Mongols came around, but I could be mistaken.

I might add that while a decline of Islam is possible (si indicium requiris, circumspice), making it die out is highly unlikely. I would imagine that any POD after the Islamic conquest would be impossible.

What I'd really like to see is a Nestorian Mongol empire erupting out of Central Asia and subjugating the Middle East, placing irate Nestorian clerics over the populations that have humiliated and oppressed them for a millennium - now that would be cool.

(Yes, I know, all things considered, the Abbasid period was a pretty good time to be a Nestorian. Still...)

would a genocidical racist nazi-like power erupting from africa in the 19th century be good to put paid to sub-saharan islam? Add that to a more intense colonization/conversion efforts in north africa plus a drakan conquest of the middle east and central asia and islam would be around but VERY weak.

There are 2 POD's I can think of to make Islam seriously weaker than in OTL. The first would be the successful resistance of Persia to the Arab onslaught, for then nascent Islam would have had to compete with well-established Zoroastrianism east of the Tigris (it might still have expanded West to the Christian lands of the Mediterranean periphery, though).
Another is an Arab defeat at the battle of Talas in 751 (near present-day Alma-Ata). The Arab victory in OTL led to the spread of Islam throughout Central Asia, in formerly Buddhist lands such as Afghanistan. Remember the Buddhas of Bamiyan, which the Taliban blew up? They hated them because they were a conspicuous reminder that their country had once been a thriving crossroads for Buddhist scholars, pilgrims and artists. (Buddhist sculptors were actually influenced by their Greek colleagues brought along by Alexander the Great when he conquered what was then Bactria, hence the perceptible Hellenistic elements in classical Buddhist statuary).
In OTL, the Arab won against the Chinese armies because at that point in history the Tang dynasty was being undermined from within by conniving frontier officers such as An Lushan and the meddling of the Emperor's favorite concubine Yang Guifei. If you make the dynasty stronger, it likely wins against the Arabs, and the whole of Central Asia remains Buddhist. It also makes it more likely that the Tatars and the Turks don't convert to Islam, and that both Asia Minor and the Caucasus remain Christian (Orthodox, Nestorian or whatever, depending on the area). Obviously, with a non-Muslim Afghanistan, there are no Taliban, and thus probably no al-Qaeda.

These are some intresting ideas were talking of here. I like what I see thus far. I can see the great battles being between Zorastrian Persia and Christian Europe being fought through the centuries.

Ive got a few things Im working on in my head, Im thinking of having the Arabs unite under Islam and move across into the horn of Africa taking Somalia. Their attempts to go North end in failure with early and decisive defeats by both the Byzantines and the Persians. The Arabs manage to rebuild the ruins of Babylon into a major metropolis which becomes the capital of the Arab Caliph, and one of their holy cities, they dont advance to much further north or east. But maintain a small but wealthy Kingdom in the Arab Peninsula and the Horn of Africa.

Ive even considered having the Arabs conquer chunks of Africa after their failures to the north, it woudlnt aggravate anybody if they did, well none of the major powers, the natives might have something to say about it.

Leo Caesius said:

I only mentioned Manichaeism because it was the state religion of the Uighur Turks until they were overrun by the Kyrgyz (744-840). Manichaean Uighurs developed one of the first Turkic alphabets by adapting one of the Manichaean scripts (possibly Psalter, but my memory's fuzzy at this point). The Uighurs were displaced and ended up in the Tarim basin, where a large repository of Manichaean art and literature was discovered by Sir Aurel Stein and Albert von le Coq (my university contributed to the funds for that expedition and received some of the pottery in return). I believe that the Uighurs preserved Manichaean religion until the Mongols came around, but I could be mistaken.

Click to expand...

I like this idea, another major religion, but founded on other sources than Islam, maybe it developes with some of the same militant spirit as Islam, and is able to expand with the Turks, and then later converts the Mongols.

Leo Caesius said:

I might add that while a decline of Islam is possible (si indicium requiris, circumspice), making it die out is highly unlikely. I would imagine that any POD after the Islamic conquest would be impossible.

What I'd really like to see is a Nestorian Mongol empire erupting out of Central Asia and subjugating the Middle East, placing irate Nestorian clerics over the populations that have humiliated and oppressed them for a millennium - now that would be cool.

(Yes, I know, all things considered, the Abbasid period was a pretty good time to be a Nestorian. Still...)

Click to expand...

Don't you think Christianity is a bit incompatible with the whole rapacioous horde of horse nomads erupting out of Central Asia?

Also, would Nestorian dogma be compatible with both Orthodox and all the subsects of Monophysite Christianity? Not to mention Catholicism? If history has taught us anything, in religious warfare, Christianity vs. Christianity is the most murderous matchup.

Matt Quinn said:

A POD for the decline of Islam would probably involve the Turks converting to a different faith (some sort of Christianity most likely, though Leo suggested Manicheanism) or the Mongols being less religiously tolerant.

Click to expand...

By the time period in question, Islam is so widespread that its destruction is impossible. Great areas of Africa are Muslim as well as huge swaths of Asia. I don't think even my peeps could reverse this.

Reconquista on steroids

How about a "Reconquista on Steroids" combined with earlier conversion of Mongol / Turks to something else?

Leo Caesius said:

I might add that while a decline of Islam is possible (si indicium requiris, circumspice), making it die out is highly unlikely. I would imagine that any POD after the Islamic conquest would be impossible.

What I'd really like to see is a Nestorian Mongol empire erupting out of Central Asia and subjugating the Middle East, placing irate Nestorian clerics over the populations that have humiliated and oppressed them for a millennium - now that would be cool.

(Yes, I know, all things considered, the Abbasid period was a pretty good time to be a Nestorian. Still...)

Click to expand...

Major religions have died out before such as the Pagan Roman religion.

Don't you think Christianity is a bit incompatible with the whole rapacioous horde of horse nomads erupting out of Central Asia?

Not necessarily - there were a considerable number of Nestorian Christians among the Turks and Mongols, and some of the steppe nomads became Buddhists, which is often seen as the most peaceful major religion.

Paul Spring said:

Don't you think Christianity is a bit incompatible with the whole rapacioous horde of horse nomads erupting out of Central Asia?

Not necessarily - there were a considerable number of Nestorian Christians among the Turks and Mongols, and some of the steppe nomads became Buddhists, which is often seen as the most peaceful major religion.

Click to expand...

Understood, but you're talking about these people ruling over settled Christian populations. I suspect that there might be "minor" differences in ritual and dogma between say, Nestorian Turkish nomads and the Byzantine clergy. Imagine the Eucharist:

"Blessed art thou, Lord, God of all creation. Through thy goodness we have this fermented mare's milk to offer, excreted by an animal and work of really filthy human hands. It will become our spiritual drink."

Ah, John, have you ever read about Karakorum?

"Also, would Nestorian dogma be compatible with both Orthodox and all the
subsects of Monophysite Christianity?"

Nestorian doctrine is actually Athanasian (Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox); it's just that due to translation glitches between Syriac (the Eastern folks' liturgical language) and Latin and Greek (the Western folks' liturgical language) and political issues between the Eastern church (which was largely independent of Rome) and Rome itself, that knowledge has largely been lost until recently. My "Church of the East" book has a photo of John Paul II and the Nestorian/Assyrian Patriarch issuing a join Christological statement.

Monophysitism is where the problem will likely come in. Monophysitism appeared as a reaction to the (perceived) Nestorian division of Christ into a being with two distinctly separate personalities.

Huge religious wars have started over smaller differences than between the Nestorians and the Orthodox church - we're not talking about today, we're speculating about the 11th c. I predict massive bloodshed.

I can show you pictures of the pope meeting with Muslim clerics too - would that have happened in the year 1000 AD?

Matt Quinn said:

"Also, would Nestorian dogma be compatible with both Orthodox and all the
subsects of Monophysite Christianity?"

Nestorian doctrine is actually Athanasian (Catholic-Protestant-Orthodox); it's just that due to translation glitches between Syriac (the Eastern folks' liturgical language) and Latin and Greek (the Western folks' liturgical language) and political issues between the Eastern church (which was largely independent of Rome) and Rome itself, that knowledge has largely been lost until recently. My "Church of the East" book has a photo of John Paul II and the Nestorian/Assyrian Patriarch issuing a join Christological statement.

Monophysitism is where the problem will likely come in. Monophysitism appeared as a reaction to the (perceived) Nestorian division of Christ into a being with two distinctly separate personalities.

Click to expand...

Brilliantlight said:

Major religions have died out before such as the Pagan Roman religion.

Click to expand...

I think the Pagans largely adapted and became superficially "Christianized." My grandparents practiced a religion which had only a nodding acquaintance with Rome.

The idea of the Muslims taking a step back and become Christians is unlikely for that reason. Perhaps if they were given the opportunity to adapt to a Christianized Islam (whatever that would look like) accepting the fealty of the Pope but keeping Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets, they might - but that wouldn't be Christianity in the traditional sense, nor would they have "died out." Even then, scripture-based religions have shown remarkable resilience to dying out.