Challenge: a weaker Islam

rcduggan · Mar 16, 2008

disclaimer: this is not whatI want the world to be like, not at all, I am just wondering.

with a POD after 900, your challenge is to make Islam an extreme minority religion, practised by as few people as possible without ASBs. Bonus points if Islam is considered a (possbily heretical) sect of Christianity ITTL.

Valdemar II · Mar 16, 2008

rcduggan said:
disclaimer: this is not whatI want the world to be like, not at all, I am just wondering.

with a POD after 900, your challenge is to make Islam an extreme minority religion, practised by as few people as possible without ASBs. Bonus points if Islam is considered a (possbily heretical) sect of Christianity ITTL.

1: More succesful Crusades which succed in conquering Egypt.
2: Reconquista continue onto Mahgreb.
3: The Mongol convert to some kind of non-islamic faith and sabotage the Turks rise to power and lieve Persia in ruins.
4: The fall of the mongols in the Middle East is followed by a new wave of crusaders, which destroy the last Middle Easten Muslims states.
5: The Muslim begin to lay weight on all the things Islam and Christianity has in common, and in time Islam is seen as a heretical sect of Christianity

rcduggan · Mar 16, 2008

Valdemar II said:
1: More succesful Crusades which succed in conquering Egypt.
2: Reconquista continue onto Mahgreb.
3: The Mongol convert to some kind of non-islamic faith and sabotage the Turks rise to power and lieve Persia in ruins.
4: The fall of the mongols in the Middle East is followed by a new wave of crusaders, which destroy the last Middle Easten Muslims states.
5: The Muslim begin to lay weight on all the things Islam and Christianity has in common, and in time Islam is seen as a heretical sect of Christianity

interesting idea, but if #5 came to fruition wouldn't that impede any views that Islam is a sect of Christianity?
EDIT: I thought you said "lay waste to all the things..."

now I feel stupid.

AJNolte · Mar 16, 2008

Post-900 your screwed. Islam has already spread to central Asia and (I think?) north India. Best bet is a Nestorian Mongole Khanate which is aggressively anti-Muslim. That's not entirely implausible I suppose. Islamization in the Middle East was kinda spotty (I've seen stats that say that Egypt was anywhere from 30 to 70 percent Christian at this point). So if the Mongol Nestorians moved from Baghdad south into the Arabian peninsula, sacked Mecca, then captured Syria and kept on a-rampagin' through the Middle East...
Maybe. But I doubt they'd get any love from the crusaders or Orthodox Christians (in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the Byzantines at least through in with the Muslims against the Nestorians: the Christians at the time were pretty fratricidal with those they regarded as heritics).

Worst case for Islam: the Nestorians institute a policy of Christian toleration and Muslim persecution in Egypt and Syria. The sack of Mecca would be pretty demoralizing (and might make interesting Islamic theological ramifications since the hajj is a pillar of the faith). If, somehow, the Byzantines could be persuaded to aid the Mongols, you might see them moving toregain some territory in Anetolia. Basically it would still take centuries of constant Christian resurgene to break down Islam.

I actually ran into this problem in my Greater Norman TL. I was going to have exactly the type of scenario you described (just because I thought the effects on Islam would be interesting and the ratricide between Christian groups telling). However, I have had to revise Islam's expectations upward: it's very well entrenched by this period.

some kind of chimp · Mar 16, 2008

IIRC, the invasion of the Muslim Seljuk turks is what invigorated Islam from its decay in the 10th and 11th centuries... it revived Arab-Persian links and the Abbasid caliphate and whatnot.

So if the Seljuks are butterflied away, (better than just having them not be Muslim, because that would still work for the Muslims), Islam's decay will not reverse , and it will get weaker and weaker as Byzantium (strengthened by its retaining of Anatolia) will regain more land at the expense of the Arabs. so maybe as the Caliphal influence waned, and Islam decayed, it would collapse as competing religions gain convert?

Riain · Mar 17, 2008

Islam was pretty well entrenched in the populations of Dar Al Islam by 900, but a series of Christian victories could certainly reduce it's power by a considerable margin. Byzantium peaked a century later, so it's probably not practical to use it as an agent of change. Probably the next opportunity comes with the Crusades/Komnenos revival in the 12 century. With skill and luck by 1200 the Byzantines could control Anatolia again, and be allied with Christian Outremer in Palestine. Perhaps Ethiopia could also begin to expand at the expense of surrounding Islamic states. This military/political success would foster Christianity in the areas they controlled, and possibly see persecution of Christians in neighbouring territories as pretext for war which would foster their survival and growth as well. This isn't going to make Islam a minority religion, but will fragment and weaken it.

Euroman26 · Mar 17, 2008

Isn't there something about Muhammed and his followers driving against Mecca in the 630s? Supposedly the fact is that people inside the city according to Islamic teaching surrendered without a fight? and thereby paving the way for Islam's conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.

What if Muhammed and his followers were prevented from Assimilating Mecca? Resulting in later Abu Sufyan converting to Christianity, and Mecca becoming a hub of Christianity?

Then Islamists wouldn't have had a primary way to justify people converting to Islam and then maybe Islam would have died out in the periode 1000-1200 a.d.

Thats my view. What do You guys say to that?

/Fred

Hashasheen · Mar 17, 2008

Euroman26 said:
Isn't there something about Muhammed and his followers driving against Mecca in the 630s? Supposedly the fact is that people inside the city according to Islamic teaching surrendered without a fight? and thereby paving the way for Islam's conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.

What if Muhammed and his followers were prevented from Assimilating Mecca? Resulting in later Abu Sufyan converting to Christianity, and Mecca becoming a hub of Christianity?

Then Islamists wouldn't have had a primary way to justify people converting to Islam and then maybe Islam would have died out in the periode 1000-1200 a.d.

Thats my view. What do You guys say to that?

/Fred

lol on that

rcduggan · Mar 17, 2008

rcduggan said:
...with a POD after 900...

Euroman26 said:
Isn't there something about Muhammed and his followers driving against Mecca in the 630s? Supposedly the fact is that people inside the city according to Islamic teaching surrendered without a fight? and thereby paving the way for Islam's conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.

What if Muhammed and his followers were prevented from Assimilating Mecca? Resulting in later Abu Sufyan converting to Christianity, and Mecca becoming a hub of Christianity?

Then Islamists wouldn't have had a primary way to justify people converting to Islam and then maybe Islam would have died out in the periode 1000-1200 a.d.

Thats my view. What do You guys say to that?

/Fred

I knew this was going to happen. Read the OP please, I specifically say pre-900.

SeanB · Mar 17, 2008

rcduggan said:
I knew this was going to happen. Read the OP please, I specifically say pre-900.

You mean post-900?

Admiral Canaris · Mar 17, 2008

Is it improbable thinking that the ME might be colonised and the Moslems assimilated?

In any case, removing Moslems from ruling oil-rich areas will weaken the religion considerably, as it won't be nearly as well funded.

Berra · Mar 17, 2008

I about a less reasonable Islam and the consensus was that it would be less sucessful. So throw in a great man just after 900. He is carismatic and gains a power possition but also nuts so he add some really wacky stuff (cannibalism?). Thus a lot less sucessful islam.

Riain · Mar 17, 2008

Following on for my earlier post re. successful Crusades and Byzantine comeback in the 12thC the next round would be when the Portuguese arrive in the Indian Ocean in 1478. Their attacks on Islamic coastal states and shipping break the Islamic stranglehold on trade and wealth in the area, boosting other groups at their expense. It's a long process, but Islam's prospects look bleak as it's competitors gain wealth and power on the back of Christendom's predjudices and military strength.

rcduggan · Mar 17, 2008

HSB said:
You mean post-900?

>.< that's what I meant. Even when pointing out mistakes I make mistakes.

Leo Caesius · Mar 18, 2008

Admiral Canaris said:
In any case, removing Moslems from ruling oil-rich areas will weaken the religion considerably, as it won't be nearly as well funded.

Right, because everyone knows that Islam has been at the apex of its power and influence ever since oil was discovered in that region. Truly this is a golden age for Islam, to which the eras of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Ottomans pale in comparison.

Seriously, since the oil fields weren't even discovered in the region until after 1900, your comment is decidely out of place in this forum, the Before 1900 forum.

Keenir · Mar 18, 2008

Berra said:
I about a less reasonable Islam and the consensus was that it would be less sucessful. So throw in a great man just after 900. He is carismatic and gains a power possition but also nuts so he add some really wacky stuff (cannibalism?).

sounds like a denomination formed by the followers of a charismatic teacher...not that odd.

however, even at the most inclusive, these guys would be on the outskirts of Islam -- the Assassins would be percieved as more mainstream than these cannibals.

Ridwan Asher · Mar 18, 2008

Euroman26 said:
Isn't there something about Muhammed and his followers driving against Mecca in the 630s? Supposedly the fact is that people inside the city according to Islamic teaching surrendered without a fight? and thereby paving the way for Islam's conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.

What if Muhammed and his followers were prevented from Assimilating Mecca? Resulting in later Abu Sufyan converting to Christianity, and Mecca becoming a hub of Christianity?

Then Islamists wouldn't have had a primary way to justify people converting to Islam and then maybe Islam would have died out in the periode 1000-1200 a.d.

Thats my view. What do You guys say to that?

/Fred

Admiral Canaris said:
Is it improbable thinking that the ME might be colonised and the Moslems assimilated?

In any case, removing Moslems from ruling oil-rich areas will weaken the religion considerably, as it won't be nearly as well funded.

Berra said:
I about a less reasonable Islam and the consensus was that it would be less sucessful. So throw in a great man just after 900. He is carismatic and gains a power possition but also nuts so he add some really wacky stuff (cannibalism?). Thus a lot less sucessful islam.

I sense a presence of the very bleak aura of the Dark Force coming all out from these posts....

Admiral Canaris · Mar 18, 2008

Leo Caesius said:
Right, because everyone knows that Islam has been at the apex of its power and influence ever since oil was discovered in that region. Truly this is a golden age for Islam, to which the eras of the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Ottomans pale in comparison.

Seriously, since the oil fields weren't even discovered in the region until after 1900, your comment is decidely out of place in this forum, the Before 1900 forum.

I thought the issue in question was Islam today, just with a POD before 1900. Removing them from power could be such if they were colonised in the 19th century, following a more aggressive imperialism or an earlier collapse ot the Ottoman Empire. If I misunderstood, I apologise.

rcduggan · Mar 18, 2008

Admiral Canaris said:
I thought the issue in question was Islam today, just with a POD before 1900. Removing them from power could be such if they were colonised in the 19th century, following a more aggressive imperialism or an earlier collapse ot the Ottoman Empire. If I misunderstood, I apologise.

majority of Muslim territory was colonized or claimed by a European power in the 19th century. How Christian is Egypt or the Sudan today?

Admiral Canaris · Mar 18, 2008

rcduggan said:
majority of Muslim territory was colonized or claimed by a European power in the 19th century. How Christian is Egypt or the Sudan today?

Egypt was technically independent, with internal self-government; the British ruled it mostly indirectly. Still, I thought not so much of weakening the religion, but its economical basis.