Hi. I am just writing a TL about such a scenario (see below).If we imagine a world with no Islam, it is likely that Nestorian Christianity or Zoroastrianism would take its place as major religions in the Middle East. Would these religions be more or less socially and politically conservative than Islam in OTL?
In Zoroastrianism, the political system is just as much set in stone. There must be a Shah-n Shah to receive the Xwarrah (kingly glory) from Ahura Maza or otherwise it means the world is out of balance.I'm talking about by the modern age: i.e. 1700 and later. It seems to me that Islam has difficulty with modernity because a political system has been set in stone by scripture.
In Zoroastrianism, the political system is just as much set in stone. There must be a Shah-n Shah to receive the Xwarrah (kingly glory) from Ahura Maza or otherwise it means the world is out of balance.
IMHO, only Christianity has the potential to be more flexible.
I'm talking about by the modern age: i.e. 1700 and later. It seems to me that Islam has difficulty with modernity because a political system has been set in stone by scripture.
Claims that Zoroastrianism would be set in stone or be conservative forget that Judaism on paper should be extremely conservative and be even more like Wahhabi Islam. And yet Judaism has evolved and become quite liberal (much more liberal than the Christian branches out there) on a number of issues. Iran has given the world quite a few religions, many of which had either been "world religions" at one time or had an opportunity. Zoroastrianism, Zurvanism, Mandaeism, Manichaeism, and Mazdakism, and don't forget that Shi'ia Islam became the power it did because of Iran, and then there is Babism and Baha'i as well.
I see if Zoroastrianism is the religion of the Middle East, how Christianity would react would be important- it is one thing to argue that Islam "copied" things from Judaism and Christianity, but how do you argue against a religion that is older and which Christianity definitely "borrowed" (stole) ideas from. Kind of puts you on the defense when arguing for converts when Zoroastrians AND Jews are saying "Well, that's not original, and that's not what is meant by that text". Also hard for Christians to rile up and justify Crusades when it isn't a wave of a new religion. Judea/Samaria will probably be still full of Jews anyway and some Christians regardless of what Zoroastrian, Christian, or other empire comes along in this ATL; most likely a Zoroastrian/Gnostic/Eastern Orthodox/Jewish amalgamate based in Egypt, which probably incorporates all those religions along with Pharoah worship and some ancient Egyptian cultic beliefs, possibly acknowledging a union of Isis with the Virgin Mary and Horus with Jesus.
It depends purely on the region and its economic factors if history has anything to tell us. Religions don't exist in a static form, rather religions are living breathing traditions that beyond simple recognition are never uniform throughout their history.
It isn't as if an "orthodoxy" is neccesarily possible either. Its easy to take a religion as being more liberal/conservative based off of applying its values as taken to a literal extreme, but this never reflects even radicals and can't be done beyond propoganda.
Take Islam for instance. It is all well and good to say it holds X values through a hadith, but what if you are a Quranist who does not follow the Hadith? Both can be argued to be an orthodoxy, but the values of following 1 as opposed to both can lead to some very radical differences, hence modern Quranist philosophy is at the forefront of Liberalism within Islam.
Circumcision? That is a product of a Hadith following Islam, Quranists viewing it as a desecration of gods perfect form.
The penalty for apostasy as death? Yeah once again, not a Quranist thing.
Homosexuality? Actually sort of unclear from a Quranist pov, the Quran mentioning the sinful homosexuals of Sodom but otherwise mention of homosexuality specifically purely depends on translation of Surat An-Nisa
And this is on the group/philosophical level, nevermind the individual level. Mass religions are so good at surviving because they tend to be quite well written in their stories, being multi-meaning and readable to many personal interpretations. It is for instance a given to many that the serpent in the garden of Eden is Satan because a post-milton culture is looking for (forgive my pun) the devil-in-the-detail. No such reference exists, but it is so entrenched a view that it is now the "orthodoxy" for that tradition of Christianity.
As such, Zoroastrianism vs Islam for being conservative is a loaded question that no more can be honestly answered than is a BLT or Chicken Premier more communist?
"Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.
Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?
But not all Ulema. Quranism is by all means a minority belief, but it does have Ulema and most liberal muslims would find themselves closer to its ideas than say traditional Sunni Islam. The point isn't my saying "well this is the correct interpretation" but that it IS an interpretation. It would be silly not to call it a sect of Islam, it exists, that is all."Quranists" are considered Mu'Tazila or Kufr by all the Ulema regardless of nation and there are numerous Hukm on this.... The denial of the Sunnah in its entirety according to the Ulema is apostasy and takes the person out of the fold of Islam. Plus don't throw Wahabbi this or that at me, near all Ulema agree on this.
outline the full quality of Islam? Whilst I am not arguing any Islamic position, that challenge is vague to the point of not meaning anything... I teach games design but if somebody asked me to outline the full quality of games design, I could only ask them what on earth they could mean by that.Further I urge anyone to outline the full quality of Islam without the Sunnah, for instance what would a Quranist know about its prophet?
The underlined is important. Islam for instance is (scripturally) no more conservative or perscriptive than Christianity, and yet political/economic factors favoured variants of Christianity that were willing to adapt, often to the point of ignoring orthodoxy (lower case) entirely. I would be suprised if this was impossible with Islam, indeed I would argue the mere existance of Quranists (even if they are a minority) shows more flexible readings can and could have existed in the right climate.EDIT: As well, you are right that religions are not static, but some can be more static than others depending on its circumstances and application and actual scripture, Islam is very clear in most issues, except the Hukm of rebelling, takfir, murtad, etc (which is exemplified by the conflict between Al Qaedah, Dawlah, Etc with Saudi and other Sunni regimes).
This whole chain of logic depends on starting off with the Ulema being a source to be relied on. There's no reason Islam has to be that way. The whole Protestant reformation was based on people rejecting the teachings of religious authorities and returning to scripture.
But not all Ulema. Quranism is by all means a minority belief, but it does have Ulema and most liberal muslims would find themselves closer to its ideas than say traditional Sunni Islam. The point isn't my saying "well this is the correct interpretation" but that it IS an interpretation. It would be silly not to call it a sect of Islam, it exists, that is all.
outline the full quality of Islam? Whilst I am not arguing any Islamic position, that challenge is vague to the point of not meaning anything... I teach games design but if somebody asked me to outline the full quality of games design, I could only ask them what on earth they could mean by that.
Specifically to the prophet, I am not a Muslim, but could not a Quranist (remember, a religious belief does not have to be grounded in any particular authority) merely hold that he was a great man but like all humans and prophets, fallible?
The underlined is important. Islam for instance is (scripturally) no more conservative or perscriptive than Christianity, and yet political/economic factors favoured variants of Christianity that were willing to adapt, often to the point of ignoring orthodoxy (lower case) entirely. I would be suprised if this was impossible with Islam, indeed I would argue the mere existance of Quranists (even if they are a minority) shows more flexible readings can and could have existed in the right climate.
Early Islam was incredibly 'liberal' (for the times). Some strains of modern Islam (Wahabism, for instance) are incredibly reactionary.
It depends on cultural environment, far, far more than the label on the religion.
Thus, this is a meaningless question, I'm afraid.
Not quite as clear cut as that. Zoroastrianism was a religion that did not encourage radical evangelism. You could convert, and sometimes it was encouraged, but it lacked the large scale movement to get others to follow their religion. As a result, elements of Ahura Mazda was combined with local beliefs to form Zoroastrian-ish lower echelons of the populations, while the pure religion was normally only practiced by the upper, literate, classes. People who, especially when ruling over other religious territories, had a loose hand and a tolerant attitude.As far as I recall, Zoroastrianism is in theory extremely conservative, because almost everything you do, don't do or could possibly ever think of doing has significance in the cosmic battle between good and evil. Think Infinitely, Act Locally, sort of.
1) Probably through reading the Sunnah, or through conversation with someone who had like the rest of the world? Not accepting a specific thing =/= not reading a text which contains that thing/supporters of that thing use.As in full quality of Islam I ask you how a Quranist in the 8th century would describe Muhammad without the Sunnah(1) or how he would come to the conclusion that the life of the prophet he is following is not important.(2)
Jews would argue that the old testament is just the same in context. It is for instance reasonable to argue that a king of the line of David has the greatest legitimacy by far, and the examples of Moses in particular establish the "proper" judaic society.Well I agree, Islam is equally conservative in many matters (mainly social) to Christianity, however politically Islam is far more conservative and is quite rigid in this since. Unlike Christianity, there is a definite outline for how a state is to be ran, rulings on with deep exceptions and debate on who is a Muslim and who isn't (which requires an Ulema), rulings on when to fight and when not to, distinctions and Hukm on rebellion, the Hadood, Hukm on slavery that is clear cut and is a political matter, Tahaakum, etc...
Of course it is possible to make more liberal Islam there have been many sects of this but all usually lack Ulema support such as Murjia or Mu'Tazila who both held power and rebelled (or ruled) against the Islamic state during the early days of Islam and the later Middle Ages.
Having looked further, I clearly did not understand the Ulema.List me Ulema who support the Quranist movement. As well, Liberal Muslims are not close to Quranists because the Quranists reject the Sunnah which is traditionally (and to Liberal Muslims) Kufr Akbar and takes one out of the deen. A liberal Muslim who commits sin and does not accept aspects of the Sunnah or Quran are not Kufr until they say that whatever they are doing is Halal.
1) Probably through reading the Sunnah, or through conversation with someone who had like the rest of the world? Not accepting a specific thing =/= not reading a text which contains that thing/supporters of that thing use.
2) Why would he have to come to that conclusion? Few Marxists for instance condone everything Marx said/did, but it has no bearing on the message himself. If anything, the prophet not getting everything right compared to the holy text itself is a staple of the Abrahamic tradition, Noah, Abraham and Moses alone had direct revelation just like Muhammad but still messed up on occasion.
Jews would argue that the old testament is just the same in context. It is for instance reasonable to argue that a king of the line of David has the greatest legitimacy by far, and the examples of Moses in particular establish the "proper" judaic society.
Having looked further, I clearly did not understand the Ulema.
My point is you are looking too closely at an orthodox interpretation and not the reality of the situation. People are not always (and indeed rarely) dictating their religious beliefs to an orthodox intepretation of even their own sect. A Muslim is not always going to be a muslim who knows their theology, history, obeys their scripture to the letter etc and indeed rules wouldn't be neccesary if that impossibility were the case.
When I say therefore that Quranism is closer to a "liberal Muslim" than an orthodox interpretation, I am meaning that in their every day practice, behaviour, beliefs and attitudes, they are far closer to Quranist doctrine than Orthodox Sunni Islam.
Lets look for instance at the points I listed above.
Orthodox Islam/Quranism/Liberalism/Conservatism
Homosexuality? Bad/neutral/neutral/Bad
Womens clothing? Restrictions/w.e./w.e./restrictions
Apostasy? Punishable/non-punishable/non-punishable/punishable.
These are merely a few examples, but behaviour that makes one "liberal" is far more compatible with that particular branch of Islam