Arabs take Constantinople, religious issues

Ok. The Arabs take Constantinople in the 7th century. Your challenge is to keep Christianity a viable and numerous religion to the present. It should, of course, be smaller than Islam (well, if you can have it larger, go for it), but it should be a sizable minority.

My best idea so far is to have Islam implode a bit from the rapid expansion, resulting in many more large sects in the religion. This would slow down the military expansion of the Islamic state(s) (I don't know if they could stay politically unified for long with all the different sects). I'd imagine it'd also slow down the conversion of Christians in Islamic territory.

Also, capturing Constantinople would do much to Hellenize Islam, or various sects of it. We could probably go somewhere with that... Faeelin's had images of bells calling the faithful to prayer...

The early fall of constantinople may probably mean that the Balkans will fall too, and that the Bulgars will convert to Islam. This will effectively cut Europe from the Russian plains, and box Christianity into a smallish continent.
OTOH, not all may be lost:
1. the staggering triumph of taking Costantinople may be the start of internecine wars in Islam (succession to the caliphate, eresies, difficulties in handling and converting very large numbers of Christians - and these Christians will not be Monophysites).
2. the downfall of the 2nd Rome may be beneficial (in a way) for the western barbarian kingdoms. The effective link with the past is cut, and there might be less attraction to revive the western empire. If poitiers goes as per OTL (if the Arabs win here, I think the game is over), the Franks might decide to go for an early reconquista of Spain (and possibly the eastern successes might have drawn a number of north-african moslems toward the City).
3. This would allow the Longobard kingdom in Italy to strehgthen up, and to absorb the residual Byzantine possessions in the peninsula. There might be less impulse to naval warfare and piracy, given the ample booty available in anatolia, Greece and the Balkans, and Sicily might stay Christian.
4. The huge number of christians under moslem rule might inspire a pope to call for a veeeery early crusade, although I believe that the demographics and the capacity of projecting power are not with Europe at this stage.
5. The Viking onslaught is very close in time. Where are they going? Toward the east and South, or, as per OTL, mainly against the West?

My best idea so far is to have Islam implode a bit from the rapid expansion, resulting in many more large sects in the religion. This would slow down the military expansion of the Islamic state(s) (I don't know if they could stay politically unified for long with all the different sects). I'd imagine it'd also slow down the conversion of Christians in Islamic territory.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, the opposite appeared to be characteristic of Islam in OTL. Just this morning I was reading the preface to the BundahiÅ¡n (the Zoroastrian account of the creation of the world), which makes reference to the tÄzÄ«gÄn (foreigners, ie. Arabs) who had invaded Iran. The worst thing that the dasturs (Zoroastrian priests) can say about the Arabs is that they sponsored heterodoxy at the expense of orthodoxy, a terrifying thought for a Zoroastrian priest. Under the Sassanians, heterodoxy was ruthlessly opposed. Under Islam, sects proliferated; perhaps at one point there was a crisis of faith, and people turned to Islam, which must have seemed monolithic at the time and had the advantage of being supported by the state. I don't know. The fact of the matter is that there are very few Zoroastrians left in Iran.

The Middle East was already pretty hellenized by the time that Islam appears on the scene; I don't know if the conquest of Constantinople would make a difference in the degree (already quite great) to which Islam was influenced by Greek civilization.

I can certainly imagine political divisions arising in a larger Dar ul-Islam, but religious differences are less easy to predict.

I read somewhere that the main reason for the Conversions was the different taxes on Christians. The Ottomans adopted Khureua" Persian tax system due to it fairness and Simplicity. Have the captured Roman Buearucracy, apply the taxes without the Christian speacial ammounts. No big need to convert.

Well, the reasons for which the conversions occured were complicated. The jizya is probably one of them, as is the fact that Islamic law is stacked towards Muslims regarding witnesses and other important aspects of civil law. Another was intermarriage, which was not uncommon. Furthermore, the Muslims had the power in these countries, and that is a big enough draw for many people. Also, Islam has its own merits as a religion, particularly when it was fresh off the drawing board. There are many good reasons for which people found it so appealing at the time; not all the conversions were made in bad faith.

DuQuense said:

I read somewhere that the main reason for the Conversions was the different taxes on Christians. The Ottomans adopted Khureua" Persian tax system due to it fairness and Simplicity. Have the captured Roman Buearucracy, apply the taxes without the Christian speacial ammounts. No big need to convert.

Click to expand...

The tax rates are set by the Sharia and the Ottomans continued it. Christians converted en masse in the Ottomans domain until Mehmed set up the millet system and granted wide powers to the Patriarchate, giving Ottoman Christians a focal point for their faith. If he had not done this, it is likely that many more Christians would have converted. The Ottomans treatment of Christians was also according to the principles of Islam, but by that period, Ottoman rule was so preferable to Latin or Byzantine rule that people went over to the Ottomans voluntarily - at the time of the Arab seige of Constantinople, this would not be the case and Christian populations would likely put up greater resistance, resulting in harsher treatment and probably far larger numbers of converts to Islam.

I don't see how the Fall of Constantinople to the Arabs can be anything but a giant disaster for Christendom. Without that bulwark, what happens to Russia, the Balkans, even Italy and France?