AHC: Islamic World

Could the Aztecs be "people of the book"? That's a huge question. After all, the Qur'anic limitation of "people of the book" to Christianity and Judaism eventually extended to Zoroastrianism as Islam entered Iran. Categorical religious protections shifted as Islam spread.

The difference is that Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic belief system, is related to the historical evolution of the Abrahamic traditions before the advent of Islam. This is untrue of the polytheistic Aztec religion.
 
You're reading me wrong on this one. I do not presume that either side will simply give up regardless of who is victorious at Los Navas. I also do not presume to glamorize Christian Iberia. Often, Christians were more prosperous and certainly Jews were safer under North African Muslim rule than later Christian rule. Christian injustices towards Iberian Muslims and Jews amply predate the 16th century Inquisition. It is noteworthy to know that the Islamic forces' desire for land and power consolidation was probably just as strong as the crusade called for by Pope Innocent.

I will say, however, that the Almohads had just as much internal dissent as Castile, Navarre, and Aragon. Towards the middle of the reconquista period, and certainly in the Granadan period, there was a feudal political system developing in Islamic southern Iberia. Rival North African tribal groups swept in and out of the remaining Islamic holdings and established fiefdoms. Would the Christian kingdoms have been able to exploit the developing Islamic political turmoil if they lost at Los Navas? Perhaps not. Still, 13th to late 15th c. North African rule of southern Iberia was marked by succession struggles and frequent disputes over land. In some respects, in OTL the Christians were lucky to capitalize on Islamic political turmoil. Christians might not have been as fortunate if the winds of Islamic Iberian political change were not at their backs.

Would the developing Islamic political turmoil have happened if things had gone differently? Would the Christian kingdoms be able to do much more than at least temporally give up (and possibly more than that depending on how successful the Muslims are) with a victory for the Muslims?

This (my critical observation/complaint) isn't about glorifying the Christians as in the right but as invincible.

I do not know if Granada would have tried to conquer the New World. I will say, that in OTL Granada was not in the position to sail west in the 15th century. Years of political infighting had greatly weakened their ability to mount a cohesive exploration effort. If Islamic forces were able to maintain a cohesive Al-Andalus through the 15th century, then perhaps explorations could be made to the west. Regardless, these explorations would likely involve Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. It is not entirely accurate to think that a New World exploration would be a uniformly Muslim effort, or presume that a Muslim exploration would yield an Islamic Mexico and Central America. The religious pluralism of North African Iberia complicates a facile correlation of "Muslim" and "New World".
The religious pluralism does not mean that Muslims were not a not insignificant part of the population and thus likely to be more dominant than the Christians and Jews. Perhaps not an exclusively Muslim New World, if the *Americas were taken, but certainly it is entirely possible for it to be heavily Islamic.

Could the Aztecs be "people of the book"? That's a huge question. After all, the Qur'anic limitation of "people of the book" to Christianity and Judaism eventually extended to Zoroastrianism as Islam entered Iran. Categorical religious protections shifted as Islam spread.
Wendell beat me to it.
 
I do not know if Granada would have tried to conquer the New World. I will say, that in OTL Granada was not in the position to sail west in the 15th century. Years of political infighting had greatly weakened their ability to mount a cohesive exploration effort. If Islamic forces were able to maintain a cohesive Al-Andalus through the 15th century, then perhaps explorations could be made to the west. Regardless, these explorations would likely involve Christians and Jews as well as Muslims. It is not entirely accurate to think that a New World exploration would be a uniformly Muslim effort, or presume that a Muslim exploration would yield an Islamic Mexico and Central America. The religious pluralism of North African Iberia complicates a facile correlation of "Muslim" and "New World".

What makes me leery of presuming "Granadans sail west" is that in OTL the Iberian (and especially Portuguese) sailing efforts were the products of the combination of North Atlantic and Mediterranean sailing traditions. Could Muslim Spain get as much information and trade out of the Christians?
 
The difference is that Zoroastrianism, a monotheistic belief system, is related to the historical evolution of the Abrahamic traditions before the advent of Islam. This is untrue of the polytheistic Aztec religion.

Zoroastrianism (at least in its Achaemenid incarnation) was henotheistic, not monotheistic. There was a main god, Ahura Mazda, but also a lesser pantheon.

Achaemenid Zoroastrianism is roughly contemporaneous with the Babylonian exilic redaction of the Deuteronomic History in Hebrew Bible (early 6 c. BCE or so). There might be vague thematic and ritual similarities between Zoroastrian tradition and Judaism, especially since the Achaemenids conquered Israel. Nevertheless, there no strong textual relationship between the Zoroastrian/Parsee traditions and the Hebrew Bible. By extension, there is little relationship with the other Abrahamic scriptures.

I'd say that that the extension of "Book" status to the Zoroastrians of Iran was more a juridical decision than a face-value reading of the Qur'an. The Berber or Ottoman classification of Christian and Jewish communities as dhimmi was much more congruent with a sola scriptura understanding of the Qur'an.
 
Zoroastrianism (at least in its Achaemenid incarnation) was henotheistic, not monotheistic. There was a main god, Ahura Mazda, but also a lesser pantheon.

Achaemenid Zoroastrianism is roughly contemporaneous with the Babylonian exilic redaction of the Deuteronomic History in Hebrew Bible (early 6 c. BCE or so). There might be vague thematic and ritual similarities between Zoroastrian tradition and Judaism, especially since the Achaemenids conquered Israel. Nevertheless, there no strong textual relationship between the Zoroastrian/Parsee traditions and the Hebrew Bible. By extension, there is little relationship with the other Abrahamic scriptures.

I'd say that that the extension of "Book" status to the Zoroastrians of Iran was more a juridical decision than a face-value reading of the Qur'an. The Berber or Ottoman classification of Christian and Jewish communities as dhimmi was much more congruent with a sola scriptura understanding of the Qur'an.
Granted, to an extent, but consider also the Islamic appropriation of Persian civilization and the respect that would likely then exist for its preexisting theology.
 
No earlier than 1000 AD? That's more than somewhat difficult as by that point Muslim political power and weight of demographic and political geography was shifting east. A POD in the eighth century that sees the disintegration of the ERE and Muslim expansion into the Balkans in a period when Muslim armies were entirely the superior to anything north of the Bosphorus would be most likely to assure that.

Though Euro-Islam would differ as much from its Middle Eastern counterpart as Euro-Christianity does from Middle Eastern Christianity.
 
Though Euro-Islam would differ as much from its Middle Eastern counterpart as Euro-Christianity does from Middle Eastern Christianity.

Probably would be different, but that seems a poor analogy, since Euro-Islam wouldn't be spending a millenium and a half seperated from the rest of Islam by being under the rule of an alien religion...

Bruce
 
Though Euro-Islam would differ as much from its Middle Eastern counterpart as Euro-Christianity does from Middle Eastern Christianity.

Yes and no. Mucch of this difference in our timeline emerged as a result of the loss of the Levant and North Africa by European Christian regimes to Arab Muslim ones.
 
Top