I forgot to mention who Nejashi was, forgive me lol. Nejashi was the king of Axum during the time of Muhammad who was a Christian who gave the Muhajaroon (Emigrants) asylum from the Quryash, and ruled in favor of the Muslims in court between them and the Quryash sent to bring them back. Muhammad called him just and a pious ruler before Islam or the knowledge of the Shahada reached him, thus he was a Mu'min (believer) without recognizing Muhammad because he followed the Tawheed and did not commit any of the 10 forms of Kufr and ruled by what was law in the Injil (he ruled by Old Testament laws, and thus the laws of Allah).
AHC : Unite Christianity and Islam
- Thread starter GdwnsnHo
- Start date
I forgot to mention who Nejashi was, forgive me lol. Nejashi was the king of Axum during the time of Muhammad who was a Christian who gave the Muhajaroon (Emigrants) asylum from the Quryash, and ruled in favor of the Muslims in court between them and the Quryash sent to bring them back. Muhammad called him just and a pious ruler before Islam or the knowledge of the Shahada reached him, thus he was a Mu'min (believer) without recognizing Muhammad because he followed the Tawheed and did not commit any of the 10 forms of Kufr and ruled by what was law in the Injil (he ruled by Old Testament laws, and thus the laws of Allah).
Takfir is the action of calling someone a disbeliever and outside the fold of Islam. It carries with it a heavy burden and requires verification to proclaim on someone. Any other questions as far as Takfir or any other Islamic terms just ask.
And yea, I tend to do that on alt history. Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and the Khilafah tend to be my areas of interest on this site.
Ah okay! I remember him, I just didn't know his name. Yeah, that makes sense, he certainly did a lot for Islam, though would his case not count as being part of Jahaliyya (ignorance, time before Islam)? Additionally, wouldn't he have to recite the Shahada ("I testify that there is no God but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God") before he died to be a Muslim? If memory recalls, he said something to the effect of 'There is no difference between you and I' in regard to the Muslims, so perhaps that could qualify, but it seems that it would make him a rather unique exception.
Which is frankly great, this conversation has been good to have. My professor isn't usually able to meet with me (our schedules don't line up) to talk about these types of things so it's always nice to be able to talk with someone.
Also, I would like to again clarify that I'm taking only one course on Islam which, though comprehensive, makes me hesitant to make any authoritative statements about the definitions of various words. That said, to clarify a few other terms which might be confusing, Isa is another name for Jesus, Jizya is the religious tax on 'protected people' (Christians, Jews, etc.) within the Islamic state, Ulema are Islamic scholars, and Fatwa are the rulings they make within religious courts, at least to the best of my understanding. John, feel free to correct me on any of these haha.
This would never happen, unless the Byzantines and the Arabs were part of a single, unified state. As long as the Byzantine Empire exists as a separate political entity, it is impossible. Therefore to make this AH timeline work, we need one of two things to happen:
1). The Byzantines conquer the Arabs completely, including Mecca, as well as Persia and the entire Muslim world
2). The Arabs conquer the Byzantines
Of these two options, the first is so unrealistic it's not worth considering. The second, however, did come close to happening, notably in the two Arab sieges of Constantinople in 674 and 717. So let's assume the Arabs conquer Byzantium.
The problem now though is, why wouldn't everyone just convert to Islam? There seems no need to unify Christianity and Islam. Christianity holds that Jesus is God, which is never going to work for Muslims. Islam holds that Muhammad's life and example are a valid source for belief, as well as the Quran, which Christians don't accept since this would undermine the centrality and finality of Jesus and his mission.
Plus, religion never exists in isolation, it's often tied up with ethnic, linguistic and nationalistic identity. So some people will resist the Islamic domination of society by clinging to Christianity. It's human nature.
Ultimately, I think this scenario is simply too far-fetched to work.
Now that that's out of the way though, I commend the OP for suggesting the idea. At a personal level, I think Christianity and Islam do have a lot in common and basically share the same values. Especially Sufi Islam has a lot in common with emphasis on love present in the more positive statements of Jesus. Actually when you start digging into it, you can find that Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism all share a lot in common, as well as other systems like Zoroastrianism. Personally, I subscribe to the belief that all these traditions are actually like local branches of the same tree. Truth is one.
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Whilst I can see where you're coming from, I think from the perspective of the challenge - we need to think of the logic.
If either scenario makes it impossible for the end goal to be met, it should be discarded - so in this case, scenario (2). Leaving scenario (1) - I personally believe that there is a (3) - which involves complex politics that likely ends up with two new incarnations that allow a marriage, etc.
I do think that a partial (1) isn't impossible - just incredibly difficult, and may rely on other non-Muslim factions invading the muslim world, and oppressing muslims to such an extent that the Romans are the best of the bad bunch.
But for a (3) idea.
If we take "The Age of Miracles" for example, we have reached a point there where the Byzantines hold the Black Stone. Holy hell, drastic.
I actually think that (whilst difficult) it wouldn't be impossible to have a Byzantine Caliph, essentially the Islamic version of the Patriarchs, as far as the Byzantines are concerned. Based in a Roman-controlled Mecca or Jerusalem - in fact, I like Jerusalem, and for the first few decades at least, forced under arms to try and spread a less antagonistic form of Islam, which may only succeed within the Empire itself. This would require a stronger, successful, reconquering Roman Empire, so something may have gone very wrong for the Islamic world.
With the Patriarch and the Caliph so close together in Jerusalem, I can't see a world where there isn't at least one generation where they can engage each other in debate, and perhaps seeking to unite the two faiths, because both sides want to save souls from damnation. The Caliph can debate with the Imams, and the Patriarch with the other Patriarchs. Now in a scenario with a Byzantine Caliph, I'd expect a significant number of muslims in the Empire, making the Caliph useful rather than just a toy. In such circumstances, the Judean Heresy (for a name) could become one of the Favoured Heresies, acceptable, but still requires an extra tax.
The key thing is making the Adherents of the Judean Heresy both seperate enough from Christians and Islam that neither side thinks that they favour the other, whilst being seen as benevolent neighbours, rather than Apostate Thugs. Charitable works and good deeds would probably help.
So we could perhaps see a Neo-Arianism with a strong Charity and Samaritan aspect, perhaps a militant arm that focuses on protecting travellers, and probably .
If it becomes the dominant faith (which I think the above characteristics could certainly help with) then after the death of a Caliph, who would be a better leader of this faith than the Emperor? Of course he'd be a good Caliph
If I may ask Bleh and John - if Christianity gives up on the trinity, but still has Jesus as the Son of God - perhaps with some claim that he needed to set the path for Muhammed? - What compromises could be plausibly made on the side of Islam, and which of Islams rules, would Christianity have to adopt, to form the "Judean Heresy" (feel free to imagine you're the Caliph barter/arguing with the Patriarch).
Whilst I can see where you're coming from, I think from the perspective of the challenge - we need to think of the logic.
If either scenario makes it impossible for the end goal to be met, it should be discarded - so in this case, scenario (2). Leaving scenario (1) - I personally believe that there is a (3) - which involves complex politics that likely ends up with two new incarnations that allow a marriage, etc.
I do think that a partial (1) isn't impossible - just incredibly difficult, and may rely on other non-Muslim factions invading the muslim world, and oppressing muslims to such an extent that the Romans are the best of the bad bunch.
But for a (3) idea.
If we take "The Age of Miracles" for example, we have reached a point there where the Byzantines hold the Black Stone. Holy hell, drastic.
I actually think that (whilst difficult) it wouldn't be impossible to have a Byzantine Caliph, essentially the Islamic version of the Patriarchs, as far as the Byzantines are concerned. Based in a Roman-controlled Mecca or Jerusalem - in fact, I like Jerusalem, and for the first few decades at least, forced under arms to try and spread a less antagonistic form of Islam, which may only succeed within the Empire itself. This would require a stronger, successful, reconquering Roman Empire, so something may have gone very wrong for the Islamic world.
With the Patriarch and the Caliph so close together in Jerusalem, I can't see a world where there isn't at least one generation where they can engage each other in debate, and perhaps seeking to unite the two faiths, because both sides want to save souls from damnation. The Caliph can debate with the Imams, and the Patriarch with the other Patriarchs. Now in a scenario with a Byzantine Caliph, I'd expect a significant number of muslims in the Empire, making the Caliph useful rather than just a toy. In such circumstances, the Judean Heresy (for a name) could become one of the Favoured Heresies, acceptable, but still requires an extra tax.
The key thing is making the Adherents of the Judean Heresy both seperate enough from Christians and Islam that neither side thinks that they favour the other, whilst being seen as benevolent neighbours, rather than Apostate Thugs. Charitable works and good deeds would probably help.
So we could perhaps see a Neo-Arianism with a strong Charity and Samaritan aspect, perhaps a militant arm that focuses on protecting travellers, and probably .
If it becomes the dominant faith (which I think the above characteristics could certainly help with) then after the death of a Caliph, who would be a better leader of this faith than the Emperor? Of course he'd be a good Caliph
If I may ask Bleh and John - if Christianity gives up on the trinity, but still has Jesus as the Son of God - perhaps with some claim that he needed to set the path for Muhammed? - What compromises could be plausibly made on the side of Islam, and which of Islams rules, would Christianity have to adopt, to form the "Judean Heresy" (feel free to imagine you're the Caliph barter/arguing with the Patriarch).
Ok, as I've said before, Islam does not make Takfir blindly and requires evidence to make Takfir. The Christians of Byzantium had Takfir made upon them and their blood was made Halal because they committed Shirk (worshipping Jesus) and did not follow Tawheed ul-Uluhiyyah (refer to my previous response on the meanings). The Jews had Takfir made on them because they committed Kufr ul-Istibdal substituting the laws of the Torah with new secular or lesser laws. Avoid these issues and Byzantium could be considered a nation who Jihad upon was not permissible and their blood is Haram. Again however, I have already made these things clear in previous posts. This is an issue that is clear cut, if one has Jahil and is separate from the Ummah yet follows the Tawheed and has the correct Aqeedah then he is Muslim with or without the Shahada.
Of course Nejashi said this, however he was called just and upon the Haqq before this, meaning he was a Mu'min before any knowledge of Islam was given and thus acceptable to Allah regardless of the Shahada. As far as Jahil, the Ulema all agree that Jahil is not just applicable to before Islam but to all times. Thus if a man eats with his left hand, who claims to be a Mu'min, he can claim Jahil saying he did not know the ruling, and it is fine but he is no longer in Jahil after informed correctly. Thus Christian states who do not commit Kufr Akbar in their limbs and tongue or in the heart, rule by their scripture and do not strike the Muslim then this person/state has the exception of Jahil and is still a Mu'min and it is not permissible to wage war against them unless provoked.
One thing I'm curious about is how Arian Christianity would come to be the dominant form of Christianity; I admittedly don't know much about it, but the understanding I had was that it was popular in the fringe of the Western Roman Empire for half a century or so, after which it died out. It seems to me that if the movement gained more momentum, it would come into direct conflict with the Church. Christ's divinity isn't really one of the things that's on the table to discuss.Whilst I can see where you're coming from, I think from the perspective of the challenge - we need to think of the logic.
If either scenario makes it impossible for the end goal to be met, it should be discarded - so in this case, scenario (2). Leaving scenario (1) - I personally believe that there is a (3) - which involves complex politics that likely ends up with two new incarnations that allow a marriage, etc.
I do think that a partial (1) isn't impossible - just incredibly difficult, and may rely on other non-Muslim factions invading the muslim world, and oppressing muslims to such an extent that the Romans are the best of the bad bunch.
But for a (3) idea.
If we take "The Age of Miracles" for example, we have reached a point there where the Byzantines hold the Black Stone. Holy hell, drastic.
I actually think that (whilst difficult) it wouldn't be impossible to have a Byzantine Caliph, essentially the Islamic version of the Patriarchs, as far as the Byzantines are concerned. Based in a Roman-controlled Mecca or Jerusalem - in fact, I like Jerusalem, and for the first few decades at least, forced under arms to try and spread a less antagonistic form of Islam, which may only succeed within the Empire itself. This would require a stronger, successful, reconquering Roman Empire, so something may have gone very wrong for the Islamic world.
With the Patriarch and the Caliph so close together in Jerusalem, I can't see a world where there isn't at least one generation where they can engage each other in debate, and perhaps seeking to unite the two faiths, because both sides want to save souls from damnation. The Caliph can debate with the Imams, and the Patriarch with the other Patriarchs. Now in a scenario with a Byzantine Caliph, I'd expect a significant number of muslims in the Empire, making the Caliph useful rather than just a toy. In such circumstances, the Judean Heresy (for a name) could become one of the Favoured Heresies, acceptable, but still requires an extra tax.
The key thing is making the Adherents of the Judean Heresy both seperate enough from Christians and Islam that neither side thinks that they favour the other, whilst being seen as benevolent neighbours, rather than Apostate Thugs. Charitable works and good deeds would probably help.
So we could perhaps see a Neo-Arianism with a strong Charity and Samaritan aspect, perhaps a militant arm that focuses on protecting travellers, and probably .
If it becomes the dominant faith (which I think the above characteristics could certainly help with) then after the death of a Caliph, who would be a better leader of this faith than the Emperor? Of course he'd be a good Caliph
If I may ask Bleh and John - if Christianity gives up on the trinity, but still has Jesus as the Son of God - perhaps with some claim that he needed to set the path for Muhammed? - What compromises could be plausibly made on the side of Islam, and which of Islams rules, would Christianity have to adopt, to form the "Judean Heresy" (feel free to imagine you're the Caliph barter/arguing with the Patriarch).
But even if this Arian Christianity took hold in Byzantium, as it seems you're suggesting, it wouldn't make a difference if Byzantium waged war on the Caliphate. As John mentioned, if it can be reasonably argued that they don't worship Jesus and that they reject the trinity in favor of God being singular, then it could be argued that there's no case to make jihad against them. However, from a political standpoint, it wouldn't be quite a leap for a Caliph to argue that the presence of such a large state on the Caliphate's borders that rejects Muhammad as the messenger of God and has no trouble going to war to be reason enough to go to war for the good of the community and the safety of the Caliphate.
Now before making jihad against another state, an Islamic state has to first invite them into the fold of Islam. I have no idea what these Arian Byzantines would look like as they would have had 400 years to evolve their non-trinitarian faith, but if they concluded that Muhammad was important enough that he was likely a Prophet then that would be fine. They would need to start implementing Shari'a within their borders and design their state around the spread of Islam. I think you can see the problem here: at this point they would be Muslims and there would be no unification to speak of. Additionally, this would do nothing about the Christians that remained in Western Europe and Central Asia. This is also assuming they accept the invitation into the fold which I feel is hardly likely; those that make up the elite of the empire that constitutes Rome's legacy will certainly not be pleased at the idea of becoming what is essentially a vassal.
And of course, if Byzantium invades the Caliphate then all of this is out the window, especially if they take the Kaaba. Even if it's determined that they count as Muslims beforehand, there are three conditions (which I'm simplifying here) under which it's acceptable to kill other Muslims: if a Muslim commits apostasy, if they commit murder, or if a married Muslim commits adultery. If they waged war against the Caliphate, then they're violating the circumstances under which someone may be killed. What would result would be most Muslims waging jihad against the Byzantine Empire in defense of the community. This jihad would not be reduced by the Byzantines taking the Kaaba either; Islam as a religion was born into jihad in many ways, and from the very start was fighting violent repression, over which God ultimately gave them victory. The Qur'an and hadith have a lot to say on this subject so there wouldn't be much confusion about what to do under these circumstances. The Byzantines would likely have to fight until they subdued the entire Caliphate, something I don't imagine them being likely or able to do, especially since there's a very individual obligation on each Muslim to fight for the community.
For what it's worth, I would also like to specify that there is a rather significant difference between the Caliphs and the Patriarchs. After the death of 'Ali, the fourth Caliph, the Rashidun Caliphate came to an end. This is because 'Ali was the last of the rightly-guided Caliphs who were supposed to protect the interests of the community and be in charge of the spread of Islam after the death of Muhammad. Parallels can certainly be drawn, but really only in the origins of the offices. The position of Caliph, since the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, has always been hotly contested, eventually leading to a civil war which shifted control of the Caliphate away from Mecca to Damascus. This was the beginning of the Umayyad dynasty which is the point in which the Caliphs stopped being rightly guided. Mu'awiyah was the first Caliph of the Umayyad dynasty followed by his son Yazid, who killed Husayn ibn Ali, the grandson of the Prophet, when he refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid. Yazid then went on to kill all his family, including his infant son. To this day, this is considered an incredible tragedy in Shi'i Islam and actors depicting Shemr, the soldier who killed Husayn often have to be protected during reenactments from members of the audience. Sorry for the rambling story, but that should give you an idea of how separated the role of Caliph got from the community.
A little correction, Abu Bakr had no part in the first Fitnah but was started by the Khawarij in their killing of Uthman. Which in turn led to Muawiyyah raising an army to fight the rebels who killed his cousin and Khaliph Uthman. However, Ali ibn Talib told Muawiyyah to stand down as it was his job as the Khaliph to give the perpetrators the punishment they deserved if found, little did Ali know that the killers were amongst his army known at the time as the Haruriyyah who would betray Ali at Siffin, saying the Hakam and arbitration is for Allah alone (because Ali made peace with Muawiyyah, ending the political Fitnah). These Khawarij as they came to be called (they refer to themselves today as Ibadhi or Shurha, which Ibadhi means those upon straightforwardness or without crookedness and Shurha means the buyers referring to the act of selling the Dunya for Jannah) would then murder Ali as he performed Salat in Kufa.
As well, you say removed from the community (Ummah), what do you mean by that?
Also do not forget the vast amount of disunity within the Ummah at the time. First of all the Qurra and their disagreement with Muawiyyah. Muawiyyah told the Qurra to pay the Zakat and to follow the Amir al-Mu'Minin (Caliph) and his authority, and reminded them of the authority that came from the Quryash as the revelation came from them. The Qurra replied with:
"How much you go on about the authority of the Quryash! The Arabs (in Arabic the use of saying Quryash and then referring to his tribe as Arab entails that the Quryash are not true Arabs) were eating from the hilt of their sword while the Quryash were but merchants." "As for the shelter you spoke of, when the shelter is pierced come before us (Meaning we will uproot the Quryash or take the rule for ourselves)." These Qurra would form the base of the Haruriyyah.
As well, arising from the Fitnah was the Sabaites, led by Abdullah ibn Saba who was a Jew from Yemen who embraced Islam at the time of Muhammad. He during the rule of Uthman said that Uthman was a Kaffir because he stole the Khilafah from Ali. He would then go to say that just as all prophets have a Vizier so to did Muhammad and his Vizier was Ali ibn Talib and that Ali possessed a portion of Allah. When Ali became caliph, Abdullah ibn Saba said "Thou art Thou" breaking Tawheed Asma was Sifaat, giving an attribute of Allah to a man. When Ali was killed Saba then proclaimed that Ali was not dead and would come again to fill the Earth with the Haqq.
Sorry for ranting a bit lol
GdwnsnHo
Banned
Right - I can only take from this that Islam would be too obstinate for even a Caliph. Fair enough, and makes this seem a bit of a lost cause, sadly. I was somewhat hoping for there to be some leeway that could be achieved. Hence the ideas of Heresies that would make things more plausible.
Sadly, it does sound like without a willingness or a heresy that disregards "Kufr ul-Istibdal", or sees it as permissible if Sharia isn't violated (or at least that heresies version of it).
I was being purposely vague with the idea of a Neo-Arianism, essentially taking the extinct idea, and promoting it afresh, with new arguments, and new ideas attached to it, ideas that could lead to a union, or at least move in that direction. The mechanics of how I'm not going to specify, because understanding what would be needed, is crucial to architect a way to make it possible. There were a number of Arian Emperors, but I'd primarily rely on a new resurgent doctrine, spread by very persuasive priests - perhaps mixed with some opportune politics.
It depends on timing. If they are Nicean at the time they fight a war against Muslims or the Caliphate (the latter may have fallen apart at this point, or be divided - the most sensible time to invade) and then afterwards, with Egypt, Jerusalem, et. al. taken, then circumstances are different. Otherwise you're just looking at basic Geopolitics, with one of the players happening to be the Caliph.
Sadly, I think the confusion with my suggestion of Neo-Arianism is in play here. Apologies, I'll try to be more explicit with the concept. I don't mean Arianism pre-Nicean, I mean a re-emergent doctrine based on the original Arian doctrine.
You're entirely right though, if those are the conditions, then I can't see it ever working - we already have a scenario where Christianity as it was at the rise of Islam has undergone a drastic change that makes it more amiable, but with Islam not changing a bit, it wouldn't work. That much is abundantly clear. Hence the idea of having a heresy where Sharia may be more lenient, or more Christian rather than Islamic, and no focus on the apparatus of the state being about spreading, then we're a good way there.
What if the war was a defensive one on the behalf of the Romans? A particularly zealotic Caliph makes the wrong call, and loses the war. Badly. So badly that Mecca itself is taken. Now this is probably in circumstances when the Romans are Nicene, or Arian, not muslim. So the rules probably aren't going to apply.
Oh, I am VASTLY aware that the roles are different in a typical scenario - hence why I said as far as the Byzantines are concerned. They're "False Caliph", or "Byzantine Caliph" would not be accepted, not without a lot of time, effort, and argument, and possibly blood. Your story does make it appear to be no more than an interesting political title, but perhaps with more clout than an Emir, or Imam (Yes, I know they are totally different titles for different things, don't worry about that). It is that distinct politicisation that I'd expect a savvy Emperor to exploit. If the "Byzantine Caliph" can build a persuasive community - then that could very well help the cause of a unification of the faiths, if the Heresy that he leads, is well led, has a pious (if heretical) leader, but is still Muslim. Essentially playing the same role for the Muslim community within the Roman Empire, as the Patriarch of Constantinople did for the Greek (or was meant to) under the Ottomans.
Well from the standpoint of Fiqh the Caliph is obligatory and it is a clear cut issue in regards to Shariah. But from a secular and historical standpoint the title of Caliph in the times of both Abbassid, Rashidun and Umayyad were highly unstable due to religious instability and the constant checking of the Caliph's Aqeedah and making sure he was following the 3-4 forms of Tawheed and were not committing the Kufr. This is the reason I say the Ottomans were the greatest of the Islamic states in its keeping of authority and ability at keeping stability all the while waging Jihad on the Europeans/Rum and against the sectarian Safaviyya.
There is a form or sect that does not distinguish Istibdal though. This group is called the Murji'ah, they say that Takfir cannot be made because it is impossible to pull ones heart out and check his Aqeedah. Thus they do not believe that anyone can make Takfir unless one says definitively that he does not believe in Allah or says he worships this that it another rather than Allah. Perhaps a more radical Murji'ah would fill this role, however it would be near impossible to have them dominate the Ummah or Ulema at any point....