lsrihari1492000
Banned
What if Iran predominantly practised Sunni Islam along with Iraq, and Oman practised Sunni Islam instead of Ibadi Islam, how will this change the middle east
The pod is after 800
The pod is after 800
Is Islam unified or is the Levant, and Egypt still practicing Shia Islam?
That said we can't ignore the effects on India as a different brand of Islam and ruling traditions will be different and interact differently
My ignorance is certainly showing on the subject of IslamOf course at this time, we not only have Shi'i to worry about, but Mu'Tazila which arose as a sect shortly after this, Murji'ah who rebelled in the 700s assisting the Shi'i at Jami'jan, Shi'i and Khawarij being the dominant form of Islam from the deserts of Libya to Morocco before Sunni Islam becomes the majority in Iberia. Islam was far more fractured at this time than it is now.
My ignorance is certainly showing on the subject of Islam
Blame Provincialism. Anyway let's start with the preposition that Islam is unified more or less. Would we see more or less syncretic Islam in Indonesia? I know they were converted By Asian Muslim Trader Populations, do you know where they were mostly coming from?At least you have the interest to reply, most Islamic history topics on here go untouched until someone like I or Falecius chime in.
Blame Provincialism. Anyway let's start with the preposition that Islam is unified more or less. Would we see more or less syncretic Islam in Indonesia? I know they were converted By Asian Muslim Trader Populations, do you know where they were mostly coming from?
Thanks for letting me pick you're brain, Can you explain then why Ethiopia stayed Christian/ the Islamisation of West Africa?These traders were coming from old trade ruotes set by previous Hindu states. The Islamic conquest of India was the catalyst for the conversion of Indonesia. Without India being more or less ruled at parts by Islamic states in the Bengal, Gujarat and later Moqadishu, Kilwa and Zanzibar, the Indonesian people would be a mix of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity.
The religion of India will determine Indonesia or at least the religion of its merchant class which was so pivotal to the states of Aceh and Malacca that they converted as well.
Indonesia will likely not change much, they converted nominally to Sunni Islam and are still so today. The Islamic invasion of India was underway before the 800s and picked up speed in the periods of the Saffarid which led to the Ghaznavid and later states. This is because the Saffarid, then a part of the Abbasid state, quelled the two most important hinderances to Islamic invasion of Pakistan; the Khawarij armies and peasantry of Baluchistan who arose in a rebellion under the famous so called warrior prophet Amr ibn Yusuf, who was cut down by Layth ibn Saffarid. The defeat therein ended Khawarij dominance of the eastern fringes of Islam and opened the gate for full on attacks to the east. As well, the Saffarid destroyed and converted the Zunbil of the Pahstuns co getting them to Islam. Creating the primary warrior class for invasions into India.
Thus butterflying Shi'i and Ibadi areas will have no effect on India and thus the same on Indonesia.
Medieval Islamic history is sometimes a tough field because a lot of folks can't read primary sources in Arabic. (I can't either but I tried to find primary sources in translation where possible.)At least you have the interest to reply, most Islamic history topics on here go untouched until someone like I or Falecius chime in.
Thanks for letting me pick you're brain, Can you explain then why Ethiopia stayed Christian/ the Islamisation of West Africa?
Medieval Islamic history is sometimes a tough field because a lot of folks can't read primary sources in Arabic. (I can't either but I tried to find primary sources in translation where possible.)
With respect to the OP, avoiding Shi'ism in Iraq isn't really feasible after 800 unless you posit some sort of mass religious conversion of a scope that'd almost require ASB. A lot of the roots of Shi'ism being in Iraq is because - and I'm sure John will correct me if I'm wrong - most of Ali's supporters were based in Iraq. You'd have to go way back and start butterflying things in the life of the Prophet to avert a Shia Iraq.
You are very correct. It is very true that the difficulty in primary sources is real. Medieval Islamic history is also, to some/most, very dense and difficult to follow without also having knowledge of Islam in terms of Fiqh. It is as I say, the easier version of the real difficult middle astern subjects; Sumerian, Assyrian, Hittite, Egyptian and Elamite history.
I'd agree with your assessment of Iraq. However I feel it might be possible to need to go before Islam to change it. However, at the minimum you would need to go to the life of Umar to change things, mainly kill Abdullah ibn Saba and change the events of the Riddah wars.
To be fair, that's probably true of most areas without a lot of sources in western European language*. Is stuff like political/economic history still hard without knowledge of fiqh?
*Or areas where the corpus of sources is scanty to begin with; compare say the number of extant sources on the Mameluks with the number of sources on the...what's an area with few sources?
Also, re: Iraq; if you are OK with Iraq not being its own country you could have a Sunni Iran take control of it and now you have a Sunni state governing Iraq with a substantial regional Shia minority.