Alt-Islam WIs: Longer lived Muhammad, Clear Successor named, Ibrahim survives...

I have a few questions which directly correlate and would like the experts on early Islam to help with some input...

1. Being unsure of the average Arab life expectancy at the time of Muhammad's death I am curious as to how much longer the Prophet could have lived. If he had lived the maximum amount of time possible what more could be expected of his life, teachings, and conquests? And...

2. Who would succeed him had he specifically named a Caliph? The effects of Muhammad clearly identifying a successor are large enough, but who was he most likely to pick as his successor and regent to...

3. ...his newborn son Ibrahim had he lived. Obviously no matter how much more time on earth we give the Prophet Muhammad, we could probably not keep him around long enough to have seen his son Ibrahim ibn Muhammad come of age had the child survived infancy. However, if he had lived in good health and Muhammad had survived long enough to appoint him Caliph in waiting under a Caliph Regent successor (who would then adopt Ibrahim upon the Prophet's death), what would the future hold for the boy? A male heir to Muhammad (and legal heir to Muhammad's successor) holds enough butterflies as is, but Ibrahim was also the half Egyptian son of a Coptic Christian concubine to the Prophet, and despite being a Muslim himself, would no doubt have a unique perspective on the relationship between Islam and Christianity.

And if you don't mind a quick bonus question:

4. Muhammad wrote many letters over the course of his life to Middle Eastern leaders entreating them to convert - and many did. What if he had lived to have been even more prolific, softening the perception of Arabs in the eyes of ERE nobility, and even convincing lesser nobles and rulers in the southern ERE to convert?

With an organized and less actively "anti-non Arab" leadership going into the ATL Islamic expansion possible with the questions I've asked above; could an Arab-Byzantine Alliance be formed against Persia and other threats, leading to a peaceful (if bufferless) or "cold war-esque" border between the Muslims and the Eastern Roman Empire allowing for unhindered Arab expansion Westward?

In such a scenario might it be likely that a growing Muslim trend in the population and under-leadership of Byzantium might weaken Eastern Rome against an internal Muslim coup to Islamize Rome, an external cessation of peace between Rome and its nominal Arab allies, or (most interestingly) both?

Thank you all sincerely in advance.
 
1) The average life expectance for early medieval elites wasn't that much different for Antiquity. Muhammad could have admittedly reached seventies if not eighties.

Let's say he reaches 75, more than ten years more than assumed IOTL.
Ridda Wars are unlikely to happen, and would be at least delayed, you would go for a more structurated Rashidun Caliphate in Arabia but maybe less immediatly dynamic towards Byzantium and Perisa as many of first raids were made by marginal elements in search for loot and increasing their tribal or clientele power.

2) Hard to say precisely. Most of what we assume about his life comes from sources writted down at best in IX century, and critically from XII/XIII sources. It's really depending on your interpretation : I would think that a man coming from first converted (as Abu Bakr) would be more likely eventually but that Meccan-issued tribes (as Umayyads) could have a good run eventually.

3) While Ibrahim could admittedly have a special power and influence, I'm not sure Arabic tribal stuructures (even more held by a longer Muhammedan rule) would automatically favour a hereditary sucession to what was more or less a glorified union of tribes under a man, critically when Ibrahim (as you noticed) was the son of a Coptic Egyptians and couldn't count on a matrilinear family or clan support.
Admittedly, he and his line could turn as a symbolical leader, not unlike the Mikado in Japan.

4) Muhammad's rule on Arabia was more superficial more you went far from Western Arabia. More you went eastwards, more it was a more or less ackowledged overlordship.

I don't remember any leader in Middle-East converting due to Muhammad's influence, but admittedlty the only one I can think of now are the ones sent to Heraclius and Perisan emperors. Could you give us some quotes and sources of it?
Now, there were letters sent to Arabic rulers, but critically for Oman and Eastern Arabia, it was more an acknowledged overlordship (not that much different from Persian one, and that was useful to fight it actually).

My two cents on the whole thing.

A longer Muhammad's rule would have meant a more structured Arabia eventually, less prone to fall to tribal/clanic infighting and its religious translations (Sunna/Shia, Shia/Kharidjism, by exemple). It could have meant as well a less dynamic raid and conquest policy, these being more tied up by a more important rule (let's be clear, Muhammedan rule couldn't grow that large it could prevent them to happen, but it would be more likely at least overlooked).

You could avoid much of Ridda Wars by a more graduate and planned integration of Eastern Arabia into a Muhammedan Caliphate, something that would likely lead to a more diverse Arabic politics and eventually a more important hold of eastern Arabic clans and factions.

Would Ibrahim survive and be named as sucessor, it may evolve less into a Muhammedan dynasty effectivly ruling Muslims but more as a religious dynasty having a mikado or pontifical like power (aka not excluding having them meddling with temporal matters).
 
If Muhammad named a successor that was not a descendant of his, then there would be no Shias.

If I remember correctly, Muhammad lived from about 570-632. He could live a little longer, as even before modern medicine some people lived to be significantly older (just not many).
 
1) The average life expectance for early medieval elites wasn't that much different for Antiquity. Muhammad could have admittedly reached seventies if not eighties.

Let's say he reaches 75, more than ten years more than assumed IOTL.
Ridda Wars are unlikely to happen, and would be at least delayed, you would go for a more structurated Rashidun Caliphate in Arabia but maybe less immediatly dynamic towards Byzantium and Perisa as many of first raids were made by marginal elements in search for loot and increasing their tribal or clientele power.

2) Hard to say precisely. Most of what we assume about his life comes from sources writted down at best in IX century, and critically from XII/XIII sources. It's really depending on your interpretation : I would think that a man coming from first converted (as Abu Bakr) would be more likely eventually but that Meccan-issued tribes (as Umayyads) could have a good run eventually.

3) While Ibrahim could admittedly have a special power and influence, I'm not sure Arabic tribal stuructures (even more held by a longer Muhammedan rule) would automatically favour a hereditary sucession to what was more or less a glorified union of tribes under a man, critically when Ibrahim (as you noticed) was the son of a Coptic Egyptians and couldn't count on a matrilinear family or clan support.
Admittedly, he and his line could turn as a symbolical leader, not unlike the Mikado in Japan.

4) Muhammad's rule on Arabia was more superficial more you went far from Western Arabia. More you went eastwards, more it was a more or less ackowledged overlordship.

I don't remember any leader in Middle-East converting due to Muhammad's influence, but admittedlty the only one I can think of now are the ones sent to Heraclius and Perisan emperors. Could you give us some quotes and sources of it?
Now, there were letters sent to Arabic rulers, but critically for Oman and Eastern Arabia, it was more an acknowledged overlordship (not that much different from Persian one, and that was useful to fight it actually).

My two cents on the whole thing.

A longer Muhammad's rule would have meant a more structured Arabia eventually, less prone to fall to tribal/clanic infighting and its religious translations (Sunna/Shia, Shia/Kharidjism, by exemple). It could have meant as well a less dynamic raid and conquest policy, these being more tied up by a more important rule (let's be clear, Muhammedan rule couldn't grow that large it could prevent them to happen, but it would be more likely at least overlooked).

You could avoid much of Ridda Wars by a more graduate and planned integration of Eastern Arabia into a Muhammedan Caliphate, something that would likely lead to a more diverse Arabic politics and eventually a more important hold of eastern Arabic clans and factions.

Would Ibrahim survive and be named as sucessor, it may evolve less into a Muhammedan dynasty effectivly ruling Muslims but more as a religious dynasty having a mikado or pontifical like power (aka not excluding having them meddling with temporal matters).

If Muhammad named a successor that was not a descendant of his, then there would be no Shias.

If I remember correctly, Muhammad lived from about 570-632. He could live a little longer, as even before modern medicine some people lived to be significantly older (just not many).

Sorry to be brief but I'm replying via mobile and in case you don't know, it is quite the hassle.

Firstly, I'd like to sincerely thank you for this first wave of constructive and detailed replies.

To LSCatilina:

You're quite right that the Ridda Wars would have been perhaps permanently delayed. This has the double edge of preventing military distraction and losses for the Muhammaden forces and robbing them of a little more valuable diplomatic and military trial by fire experience.

1.) 75 or 80 is actually a considerable shift from OTL and an excellent beginning to the TL idea I have envisioned. Your language was a bit vague concerning the immediate effects. Can you elaborate on "less immediately dynamic towards Byzantium and Persia"?

2.) I agree with this totally. Umar deserves it nearly as much as Abu Bakr, and had Muhammad picked his successor I agree that it may have worked out rather similar to OTL.

An idea occurred to me, and while it may be hindsight derived from my lack of knowledge, I believe I can justify it based on models provided by Macedonians and Romans before Muhammad and by most "royal families" for centuries after...

With Abu Bakr the most obvious choice as successor but with the survival of his infant son Ibrahim, Muhammad might display a tremendous amount of foresight and produce a line of succession (similar or identical to the line established more organically OTL) and these leaders would serve as Acting Caliph and Regent to Ibrahim until he comes of age. Umar serves as second in command to Abu Bakr, and so on, until Ibrahim is able to accept the mantle of his father's political, religious, and military leadership. In order to appease the various candidates, Ibrahim's future marriages are arranged in advance to the daughters of the men who in OTL became known as the Rightly Guided Caliphs. These men would also legally adopt Ibrahim (who also does not renounce his father's fatherhood) upon his the death of his predecessor, allowing no question as to who will become Caliph once he is a man.

It makes sense on a lot of levels. The most qualified in order rule, with the next most qualified not only taking the mantle, but protecting and teaching Muhammad's heir as they rule. The adoption and prearranged marriages would help deflect whatever doubt about Ibrahim's Coptic mother and her status as a concubine that Muhammad's divinely gifted prophethood and leadership would not. This decision also has the added effect of keeping butterflies under control for a time so that figuring out the next century or two will be slightly easier...

Thoughts?

3.) Good point. Perhaps in his youth and after his death his position is symbolic, but I find it difficult to believe he would not eventually take a far more active role. My thinking here was that after over a decade of being raised by A.) A longer lived Muhammad and B.) an Egyptian Christian concubine who, while certainly a convert, may have still instilled in her son certain views on Christianity in general and Christ in particular; THEN coming of age under the guidance of both Abu Bakr and Umar - Ibrahim would have not only a unique claim to leadership but a unique perspective that other Arabs, even his father, would not have had.

In particular, I can see a great deal of youthful travel and study being permitted, with Ibrahim ibn Muhammad traveling to Egypt, Jerusalem, and perhaps even Constantinople, all the while learning, preaching, and converting future followers to his father's cause. Following his own Hajj, he may even receive his own set of revelations all the while denying that he himself is also a Prophet.

With military and diplomatic training and experience as well as his own religious message to add or clarify to his father's I find it difficult to fathom he would not be a fervently respected and thoroughly effective Caliph.

Following his death, say with no male heirs, however, you might see a different situation entirely. Hopefully he would inherit ttl's Muhammad's foresight in outlining how the Caliph is chosen...


4.) No, I can't link to a source on non Arabs (other than Egyptians) converting because of Muhammad's letters, it was only the Arab leaders I was referencing. However, that comment was directed towards the idea that a longer lived Muhammad might send letters to Persians, Byzantines, etc. later in life. I don't think that's far fetched at all, but I'm not sure as to the plausibility of many of those hypothetical latter day letter campaigns being even moderately successful. Surely some lower level Byzantine leaders or noblemen could be persuaded to convert or even accept Muhammad as a post-Christian prophet and accept his teachings into their household, and even more likely Arab immigrants and traders could spread it to the citizens and peasants of the ERE if the Arabs are not immediately seen as a threat there.


As to your two cents, I'd say you're spot on.

Concerning Muslim expansion: More likely, less likely, or just as likely ttl?

Concerning a possible alliance of convenience ttl between the Arabs and the ERE against the Persians/Sassanids, and that tenuous peace allowing for easier Muslim expansion East and West ( parts of Subsaharan Africa, parts of India, etc.): Probable, Plausible, Possible, Implausible, or Impossible?

And if the above is one of the former three, in your opinion is an eventual internal, external, or mixed conquest of the ERE possible in ttl?

Thanks again.

To Herman: I agree on the schism comment, and thanks for the help on your affirmation of a longer lived Muhammad.
 
1.) 75 or 80 is actually a considerable shift from OTL and an excellent beginning to the TL idea I have envisioned. Your language was a bit vague concerning the immediate effects. Can you elaborate on "less immediately dynamic towards Byzantium and Persia"?

Briefly : I would think the quick raids and attacks on Iraq and Syria could have as motives two linked causes.
First the Ridda Wars allowed some tribes and clanic alliances to gain power and wealth over eastern and central arabic ones. Appetite coming with eating (critically in contect of more persian sided eastern portions), it opened a possibility of improving their base even more by raiding directly Iraq, then Syria.
Then, it was a motivation for tribes and clans that didn't beneficied as well from Ridda Wars (because they were small already or didn't prooved a great enthusiasm) to not be totally depassed by the most important.

A more stable Arabia would have less immediate impetus to go raiding. But we're talking *immediate* here : the Byzantine and Sassanid situation being what it was, it's unlikely that such raids fail to happen and this time, with the possible support of eastern Arabic peoples (that were barren to participate at first).


An idea occurred to me, and while it may be hindsight derived from my lack of knowledge, I believe I can justify it based on models provided by Macedonians and Romans before Muhammad and by most "royal families" for centuries after...
That's a possibility. In this situation, however, it would make Ibrahim more influenced by the "first circle" than being an authority of its own.
Eventually, with unions made with descendents of Ibrahim, it would allow this "circle" to have a better hold at Caliphal sucession or at least, generals having the reality of power.
We could end with Caliphes being in the same position than Andalusian Umayyad in the Late Caliphate : alternance of figureheads with skilled "mentors", "mentors" descendent claiming (thanks to union) Caliphate, and "legitim) strong Caliph wannabe (skilled or not).

THEN coming of age under the guidance of both Abu Bakr and Umar - Ibrahim would have not only a unique claim to leadership but a unique perspective that other Arabs, even his father, would not have had.

I've an hard time seeing the "first circle" so easily loosing its grap, something that would have defenitly mean a great influence of Meccan families (as OTL) that would definitely benefit from a weak or deposed Muhammedan dynasty.
The point about is mother is less that she was a Christian (converted or not) that she didn't bring him an Arabic clanic support he could have used for a personal power.
Eventually, the main difference with Muhammad's rule and Ibrahim's would have he couldn't argue of a divine inspiration himself and the pregnance of clanic features in Arabic society would be too important then to just ignored it and pull a Fatimid.

I'm not saying he's doomed being a figurehead, but he would most certainly have to share his power with "Medinists" if he's lucky. His descendents, while hard to depose because of their Muhammedan's line, could be more easily reduced to figureheads because of inner politics.

4.) No, I can't link to a source on non Arabs (other than Egyptians) converting because of Muhammad's letters, it was only the Arab leaders I was referencing. However, that comment was directed towards the idea that a longer lived Muhammad might send letters to Persians, Byzantines, etc. later in life. I don't think that's far fetched at all, but I'm not sure as to the plausibility of many of those hypothetical latter day letter campaigns being even moderately successful.

"Hello, I'm the current overlord of the puzzle otherwise known as Arabia (it's kinda a work in progress, but it's promising). Submit to my new heretical religion, pretty please, or you'll be doomed".

Sending letters, isn't far-fetched at all. Having rulers seriously considering it, however...In a time where religion is the definitive unifier of society, changing it because a glorified raider confederation told you so... Let's say that what works for an Arab prince grappling with Persian influence isn't going to work with huge empires.

Admittedly, it could raise attention of Byzantines and Persians on Arabia, as they see not a peninsula blighted with a civil war but somewhat organizing itself more stably ITTL, and therefore trying to meddle with this (pulling Ghassinid clientele for Byzzies, by exemple).
A more seriously taken Arabian threat could make wars in Syria more hard for Rashidun (but admittedly, they could count on Eastern Arabian support).

Surely some lower level Byzantine leaders or noblemen could be persuaded to convert or even accept Muhammad as a post-Christian prophet and accept his teachings into their household, and even more likely Arab immigrants and traders could spread it to the citizens and peasants of the ERE if the Arabs are not immediately seen as a threat there.
No, not without conquest. Simply said, religion was one of the base of medieval society, that used it to define itself. There's no reason to make such redefinition without a great change.

Concerning Muslim expansion: More likely, less likely, or just as likely ttl?
Just as likely but different, probably including more people than OTL, meaning more redistribution and more prevalent use of "regular" tactics against Byzantines and Persians.

Concerning a possible alliance of convenience ttl between the Arabs and the ERE against the Persians/Sassanids, and that tenuous peace allowing for easier Muslim expansion East and West ( parts of Subsaharan Africa, parts of India, etc.): Probable, Plausible, Possible, Implausible, or Impossible?
That's a distinct possibility. Persia was really weaker at this time, and if you give enough time to ERE to get its shit in one piece (while Muhammad slowly unify the peninsula), an attack on Syria and Ghassanids may be less sucessful.
I would see, however, an Arab takeover of Egypt and part of Levant as still possible, and Byzantium would be certainly more weary treating with an unified Arabia against Persia in order to preserve a status-quo and not that willing to end with a Persian Empire with a new name (that a Rashidun Caliphate on Persia would eventually be).

So, you may actually end with an Arabian-Byzantine truce, in order to divert Arabs from Syria, but with a Byzantine-Persian tentative to hold Arab back eventually, at least to preserve a Sassanid rump state somewhere.

And if the above is one of the former three, in your opinion is an eventual internal, external, or mixed conquest of the ERE possible in ttl?
It would be probably slightly less possible than OTL and Islamic conquest reduced (critically if directed more early towards Indian Ocean shores), but a conquest of Egypt and part of Syria seems still likely (I would be less sure about North Africa and North Syria at least at medium range)
 
Briefly : I would think the quick raids and attacks on Iraq and Syria could have as motives two linked causes.
First the Ridda Wars allowed some tribes and clanic alliances to gain power and wealth over eastern and central arabic ones. Appetite coming with eating (critically in contect of more persian sided eastern portions), it opened a possibility of improving their base even more by raiding directly Iraq, then Syria.
Then, it was a motivation for tribes and clans that didn't beneficied as well from Ridda Wars (because they were small already or didn't prooved a great enthusiasm) to not be totally depassed by the most important.

A more stable Arabia would have less immediate impetus to go raiding. But we're talking *immediate* here : the Byzantine and Sassanid situation being what it was, it's unlikely that such raids fail to happen and this time, with the possible support of eastern Arabic peoples (that were barren to participate at first).

Interesting. So the level of the raider's success is roughly equal to OTL, but within a slightly delayed time frame...



That's a possibility. In this situation, however, it would make Ibrahim more influenced by the "first circle" than being an authority of its own.

Which would give him the knowledge to strategically outmaneuver them while retaining their loyalty, would it not?


Eventually, with unions made with descendents of Ibrahim, it would allow this "circle" to have a better hold at Caliphal sucession or at least, generals having the reality of power.
We could end with Caliphes being in the same position than Andalusian Umayyad in the Late Caliphate : alternance of figureheads with skilled "mentors", "mentors" descendent claiming (thanks to union) Caliphate, and "legitim) strong Caliph wannabe (skilled or not).

I definitely see that as being the eventual outcome after Ibrahim's death, yes. Of course, if he waits until Ali's death to become Caliph out of respect for the companions, most of that circle is dead and Ibrahim can rule perhaps until the 690's or 700's unopposed, right?

I've an hard time seeing the "first circle" so easily loosing its grap, something that would have defenitly mean a great influence of Meccan families (as OTL) that would definitely benefit from a weak or deposed Muhammedan dynasty.
The point about is mother is less that she was a Christian (converted or not) that she didn't bring him an Arabic clanic support he could have used for a personal power.

Is it not possible that he receives such support from his adoptive fathers Abu Bakr, Umar, Abu Talib, and Ali?


Eventually, the main difference with Muhammad's rule and Ibrahim's would have he couldn't argue of a divine inspiration himself and the pregnance of clanic features in Arabic society would be too important then to just ignored it and pull a Fatimid.

I wouldn't rule out Ibrahim claiming to receive guidance and instruction from Allah. He would be foolish to claim to be infallible or even a Prophet in his own right, but he would also be foolish not to use his bloodline's unique divine conversationalist to his political advantage. Which is not to say he himself would not actually believe he ha receive such guidance, quite the contrary. I think under the circumstances of his upbringing he would believe his discussions with angels and prophets speaking on behalf of Allah were sincere.

I'm not saying he's doomed being a figurehead, but he would most certainly have to share his power with "Medinists" if he's lucky. His descendents, while hard to depose because of their Muhammedan's line, could be more easily reduced to figureheads because of inner politics.

I'm envisioning a cross between a miniature papacy and OTL's Sharif of Mecca. Accurate?

"Hello, I'm the current overlord of the puzzle otherwise known as Arabia (it's kinda a work in progress, but it's promising). Submit to my new heretical religion, pretty please, or you'll be doomed".

Well when you put it that way... Hahaha

Sending letters, isn't far-fetched at all. Having rulers seriously considering it, however...In a time where religion is the definitive unifier of society, changing it because a glorified raider confederation told you so... Let's say that what works for an Arab prince grappling with Persian influence isn't going to work with huge empires.



"The apostle (Muhammad) had sent out some of his companions in different directions to the kings of the Arabs and the non-Arabs inviting them to Islam in the period between al-Hudaybiya and his death... [He] sent... Hatib ibn Abi Balta'ah to al-Muqawqis ruler of Alexandria. He handed over to him the apostle's letter and the Muqawqis gave to the apostle four slave girls, one of whom was Mary (Mariah) mother of Ibrahim the apostle's son..."

- ibn Ishaq


Admittedly, it could raise attention of Byzantines and Persians on Arabia, as they see not a peninsula blighted with a civil war but somewhat organizing itself more stably ITTL, and therefore trying to meddle with this (pulling Ghassinid clientele for Byzzies, by exemple).
A more seriously taken Arabian threat could make wars in Syria more hard for Rashidun (but admittedly, they could count on Eastern Arabian support).

So, it won't hurt them that much in the long run and may actually scare the Byzantines into considering a policy of using the Arabs against the Sassanids?

No, not without conquest. Simply said, religion was one of the base of medieval society, that used it to define itself. There's no reason to make such redefinition without a great change.


Just as likely but different, probably including more people than OTL, meaning more redistribution and more prevalent use of "regular" tactics against Byzantines and Persians.

What effects exactly would that have?

That's a distinct possibility. Persia was really weaker at this time, and if you give enough time to ERE to get its shit in one piece (while Muhammad slowly unify the peninsula), an attack on Syria and Ghassanids may be less sucessful.
I would see, however, an Arab takeover of Egypt and part of Levant as still possible, and Byzantium would be certainly more weary treating with an unified Arabia against Persia in order to preserve a status-quo and not that willing to end with a Persian Empire with a new name (that a Rashidun Caliphate on Persia would eventually be).

Makes sense. Still, with the Sassanids out of the way both the ERE and the Arabs are stronger and hold more controllable territory than either did OTL... I wonder if such a peace, when combined with certain territorial concessions by the ERE to the Arabs, might result in a slower but more effective infiltration by Muslims into a dwindling ERE. By the eighth century an economically dominant Arab empire which circumvented Egyptian invasion while conquering North Africa and stretching east as far as India might be in a good position to take advantage of the growing Muslim Roman population (and a few strategic marriages of lesser descendants of Ibrahim to lesser Byzantine nobles) to overwhelm and take Constantinople far easier than by violating the peace treaty immediately post-Sassanid invasion... Thoughts?

So, you may actually end with an Arabian-Byzantine truce, in order to divert Arabs from Syria, but with a Byzantine-Persian tentative to hold Arab back eventually, at least to preserve a Sassanid rump state somewhere.

Such a rump state would surely be a small and insecure one between Byzantine occupied north, and Arab South Persia. It would be ultimately ineffective as the Arabs would be more powerful and populous there in spite of it being nominally a Byzantine client.

It would be probably slightly less possible than OTL and Islamic conquest reduced (critically if directed more early towards Indian Ocean shores), but a conquest of Egypt and part of Syria seems still likely (I would be less sure about North Africa and North Syria at least at medium range)

If the Arabs hold to the truce after receiving South Persia and parts of the Levant and Syria, including regional dominance in the Byzantine buffer client, they're in a fairly good position to expand eastward, develop a competitive navy, conquer North Africa excluding Egypt using this navy, and comfortably infiltrate the ERE using peaceful means. Once they take Constantinople from without and within during the eighth century they could comfortably fortify eastern holdings, expand northwards, and raid and settle central and Southern Europe at their leisure. It doesn't quite fit OTL's perception of the early Muslim Expansion, but with Ibrahim ibn Muhammad as Caliph, patience could indeed be a valuable virtue... This is quite a lot to consider...
 
Top