Alternate Islamic schisms

Inspired by an earlier thread, the point is to think up scenarios where there are alternate Islamic sects.
If you want a challenge, you have to think of a PoD where there is a sect of Islam that is anti-Arab.
 
Well, using a PoD I'm familiar with, if the Byzantines lose their war with the Sassanians in 628 and subsequently got through the same decline that the Sassanians did IOTL, I do not think they'd be a problem for the Arabs to conquer.

It would be relatively easy for the Arabs to convert the Greeks to Islam with such an early PoD (1000 + years for conversion). Once converted, I can easily see the Muslim Greeks exerting an immense cultural pull over the rest of the world, similar to how the Persians and Persianates did IOTL. They'd probably schism off from mainstream Islam because of their linguistic, cultural, ethnic, geographic et cetera differences. Seeing as their closer to Europe and were already more scientifically advanced to start with, they'd probably be much more scientific and forward-minded too.
 
Well, using a PoD I'm familiar with, if the Byzantines lose their war with the Sassanians in 628 and subsequently got through the same decline that the Sassanians did IOTL, I do not think they'd be a problem for the Arabs to conquer.

It would be relatively easy for the Arabs to convert the Greeks to Islam with such an early PoD (1000 + years for conversion). Once converted, I can easily see the Muslim Greeks exerting an immense cultural pull over the rest of the world, similar to how the Persians and Persianates did IOTL. They'd probably schism off from mainstream Islam because of their linguistic, cultural, ethnic, geographic et cetera differences. Seeing as their closer to Europe and were already more scientifically advanced to start with, they'd probably be much more scientific and forward-minded too.

I'd they'd also pull the old ''Virtuos pagans'' routine when dealing with the ancient greeks.
 
Well, using a PoD I'm familiar with, if the Byzantines lose their war with the Sassanians in 628 and subsequently got through the same decline that the Sassanians did IOTL, I do not think they'd be a problem for the Arabs to conquer.

It would be relatively easy for the Arabs to convert the Greeks to Islam with such an early PoD (1000 + years for conversion).

And of course, rebellions will have no effect.

Once converted, I can easily see the Muslim Greeks exerting an immense cultural pull over the rest of the world, similar to how the Persians and Persianates did IOTL. They'd probably schism off from mainstream Islam because of their linguistic, cultural, ethnic, geographic et cetera differences. Seeing as their closer to Europe and were already more scientifically advanced to start with, they'd probably be much more scientific and forward-minded too.

Why would they schism off from Islam any more than Iran - which was mostly Sunni for most of OTL - did?

Orthdoxy (small o but you can't see it) is not dependent on homogeneity among the peoples following it.

And more scientifically advanced than who? More forward minded than who?
 
And of course, rebellions will have no effect.

Over the course of nearly 1500 years, they will be as Islamic as Lebanon, at minimum.

Why would they schism off from Islam any more than Iran - which was mostly Sunni for most of OTL - did?

Number one, for geography. The Azeri region, of modern Iran and Azerbaijan, as well as Tabaristan both had high Shi'ite population (Because of the Alavids, a Shi'ite dynasty). Its no coincidence they were the hardest to reach for the Arabs, to re-sunnify.

Orthdoxy (small o but you can't see it) is not dependent on homogeneity among the peoples following it.

Fair point.

And more scientifically advanced than who? More forward minded than who?

Then the rest of Europe (But I don't what that has to do with anything).

////////////////////////////////////////////
 
////////////////////////////////////////////

1) Again, rebellions will have no effect? :rolleyes: And what about Armenia (as an example of an area ruled over by nonChristians without being converted)?

Why are we assuming that this area is definitely controlled by Muslims for so long?

2) Again, Iran has largely been Sunni. There has to be a better reason than geography for people deciding to adopt a contrary view - sure, it's possible that they might - but its equally possible that this interferes with maintaining control.

3) ----

4) Me neither.
 

ShlomoLen

Banned
If Islam extended itself for longer - let's say, ranging from the Mexico all the way to Japan - as early as 900 AD, then more schisms could be possible.
 
@ Elfwine Of course rebellions will factor in, and maybe a reason for the Schism. For example, let's say that there is a lot of rebellion in Greece (Or Rum as it would be called by Arabs) so the Rashiduns/Umayyad/who ever decide to finance Sufi missionary activity in Rum. The Sufis use syncretism to win over the population (Perhaps they put emphasis on the virgin Mary and go easy on the Alcohal ban) similar to what happened in Albania. Now that they have caused a divide, as they move further away from Sunnism, they differ on other opinions, such as that prayers can be said in any language and that they do not need to pray towards Mecca, only to the nearest holy place.
Thus we have a Schism in place, all in Greece alone.
 
Here's an idea. Many Indonesians and Malaysians practice a quasi-mystical, Hindu/Buddhist inspired version of Islam. Perhaps you could get a formal schism at some point in the past, after a military or theological dispute. They're very different already IOTL - all we need is the formal schism.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
1) Again, rebellions will have no effect? :rolleyes: And what about Armenia (as an example of an area ruled over by nonChristians without being converted)?
Again, 1500 years of Muslim rule will have no effect? Every ex-Roman territory captured by the Arabs is now Muslim, even Egypt and Northern Africa, which were some of the earliest places to become Christian in the first place. Rebellions would have an effect in the short term, but would inevitably be quashed. Constantinople + Greece are two jewels the Muslims would never want to lose. Greece is no Spain and doesn't have the problems associated with it (being on the extremities of the Muslim world, no racial tension in the conquering classes et cetera), so a Reconquista is not likely.

Why are we assuming that this area is definitely controlled by Muslims for so long?
Why not? It seems likely. After all, most of the other territories conquered by the early Caliphates stayed Muslim. With the ERE out of the picture, their only serious regional rival is the Kingdom of Hungary. The Arabs aren't weak. They're not going to grab the Queen of Cities and her hinterland and just let it slip from their grasp permanently.

2) Again, Iran has largely been Sunni. There has to be a better reason than geography for people deciding to adopt a contrary view - sure, it's possible that they might - but its equally possible that this interferes with maintaining control.
Well. You've got the fact that Greece would be in constant contact with the Europeans, they'd be kept in wind of European ideas and ideologies that would certainly influence them. You've got the fact that the Greeks have a very distinct culture and language, which would accelerate anti-Arab sentiments to that (or even further) of the Persians pre-Shu'ubiyya. Yes, you do have the geographic split. You've got the differences in attitude towards various things (the attitudes towards women, towards food and drink et cetera).

I'm not saying a Muslim Greece will definitely schism, I'm saying I see it as a likely scenario.
 
1) Again, rebellions will have no effect? :rolleyes: And what about Armenia (as an example of an area ruled over by nonChristians without being converted)?
Armenia spent a lot of time bouncing back and forth between Muslims, Byzantines, and various local Christian dynasties until the 1300s/1400s and maybe even later, though, and was very often not under any one power's firm control. I rather have the impression that any muslim power capable of controlling Constantinople is going to be rather less tenuous, although I could well imagine it being politically independent. That doesn't mean that it will definitely not Islamize, of course, but it does mean that it would likely need to be not as firmly held by whoever's holding the territory to not islamize I suspect.
 
@ Elfwine Of course rebellions will factor in, and maybe a reason for the Schism. For example, let's say that there is a lot of rebellion in Greece (Or Rum as it would be called by Arabs) so the Rashiduns/Umayyad/who ever decide to finance Sufi missionary activity in Rum. The Sufis use syncretism to win over the population (Perhaps they put emphasis on the virgin Mary and go easy on the Alcohal ban) similar to what happened in Albania. Now that they have caused a divide, as they move further away from Sunnism, they differ on other opinions, such as that prayers can be said in any language and that they do not need to pray towards Mecca, only to the nearest holy place.
Thus we have a Schism in place, all in Greece alone.

Perhaps we remember how rebellions do not want to be Muslim and do not want to be Muslim subjects.

Sending Sufis is not going to change that.

God-Eater of the Marshes
1) There won't be 1500 years of Muslim rule, that's my point. (especially since "up to the present" is short of 1400, even assuming a Muslim conquest here as fast as the OTL conquest of Iran).

2) Why so? Anatolia (FYI Rum is from Persian, not sure what the Muslim world will be for East Rome TTL) and the Balkans are more heavily settled than the areas that fell OTL.

And again: Rebellion. The odds that the Byzantines will just happily submit and that any possible rebellion will be crushed needs at least some attempt at addressing how and why, not "North Africa and Egypt are still Muslim".

The Caliphate is overstretched, and regional powers breaking away is too easy.

3) And I'm saying that none of that is translating into schism material unless there's a religious (or political)basis. Just being a different culture than Arabia does not equal a schism.

Roger II: Its still a set of conditions where all the pressure that was placed on the Armenians did nothing to change their faith.
 

Kosta

Banned
A problem I see in regards to differences between Rome and Persia is religion. In Persia, Zoroastrianism had splintered between the imperial cult, Mazdakianism, Zurvanism, and Christians and Manichaens. Islam, like it did in Bosnia, was able to fill the vacuum left when there were competing factions and a fed-up and apathetic peasantry. By the 7-800s when the Caliphate would be ready to annex Rome, you're late enough so that the areas that are now Diaphysite are Diaphysite and Monophysite are Monophysite, but early enough so that Iconoclasm is not tearing the Empire apart. The religion is firmly entrenched in Roman territory, whereas in Persia, it was shaky at best. Islam will have a much harder time converting Greeks, Thracians, and everyone else inside the Empire.

And that's not even counting ambitious generals in the periphery who might declare themselves emperor.
 
Iran, while already having a large Shia (which resembled more the current Ahli-haq tradition than modern Shiaism minority), was mosTly forcefully converted Shiaism by the Safavids in the 14th and 15th centuries. There would be no reason for any ATL Greek Muslim state to be anything other than Sunni unless you get some type of esoteric Islamic cult (like the Safavids) to forcefully convert the Greeks. FYI, OTL Greek Muslims from the Pontus are Sunni.
 
Top