Arabs never beat Byzantines: Islamic Philosophy?

Inspired by my thread of medieval universities, this is a similar question, but in a different direction: Assume thay the Roman Empire never loses any serious territory to the Arabs unified under Islam, though the Caliphate still takes out the Sassanids, and does its thing in Asia. In this scenario, the general corpus of Greek Philosophy is never as broadly disseminated throughout the Islamic world, and the Arabs don’t have much of an argument that they’re the just as much heirs of Greco-Roman Antiquity as the Byzantines are. I’m sure there would be some cross-cultural pollination, but not nearly as much as we got, historically.

So, how might philosophy in the Islamic world develop?
 
because expansion to byzantine is halted and expansion to east is continue and more than OTL, Islamic philosophy either will be based on Persian or Indian.
 
Inspired by my thread of medieval universities, this is a similar question, but in a different direction: Assume thay the Roman Empire never loses any serious territory to the Arabs unified under Islam, though the Caliphate still takes out the Sassanids, and does its thing in Asia. In this scenario, the general corpus of Greek Philosophy is never as broadly disseminated throughout the Islamic world, and the Arabs don’t have much of an argument that they’re the just as much heirs of Greco-Roman Antiquity as the Byzantines are. I’m sure there would be some cross-cultural pollination, but not nearly as much as we got, historically.

So, how might philosophy in the Islamic world develop?

Well, for starters, the Mu'tazila school of rationalist philosophy is gone, as their whole thing was blending Aristotelianism (much of Aristotle is saved by folks like Ibn Rushd, who you might know from Western history as Averroes or "the Great Commentator" that influenced luminaries like Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas with his harmonization of faith and rationality) and Neo-Platonism into Islam. The Ash'ari school (which became the dominant school of philosophy after the purging of the Mu'tazilas) that took a middle road between Mu'tazila rationalism and Athari pure textualism emerges in reaction to the Mu'tazila, so they're gone as well.


Moving away from Sunni Islam, many of the ideas of the Mu'tazila become part of the Twelver Shi'a canon (the Mu'tazila had warm relations with the various developing schools of Shi'i thought - most of their ideological disputes were against more tradionalist members of their own sect.) I'd even go as far as to say that the dominant Usuli school of theology in Twelver Islam is simply a heterodox brand of Mu'tazilism...which butterflies that away as well. Ismaili Shi'ism as we know it is entirely gone without the introduction of Neoplatonist thought into Islam. If exposure to the Mu'tazila, the teachings of the Desert Fathers (who were widely admired by Muslim scholars from a variety of sects for their philosophical leanings), and other Christian mystics doesn't happen, Sufism is also very different.


To answer your question: without curious Muslim scholars reading/studying libraries and libraries of Greek philosophy like OTL, essentially every major existing school and sub-school of Islam is unrecognizable. Honestly, the scale of this change is so big that I'm having trouble thinking of where the young faith will get its direction from, but a more Zoroastrian Islam seems very possible (maybe even ending up with something like an Islamic version of Babak Khorramdin's heterodox millenarian Mazdakianism.)
 
Last edited:
Very, Very good post, GoulashComrade. It's a rare and pleasing thing to find such an erudite post on this subject.

I agree that the scenario the OP describes would mean Islam as we know it does not exist. The path of Islamic history (let alone world history) would be so drastically changed by this scenario that it is in effect an entirely different and unrecognizable world. Things are so changed that saying anything meaningful is likely impossible.

Perhaps the best way to explain why is to recommend some books:

1. No God but God by Reza Aslan
2. The first Muslim by Lesley Hazleton
3. Heaven on earth: A journey through Sharia law by Sadakat Kadri
4. Misquoting Muhammad by Jonathan Brown
5. Iran: empire of the mind by Michael Axworthy
6. A history of the world through Islamic eyes by Tamim Ansary

Another problem is that there were deep reasons why the Byzantines did lose the areas they did, including ethnic, religious and cultural factors. I find the scenario highly unlikely for that reason. Why would the Byzantine frontier magically hold, while Persia falls? If anything, the other way round is perhaps more likely, since Palestine and Syria are a good deal closer and easier to reach from the Hijaz than Persia is...
 
Last edited:
@GoulashComrade In what ways do you conceive of the Mu’Tazila to be that similar to the Twelver? There is certainly some sort of link and congruent beliefs, such as tahreef (changing of the Quran within Shi’i thought) and views regarding the validity of the Quran and certain points of reasoning through issues.

The Mu’Tazila for instance are totally separate from much of the Shi’i practices of the Twelver, including the rejection (rawafidh) of the Sahaba excluding some who say 3,4 or 7 who remained loyal to Ahl ul-Bayt.

Mind you, I may agree with you, simply seeking confirmation.
 
@GoulashComrade In what ways do you conceive of the Mu’Tazila to be that similar to the Twelver? There is certainly some sort of link and congruent beliefs, such as tahreef (changing of the Quran within Shi’i thought) and views regarding the validity of the Quran and certain points of reasoning through issues.

The Mu’Tazila for instance are totally separate from much of the Shi’i practices of the Twelver, including the rejection (rawafidh) of the Sahaba excluding some who say 3,4 or 7 who remained loyal to Ahl ul-Bayt.

Mind you, I may agree with you, simply seeking confirmation.



You're very right that the imami portions of Shi'i thought are still rejected entirely by the Mu'tazila, who remain a Sunni school despite their splitting from the mainstream of the Ummah. However, they share identical opinions on many important items because of cross-pollination between their scholars during the period of Mu'tazila ascendance in the Abbasid era, such as:

  • The nature of the Attributes of God (the famous "if God says he has a hand in the Qur'an, how are we to understand that" arguments) within the Divine Essence
  • Whether or not the Quran is created (since the Mu'tazila and Twelver Shi'as both held that if God is First and everything else is an emanation from God in the Neoplatonist sense, then logically God must have come before his own word),
  • The denial of the concept of a self-subsistent speech of God (al-kalam al-nafsi)
  • The denial of the ability of humans to visually perceive God
  • Belief in humanity's ability to discern rightness and wrongness through use of reason alone (al-husn wa l-qubh al-'aqli),
  • Shared belief that the destiny of God (Qadr) did not preclude free will.
Now, this alone doesn't make them the same and Usuli kalam differs on other items, but I'd say that the Mu'tazila were if nothing else the intellectual forefathers of scholarly Usuli Shi'ite thought.
 
Last edited:
@GoulashComrade One dispute that I have. There may be similarities between groups, but these similarities may sprout from separate roots.

For instance, Shi’i view on the Quran and its state of creation or lack of. The Shia may agree with the Mu’Tazila on this single point, simply for different reasons. One reason for instance, a common theme of Shia thought, like the Khawarij/Shurha whom the Shia co-evolved with before the introduction of the Mu’Tazila, is the tahreef or changing of the Quran. Many Shi’i scholars and past intellectuals held clearly the opinion that the Quran in existence currently is distorted by way of the apostasy of the Sahaba. Consequently, the Quran, if eternal and uncreated, would not be corruptible, as is the position of mainstream Sunni Islam (hence why the Mu’Tazila are considered kafr as a generality). So, instead of the Quran as eternal and existing aside Allah, many Shia say it is created and thus could be distorted as many claim. The true Quran would be in the hands of Imam Aj-Aj, or Ali when he presented it to the Sahaba (who supposedly rejected this 17 thousand sura Quran).

In contrast to the Shi’i opinion, the Mu’Tazila make no statements regarding the Sahaba. Instead, they use reasoning to decide that logically the Quran derived from something and is thus of the created objects, otherwise, granting it an eternal state would be granting it attributes of Allah. The Shia do not argue for instance that conferring on something an eternal reality, gives it the position of Allah.

Mind you, one of the main issues Mu’Tazila had with words or commandments of Allah, was they believed when one attributes certain items to Allah, you make these like Allah. This is totally separate from the Shi’a, who promote opposite opinions on this.
 
Last edited:
@GoulashComrade One dispute that I have. There may be similarities between groups, but these similarities may sprout from separate roots.

For instance, Shi’i view on the Quran and its state of creation or lack of. The Shia may agree with the Mu’Tazila on this single point, simply for different reasons. One reason for instance, a common theme of Shia thought, like the Khawarij/Shurha whom the Shia co-evolved with before the introduction of the Mu’Tazila, is the tahreef or changing of the Quran. Many Shi’i scholars and past intellectuals held clearly the opinion that the Quran in existence currently is distorted by way of the apostasy of the Sahaba. Consequently, the Quran, if eternal and uncreated, would not be corruptible, as is the position of mainstream Sunni Islam (hence why the Mu’Tazila are considered kafr as a generality). So, instead of the Quran as eternal and existing aside Allah, many Shia say it is created and thus could be distorted as many claim. The true Quran would be in the hands of Imam Aj-Aj, or Ali when he presented it to the Sahaba (who supposedly rejected this 17 thousand sura Quran).

In contrast to the Shi’i opinion, the Mu’Tazila make no statements regarding the Sahaba. Instead, they use reasoning to decide that logically the Quran derived from something and is thus of the created objects, otherwise, granting it an eternal state would be granting it attributes of Allah. The Shia do not argue for instance that conferring on something an eternal reality, gives it the position of Allah.

Ah, so you're suggesting that the similarities between Mu'tazilism and Shi'i thought are more a result of convergent evolution than evidence of a similar logical process? That's interesting, I haven't seen that before, though it makes sense. The Mu'tazila certainly don't rely on a belief in some conspiracy of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to "edit" the Qur'an (an idea, of course, which has basically collapsed in the face of modern-day archeological discoveries of Qur'an manuscripts identical to the modern Uthmani Quran and scientfically dated to the lifetimes of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs) to make their points, relying on arguments that start from given first principles and trying to reason their way out from there.


Could it be possible, though, that considering the similarities of these positions that later Usuli theologians have borrowed from the arguments of the (nearly-extinct by then) Mu'tazila to defend their positions, even if their initial logic for taking those positions was quite different?
 
Another problem is that there were deep reasons why the Byzantines did lose the areas they did, including ethnic, religious and cultural factors. I find the scenario highly unlikely for that reason. Why would the Byzantine frontier magically hold, while Persia falls? If anything, the other way round is perhaps more likely, since Palestine and Syria are a good deal closer and easier to reach from the Hijaz than Persia is...

See, the scenario I see for this is that Persia was more unstable (at the time) - so a victory at Yarmouk for the Romans, ideally a close one, could be enough to call for a peace (the terms could range from peace, to a concession of Persian territory to the Romans, etc). The closeness is important as it means the Arabs aren't out for the count - as at the time they had dedicated a large amount of resources to that fight, withdrawing forces from Mesopotamia to do so.

Personally, I find the idea of an Islamic world consisting of Arabia, then Persia, and then INDIA really fascinating. Ignoring the obvious renaming of the Persian Gulf to the Islamic Gulf, it changes its dynamics to having its cultural and economic centre in S.Mesopotamia, or at least the Gulf.

However, this doesn't mean that Islam would lose out on all those influences from the Romans - plenty had been imported to Persia via Khosrau's libraries, and there is no rule that the Caliphate would have to be hostile to the Romans. It could be a very unexpected turn of events that leads to a long-term peace. In the Roman interest, as it is under threat if it isn't, and they want to reassert control over Syria. For the Arabs, well - the Romans are best placed to surgically gut their new Empire by an attack into Mesopotamia, but could be a valuable trade partner instead. (In fact, that could be an interesting PoD - a friendly relationship between Islam and Rome could well have the same effect as trade with Indonesia - conversion).
 
See, the scenario I see for this is that Persia was more unstable (at the time) - so a victory at Yarmouk for the Romans, ideally a close one, could be enough to call for a peace (the terms could range from peace, to a concession of Persian territory to the Romans, etc). The closeness is important as it means the Arabs aren't out for the count - as at the time they had dedicated a large amount of resources to that fight, withdrawing forces from Mesopotamia to do so.

The scenario you've painted is a really cool one, and although it would be very tough to do considering the way that even relatively small Hindu kingdoms like Kabulistan and Zabulistan went down fighting like hell (honestly the conquest of just Sindh and Multan probably cost the Umayyads more in blood than the entirety of the Syrian conquest cost the Rashidun), I'd love to see an "Early Caliphate in India" TL.

However, there is one problem I do see in the picture you've painted: the Rashidun Caliphate agreeing to peace. It's easy to think about the Rashidun as basically a new Arabian version of Rome or Persia, but this is a fundamentally flawed understanding of the way the Caliphate saw the world. This peculiar worldview that the soldiers of the Rashidun shared is the reason for some rather enlightened things like the restrained nature of the violence in the Caliphate's conquests (well, at least when concerning Christians, Jews and Samaritans) and their leniency to their incorporated dhimmi minority faiths, but it's also the reason why a peace deal is impossible.

The Companions of the Rashidun simply did not consider the idea of peace because there were only three options that they considered acceptable when concerning other nations - conversion into Islam and joining with the Ummah, dhimmitude, or war until acceptance of dhimmitude. At least in the Companion generation and probably the one immediately afterwards, there's no chance that even a loss at Yarmouk would stop the Caliphate from coming back for Round Two. Even though the Rashidun Muslims admired Rhomania for being a grand old empire of the People of the Book, presumably upon the Righteous Path in the past, they also firmly believed that Rhomania's time was up and that the mantle of guarding the faithful and the Ahl-al-Kitab had passed to Islam.

Of course, a less competent general than Khalid leading the Rashidun Army and an Emperor Heraclius who doesn't kick the bucket combined might be able to beat off the Arab invasions until the inevitable time when both sides settle down a bit, but I can't see anything but a state of war between the two empires for quite a while.
 
Did Hellenism leave no traces at all east of the Euphrat? Theoretically even a single surviving copy of Aristotle would suffice.
 
Did Hellenism leave no traces at all east of the Euphrat? Theoretically even a single surviving copy of Aristotle would suffice.

It would not suffice. It would just be weird foreign book, to be stored in someone private collection. To succeed it would need large libraries, multiple commentaries, many teachers, and pool of interested pupil who want to learn. With byzantine intact, Iranian philosophical works would gain much more attention than obscure book of rival empires. Iranian philosopher, with its academies, teacher, and students would spread and Arabs culture would be swallowed large size and prestige of Iranian culture.
 
Islam has long struck me as a logical and straightforward type of monotheism.

Maybe if the faith expands earlier to China, major branches could incorporate and build from some of the more practical-minded Chinese philosophers? ( Confucius obviously, and I think this other guy Mozi, etc )
 
Did Hellenism leave no traces at all east of the Euphrat? Theoretically even a single surviving copy of Aristotle would suffice.

But as the philosophy of the Greeks and Christians, not the Arabs and Muslims. There's much less overlap if the Byzantines hold their borders.

Also, man there have been some really interesting ideas here!
 
It would not suffice. It would just be weird foreign book, to be stored in someone private collection. To succeed it would need large libraries, multiple commentaries, many teachers, and pool of interested pupil who want to learn. With byzantine intact, Iranian philosophical works would gain much more attention than obscure book of rival empires. Iranian philosopher, with its academies, teacher, and students would spread and Arabs culture would be swallowed large size and prestige of Iranian culture.

But didn't Iran adopt a lot of Hellenistic philosophy? I mean, the patronage of Khosrau I brought a lot of fleeing Neoplatonists east, and even before the Sassanian kings, the Parthians held the title Philhellene.
 
Ah, so you're suggesting that the similarities between Mu'tazilism and Shi'i thought are more a result of convergent evolution than evidence of a similar logical process? That's interesting, I haven't seen that before, though it makes sense. The Mu'tazila certainly don't rely on a belief in some conspiracy of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman to "edit" the Qur'an (an idea, of course, which has basically collapsed in the face of modern-day archeological discoveries of Qur'an manuscripts identical to the modern Uthmani Quran and scientfically dated to the lifetimes of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphs) to make their points, relying on arguments that start from given first principles and trying to reason their way out from there.


Could it be possible, though, that considering the similarities of these positions that later Usuli theologians have borrowed from the arguments of the (nearly-extinct by then) Mu'tazila to defend their positions, even if their initial logic for taking those positions was quite different?

I feel as if you simplify or make weaker the argument of the Shi'i who claim the Tahreef or distortion of the Quran. These are also complex ideologies and differing levels to which they advocate this. These following types go in such a way:

1. Omission: Instead of a distortion, the words of Allah contained in the Quran are filled with various omissions once given to Muhammad. These omissions exist for the reason that Allah had foreknowledge that if he revealed the total Quran or his total commands to Muhammad, these commands would be distorted or misused by the apostate sahaba, especially, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu'awiyah, Ayesha, Hafs, Abu Huraira, etc... This thus, allows the holders of this believe to say that the Quran is free from distortion in terms of nothing has been added or taken away after it was revealed to Muhammad or how it is passed down to the Sahaba, but instead, there is more to it which is held by Ali ibn Abi Talib and his Imamiyah and his Wilaya (authority).

2. 'We' never held the Qu'ran: Ali ibn abi Talib was given the Quran and with his wilaya alone, can he reveal it with the ascendance of the final Imam, Imam Aj-Aj. Further, he was the one who compiled the Quran in its entirety, with 17,000 surahs and these are compiled in a correct order unlike the current Quran. Thus, the Quran in which we have today, is incomplete. Scholars in this though, usually hold that Ali presented this completed and perfect Quran to the Sahaba and they rejected it, claiming that what they compiled was preferred. Ali thus, placed this Quran in what can be described occultation or hidden from the senses yet ever present as is the position on the final Imam of both Twelver and Nizari faqih.

"Imam Amir ul-Mu'minin (Ali ibn abi Talib) collected the Qu'ran and this is of the truths. He came to the 'Muslims' with this Qu'ran and said to them, this is the Qu'ran. After Imam Amir ul-Mu'minin read the Qu'ran to them, they said, 'we do not need this.' So, Imam Ali closed the Qu'ran and returned it back (~to where, I do not know, perhaps the recitor is referring to occultation~). After this, they (Sahaba) discussed among themselves, and decided that they chose wrong. They said, 'let us go and tell Ali to give us this Qu'ran so that we may destroy it.' Thus, they came to him and said, 'O Abdul-Husayn (Ali) give to us the Qu'ran which you posses, so that we may examine it.' Amir ul-Mu'minin said, 'Nay! By Allah, you will never see the Qu'ran until my son, Imam of Time (Aj-Aj) appears before this earth." -Shaykh Abdul Hamid al-Muhajir referencing a common ahadith from on the Shi'i collections supposedly from Sahi' Imam Ja'far.

3. Distortion: The Qu'ran is actively distorted by the Sahaba, especially by removing words that refer to Ahl ul-Bayt (family of Ali) and removing phrases which curse the Sahaba. Thus the Qu'ran was completely distorted, both in meaning and to whom each section is addressed as well as the way in which it is organized.

"All of the prominent Sahaba left the religion and became apostates. They delivered to us, a distorted Qu'ran, the Qu'ran which we have in our hands today is distorted and changed. Today, we require and must use this distorted Qu'ran, until our Imam returns with the True Qu'ran." -Shaykh Ali al-Hashimi

"Allah said that he had perfected your religion now, yet after this he mentions the prohibition upon certain meats? We have doubts regarding to the placement of this verse. Why is it that we have doubts regarding this placement and other placements? It is due to them (Sahaba), who interfered with the context of the Qu'ran, inserting and removing sections." -Ayatollah Ali al-Qorani

"Imam Amir ul-Mu'minin is mentioned by name within the Qu'ran. Ali is within the Qu'ran. Why then would we of the Shi'a then oppose such a well known issue (~the Qu'ran has no mention of Ali and is the opinion of the Sunni~)? It is because we hold to what was revealed to us by Ahl ul-Bayt, which confirm to us that indeed Ali and the Ahl ul-Bayt is mentioned. Ali mentioned to us, that 1/3 of the Qu'ran is regarding himself, Amir ul-Mu'minin." -Shaykh Yasr al-Habib

4. Revealed to incorrect person: A more antiquated view, is that the Angel Gabriel mistakenly revealed the Qu'ran to Muhammed instead of to the preferred individual, Ali ibn abi Talib. This was held by some scholars in the Shi'a past, however less so currently. The idea however, is still featured in some Shi'a texts and ahadith from various collectors of the middle ages.

-----
Yes it is possible they adopted some ideas from the Mu'Tazila, at least far more than current Sunni have borrowed from the Mu'Tazila.
 
1. Omission: Instead of a distortion, the words of Allah contained in the Quran are filled with various omissions once given to Muhammad. These omissions exist for the reason that Allah had foreknowledge that if he revealed the total Quran or his total commands to Muhammad, these commands would be distorted or misused by the apostate sahaba, especially, Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Mu'awiyah, Ayesha, Hafs, Abu Huraira, etc... This thus, allows the holders of this believe to say that the Quran is free from distortion in terms of nothing has been added or taken away after it was revealed to Muhammad or how it is passed down to the Sahaba, but instead, there is more to it which is held by Ali ibn Abi Talib and his Imamiyah and his Wilaya (authority).

This in particular is the view that seems typical of the current Shi'ite scholars (and I think the modern schools of Najaf and Isfahan specifically.) However, the question still remains as to why Ali - who did not seem himself to consider the other Sahaba apostates - would then withold the "secret Qur'an" from the Muslims once he had ascended to the position of Caliph.

2. 'We' never held the Qu'ran: Ali ibn abi Talib was given the Quran and with his wilaya alone, can he reveal it with the ascendance of the final Imam, Imam Aj-Aj. Further, he was the one who compiled the Quran in its entirety, with 17,000 surahs and these are compiled in a correct order unlike the current Quran. Thus, the Quran in which we have today, is incomplete. Scholars in this though, usually hold that Ali presented this completed and perfect Quran to the Sahaba and they rejected it, claiming that what they compiled was preferred. Ali thus, placed this Quran in what can be described occultation or hidden from the senses yet ever present as is the position on the final Imam of both Twelver and Nizari faqih.

This, I must say, is an entirely new explanation for the "Ali'id Qur'an" theory to me. My question would then be, of course, if the 17,000 surah Qur'an was compiled by Ali alone (which would itself be shocking - it took a devoted team of scribes to accomplish this feat even for the Qur'an of today, which is much smaller, of course), why there are no records of such a claim amongst even the chronicles collected by even Sahaba who later joined the Shiatul Ali in the First Fitna? It does seem like something that would receive at least passing mention, especially when it would greatly bolster the relative esteem of the Aliid position if proven correct.

3. Distortion: The Qu'ran is actively distorted by the Sahaba, especially by removing words that refer to Ahl ul-Bayt (family of Ali) and removing phrases which curse the Sahaba. Thus the Qu'ran was completely distorted, both in meaning and to whom each section is addressed as well as the way in which it is organized.

This is also a very common argument - although it tends to boil down to a "he said", "she said" type of discussion (though worse, as the particular "he" and "she" here have been dead for a very long time), but again this is a hard position to support from a logical point of view (even if we disregard the Western archeological evidence.) Even if men like Umar, Abu Bakr, and Uthman had the will and intention to do this, what is the likelihood that all the thousands of people who they led would say nothing as the Qur'an was wantonly changed to support a factional agenda? Many of these people remembered the Revelation and the Prophet Muhammad himself had been in the grave for less than a decade - I think it's almost nonsensical to believe that there wouldn't be a public outcry concerning this. I only see two ways that such a "Qur'an editing" by the first three Caliphs could happen without it making it into the records (as did all the other factional splits of the Ummah):

  • A book-burning campaign of titanic proportions to destroy any mention of the previous Qur'an as well as any chronicles disagreeing with the official line - though I doubt that a medieval state even had the bureaucratic apparatus to do this.
  • The whole of the Muslim Ummah besides a select few chosen ones turned cartoonishly evil as soon as the funeral prayer for Prophet Muhammad ended, which is why they would all happily go along with a "Qur'an Editing"

This is not to suggest that Shi'i Islam is suddenly invalid or that there isn't credence to a great many of the claims of our Shi'i co-religionists (I'm guessing you're a Hanbali, yes?) but the debate around the Qur'an has turned into bizarre finger-pointing that seems more concerned with making this figure or that figure a "bad guy" than advancing any rational explanation for how the Qur'an came to take its final form.



Oh yeah, belated Ramadan Mubarak!
 
@GoulashComrade Concerning your third depiction, the argument is that only 3-7 (the numbers differs upon the Shi'a narrations) individuals outside of Ali, Fatima al-Zahra, Hasan ibn Ali ibn abi Talib and Husayn ibn Ali ibn abi talib, remained Muslim or were ever Muslim. The argument from their side is clearly that these individuals were never followers to begin with, thus they progressed in their already existing disbelief after the death of Muhammad. Further, as their scholars say, there was opposition; the Riddah wars for instance, as is the case in all thought, the Riddah apostates were of two types, those who remained Muslim in terms of imaan (faith) however they erred in rebellion against the Caliph (Abu Bakr) and erred in taqwa (piety) by refusing the zakaa claiming the successor of Muhammad was invalid (the other category was those who reverted to the Arab faiths of the past or claimed themselves prophets). The Shi'a clearly point to this and say this is evidence not necessarily of their view, but of those who rejected the situation, however, this is more akin to the commonalities between Khawarij and Shi'a. Both use takfeer liberally, with the Shi'a making the entire Sahaba apostates and the Khawarij making those apostate for minor sins and claiming that the caliph Uthman was a kafr or so and so ruler is kafr such as with al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf (certainly a taghoot in terms of transgressing the limits, however it is debatable whether he was a kuffar).

On the second point, you assume that Ali is someone who is likened to a man. If you studied the more deep elements of Shi'a belief (Nizari and Twelver, both can be regarded as ghulat or exaggerators in comparison to the Zayydi who refer to both as ghualt and as rawafidh which is deniers), you will come across the clear cut ideology that Ali is not likened to you or I or any other human, even a messenger or prophet, surpassing all of them. To give some quotations regarding this high position with which Twelvers give to Ali, allow some more quotations from scholars of their group, from modern times. Also, this position on Ali is not simply extended to him, but to Fatima al-Zahra and those who succeed them as the infallible Imamiyyah who carry the wilayah of Ali-Fatima; notice that Shi'a scholars use the wilayah as Ali's not that of Allah's.

"Allah has given the control of every atom in the universe to His Awliya (Imamiyyah). When we enter, supplication, ask for our private needs and social needs with this attitude... That is when you enter upon Imam Ali's Tomb, it is the entire universe within those hands, and everything within the universe is in His hands. Further, if He says 'Be!' and it surely is."

-Ayatollah Moh'd Redha al-Shirazi

"If we accepted His oneness as numerical, then He will be less when compared to two, three or four. Because one is lesser than two, lesser than three and lesser than four. This means, when a single meets the multitude, it becomes its lesser. Thus, it becomes clear to us, that if Allah's oneness is numerical, it will be defeated by a multitude. If a second god arrives, it removes Allah's oneness and becomes his equal or greater. In numerical oneness, if something is first, it cannot be last. If a line is straight, both ends cannot be first and last at the same moment. If He is defined by oneness and he is outward he cannot be inward or vice versa. His example is clear, look toward humans, they also have two dimension. The outward dimension and the inward dimension, one being the body and the other being the corresponding soul or the exterior of the body surfaced to the interior of the body. However, what is inward is not outward and both are separate. The most important characteristic which necessitate from this will be what? His existence will in be a manner possible to add/create/assemble a second one (meaning god) besides Himself."*

-Ayatollah Kamal al-Hydari


* This quote, when in context of the Shi'a intellectual history or past, is referring to whom? It is referring to the Imamiyyah and Ahl ul-Bayt as is evidence of the previous quote from the Ayatollah al-Shirazi. The second and third and what have you, is the Imamiyyah.... A very interesting development in my opinion. There is more to this issue that I can provide for you or the community on this matter, however, these two quotes should suffice for referring to you an example for why in Shi'a thought, Ali can/could assemble or compile anything in the same manner that Allah can.

Yes, I prescribe to the Hanbali school of fiqh generally as my preference.
 
Last edited:
But didn't Iran adopt a lot of Hellenistic philosophy? I mean, the patronage of Khosrau I brought a lot of fleeing Neoplatonists east, and even before the Sassanian kings, the Parthians held the title Philhellene.

Sassanian is a lot more "nationalist" than Parthian, lots of Greek influence wane or disappear during their era.

as for Greek Philosophy, i think they at best influencing some Iranian philosopher, but failed to maintain their own school and teaching.
 
The scenario you've painted is a really cool one, and although it would be very tough to do considering the way that even relatively small Hindu kingdoms like Kabulistan and Zabulistan went down fighting like hell (honestly the conquest of just Sindh and Multan probably cost the Umayyads more in blood than the entirety of the Syrian conquest cost the Rashidun), I'd love to see an "Early Caliphate in India" TL.

However, there is one problem I do see in the picture you've painted: the Rashidun Caliphate agreeing to peace. It's easy to think about the Rashidun as basically a new Arabian version of Rome or Persia, but this is a fundamentally flawed understanding of the way the Caliphate saw the world. This peculiar worldview that the soldiers of the Rashidun shared is the reason for some rather enlightened things like the restrained nature of the violence in the Caliphate's conquests (well, at least when concerning Christians, Jews and Samaritans) and their leniency to their incorporated dhimmi minority faiths, but it's also the reason why a peace deal is impossible.

The Companions of the Rashidun simply did not consider the idea of peace because there were only three options that they considered acceptable when concerning other nations - conversion into Islam and joining with the Ummah, dhimmitude, or war until acceptance of dhimmitude. At least in the Companion generation and probably the one immediately afterwards, there's no chance that even a loss at Yarmouk would stop the Caliphate from coming back for Round Two. Even though the Rashidun Muslims admired Rhomania for being a grand old empire of the People of the Book, presumably upon the Righteous Path in the past, they also firmly believed that Rhomania's time was up and that the mantle of guarding the faithful and the Ahl-al-Kitab had passed to Islam.

Of course, a less competent general than Khalid leading the Rashidun Army and an Emperor Heraclius who doesn't kick the bucket combined might be able to beat off the Arab invasions until the inevitable time when both sides settle down a bit, but I can't see anything but a state of war between the two empires for quite a while.
Yeah the caliphate would have to shift there focus for a while to the east to make sure the Persia still is conquered but there definitely not going to put the tension off Rome and it would probably become some weird combination of the Roman-Persians war and the Byzantine-Arab wars after the Arabs consolidated there control of the Sassanian empire.
 
Top