Best way to nerf the Arabs without preempting Islam?

The best thing to do would be to kill off Muhammed in the first place or make him Christian/Jewish. For instance, Muhammed is killed during a hypothetical siege of Mecca by Axumites in 570. What did happen to Gruekiller?

Hi. That's how I chose to butterfly Islam away, yeah.
 
It could delay their expansion, maybe for a generation, but having two caliphates especially if they have two different religious conceptions, so close from each other is likely to end by one crushing the other.

That's the main reason why the plan to have two caliphs ended up getting shelved, for fear that it would just cause chaos for very little purpose. It would have been cool to have, but rather impractical. However...

LSCatilna said:
It's a good idea, but how would be made the separation?
The separation could have easily taken place immediately after Muhammad's death, as he never specifically outlined who should lead the community. So different people made different proposals, including the "two caliphs" idea. If the Muslims did go in that direction, presumably the community would decide on whom the two caliphs would be, and they would work together for the good of all.

Thing is, the source that I have that mentioned the "two caliphs" idea never mentioned who were the proposed two caliphs were, and I'm doubtful whether the proposal actually were made. I'll need to do more research on that.
 
. If the Muslims did go in that direction, presumably the community would decide on whom the two caliphs would be, and they would work together for the good of all.
Yeah, but in the real world outside religious unity, where Arabic tribal politics and loyalties played a major role, such separation and bi-cephalic rule would have certainly been translated in an effective separation.
Given the political structure before the conquest of Persia, a condominium is unlikely.

Thing is, the source that I have that mentioned the "two caliphs" idea never mentioned who were the proposed two caliphs were, and I'm doubtful whether the proposal actually were made. I'll need to do more research on that.
Well, the only situation with two caliphes I can think of is when Ali ruled from Irak and Muwwyia from Syria after having established a share of the Dar al Islam.

EDIT : Spoken too soon!
You can find mentions of this there.
It is said, I translate roughly.

Eventually the dispute between the main Muhammedan factions went harsh at such point that they would have come to an open rupture if some Ansarien [The author identify two factions : Ansarien and Mohagériens] didn't proposed a convenient solution to end this terrible affair, that was to establish two Caliphes, and that each faction would have his own.
This proposition amused themselves for some times, but as it wasn't of Mohagériens taste Abu Bakr[...] offered to name two subjects, whom one would be chosen, saying he was ready to acknowledge whatever would be the choice of two factions and he named Umar ibn al-Khattab and Abu Ubayda ibn al-Djarrah. But as they didn't managed to decide, Umar swore alliegence to Abu Bakr and all the assembly followed this exemple; leading to Abu Bakr being declared Caliphe by both factions and as the true sucessor of Muhammad

The source is ancient, 1760's, and may contain errors. Still, it's worth digging.

Re-EDIT and correction :
Mohagérien : from mohagerin, fugitives. The Meccans that followed Mahomet in exile.
Ansarien : from ansar, auxiliar. Muslims of Medina.

It would be eventually a dispute between the two communauties : the original inhabitant of Medina that wecolmed Muhammad, and the fugitives of Mecca (rather than the clans of Mecca as a whole) disputing themselves the right to rule.
 
Last edited:
It's a good idea, but how would be made the separation? Let's admit an *Umayyad clan (Umayyad for strong Meccan tribe) takes Mecca and Abu rules Medina. How the remaining of Arabia, critically after the Ridda Wars would be divided?
Codominion? I doubt this sort of subtility could work in a tribal society where loyalties had to be clear.
Division by loyalties? It would admittedly look as a puzzle with the eastern tribes likely to be autonomous de facto, but seeing the political importance of Mecca compared to Medina, *Abu is going to be easily surrounded.

It could delay their expansion, maybe for a generation, but having two caliphates especially if they have two different religious conceptions, so close from each other is likely to end by one crushing the other.

As a matter of fact at the moment immediately after Mohammed's death Medina has much stronger position as the centre of Islam. Mecca was relatively "newly conquered" to Islam and the majority of the Muslim armed forces in the conflicts of Mohammed were his followers from Medina. Mecca was important before the rise of Muhammed and after considerable time after his death.
So all in all it is safe to say that caliph of Mecca and caliph of Medina would have similar power and influence in the Arab Muslim world.
If one of the caliphs crushes the other the history will go as in OTL with some delay. No doubt.
But I want to stress the point that Mecca and Medina stood close by for centuries and no city was able to crush the other. Muhammed was exceptionally charismatic leader and even for him it was quite a challenge to unite these cities.
So if these cities had gone back to a traditional Arabian way of coexistence independent of each other that would have been most natural.
What happened in OTL - that was quite unnatural for the Arabs.
Byzantines on the other hand : it's possible, but they would need a motivation to meddle with tribal policies when they didn't OTL while it represented more of an unified threat.
Admitting they manage to do so : what would be their objective and impact? (It's a sincere question, depending on what they do, it could be more or less useful or totally useless)
The objective of the Byzantines might be to support the losing party in the tribal wars among the Arabs to make their internal squabbling last as long as possible, preferably make it last forever. So a losing caliph might always ask for the Roman help.
That is possible if the Romans understand that as long as the Arabs fight the Arabs - the Romans are safe.
 
As a matter of fact at the moment immediately after Mohammed's death Medina has much stronger position as the centre of Islam.
Mecca was relatively "newly conquered" to Islam and the majority of the Muslim armed forces in the conflicts of Mohammed were his followers from Medina. Mecca was important before the rise of Muhammed and after considerable time after his death.
So all in all it is safe to say that caliph of Mecca and caliph of Medina would have similar power and influence in the Arab Muslim world.

But I want to stress the point that Mecca and Medina stood close by for centuries and no city was able to crush the other. Muhammed was exceptionally charismatic leader and even for him it was quite a challenge to unite these cities.
I would point that Mecca only recently knew a political and economical growth in the VII century : you can't really argue of peaceful relations with was one minor city (and even during Muhammad's life (the city wasn't exactly the central point of Hejaz).
While he managed to united the western Arabian tribes under a same leadership, the two Islamic factions, that were less of Meccan or Medinit but refugees from Mecca and Medinits keep to exist depsite the strict equality and merge he proclaimed.

Finally, there's a big difference : nor Mecca or Medina hadn't access to a net of loyalties beyond their own cities before the rise of Islam. After the death of Muhammad, they have to deal with not only unified western Arabian tribes and cities, but with Beduins, eastern Arabia, southern Arabia and the clientele net that existed making them more powerful (and more able to fight each other).

What happened in OTL - that was quite unnatural for the Arabs.
I would be less affirmative : periods of union seems to have existed among Arabs if only regionally. Gindibu's rebellion against Assyria could be an exemple (with the name still existing up to Muhammad's era, maybe indicating a lasting legacy). That the alliances or unions didn't lived on because of tribal structures is another thing, of course.

That is possible if the Romans understand that as long as the Arabs fight the Arabs - the Romans are safe.
But they didn't seem to have understood that during the Ridda Wars, letting their arab clients deal directly with without really being concered about.
What would be different here, as Arabs are less of a threat?
 
That thread about Exarch Gregory in Africa made me wonder.

With a POD no later than Muhammad's death (and the proper establishment of Islam), how can the Arabs be contained (perhaps to the Arabian Peninsula but no further north than Turkey's southern border today, no further west than the Sinai peninsula, and no further east than the modern day Iraq-Iran border), if at all?

Khalid ibn al-Walid becomes the fourth Muslim commander to die at the Battle of Mu'tah.
 
Top