Islam and Christianity are friendly competitors?

Maybe it takes the luck of the draw in having two rulers who are largely friendly and this starts to become the norm, say, in half a continent.

Or, how else might this come about?
 
Last edited:
Maybe if Islam was considered just another Christian branch rather than a religion of its own, relations might be less rocky. Would take some major changes in Muhammed's teachings, though, such as dropping claims that he was a prophet as opposed to OTL.

And there's the fact that Islam'st early days were marked by conquests into Christian Eastern Roman lands after the latter suffered a devastating war with Persia, the first sour note to hit Muslim-Christian relations.
 
As I understand the early history of Islam, Muhammad first brought his revelations and teachings to tribal persons who had primarily been polytheistic. Is this largely correct?
 

Lunarwolf

Banned
As I understand the early history of Islam, Muhammad first brought his revelations and teachings to tribal persons who had primarily been polytheistic. Is this largely correct?

Partly, it's accurate for Mecca, but the majority religion of Medina/Yathrib and the Yemeni was Jewish.

And Medina was the first city where he had actual out of family converts.
 
christianity can't even friendly compete with itself (just look at the atrocities of the catholic church against the protestants and other christians)
 
christianity can't even friendly compete with itself (just look at the atrocities of the catholic church against the protestants and other christians)


And the various "sects" (In fact most sects of Islam not traditional Sunni, are usually considered Kufr) of Islam can? In the end, both are exclusive yet inclusive religions, thus making diplomacy difficult.
 
There were some attempts of alliance between the Carolingians and Abbasids against the Ummayads and the Romans, so OP's idea is not difficult. Nothing like a common enemy to create friendships out of thin air.
 
There were some attempts of alliance between the Carolingians and Abbasids against the Ummayads and the Romans, so OP's idea is not difficult. Nothing like a common enemy to create friendships out of thin air.


I haven't read about these alliances before. That would almost completely make the Abbasid invalid as the Khilafah if true.
 
I haven't read about these alliances before. That would almost completely make the Abbasid invalid as the Khilafah if true.

The best reading material I can present you is this wikipedia page, sorry. It seems that the contacts were mostly initiated by the Carolingians and that the idea of an alliance was more apparent than evident.

But just for curiosity, why an alliance with the Carolingians would invalidate the Abbasid as the Khilafah?
 
Two monotheistic religions that both teach that their God is the only one, all other gods are demons and deceptions of the devil, it's either their way or Hell, and both have a mission by God to convert the world. Conflict is inevitable. Look how Islam and Christianity have treated divergent sects.
 
The best reading material I can present you is this wikipedia page, sorry. It seems that the contacts were mostly initiated by the Carolingians and that the idea of an alliance was more apparent than evident.

But just for curiosity, why an alliance with the Carolingians would invalidate the Abbasid as the Khilafah?


"O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa (friends/protectors/helpers), they are but Awliyaa of each other. And if any amongst you takes them, then surely, he is of them" Quran 5:51

"With regard to selling weapons to ahl al-harb (those at war with the Muslim), it is haraam according to scholarly consensus." Al-Nawawi

"The ulema are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the Kuffar against the Muslims and helps them in any way is Kafir like them as Allah says (Quran 5:51)." Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz former grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia.


Therefore a Muslim ruler (Wilayet) who assists the Dar al-Harb while at war with the Muslims, is considered Kufr or Riddah (apostasy), at least in traditional Sunni Islamic sources. However, it is lawful for one to receive assistance from the Kuffar against another Kafir. Example, the Peshawar 7 receiving assistance from the U.S during the Afghan-Soviet war. However, an Abbasid alliance (true alliance) against the Umayyad would be Kufr Akbar and that leader would either be a Kafir or Murtad. That being said a Muslim who lives in a state that is not Muslim that is at war with the Muslims, is not guilty of Kufr, as long as he/she does not assist in any way or he/she is forced to by his/her Amir. In some cases though this ruling of takfir requires debate within the Ulema as to whether this ruler was Kufr or not.

The rulings differ on whether Shia or other sects are included in this, such as is it lawful to assist the U.S against a hypothetical war with Iran. (the ruling however usually always goes to the effect that both groups are Kufr). A major evidence of this was the Iran-Iraq war in which the Saudi regime supported Iraq against whom they consider Kufr (Iran) (referred to as Rafidhi, the rejectors).
 
It is shameful how harshly similar religions treat their apostates.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all trace their roots to the prophet Abraham. They are all part of the 600 year cycle of the prophets.
Consider that the prophet Moses lived 6,000 years before Jesus. Then the a hydra lived 600 years before Jesus Christ. The prophet Mohammed was Bork about 600 years after Christ. The Jewish scholar Moses Mohamedes (sp?) lived about 600 years after the prophet Mohammed. Finally, the founder of the Bahaii faith lived about 1800 years after Christ. Judging by this cycle, weary have to wait another 400 years for the next major prophet (circa 2400 AD).
 
Maybe it takes the luck of the draw in having two rulers who are largely friendly and this starts to become the norm, say, in half a continent.

Or, how else might this come about?

If the major form of Christianity was thoroughly Arian I think that relations may be better in the long term, but assuming Islam still conquers 2/3 of the Christian world in the 600s and 700s things would stil be really really rocky.
 
Maybe it takes the luck of the draw in having two rulers who are largely friendly and this starts to become the norm, say, in half a continent.

Or, how else might this come about?

Both religions would need to give up their claims to exclusivity.

There are passages in the Quran that say that Christians and Jews will have their reward from god if they are sincere in belief and do good acts.

I'm not sure if it works the other way round, though - I haven't encountered anything in Christianity which would say the same about Muslims. The closest thing I can think of is the modern Catholic belief that there are "many paths to god".

As with so much about religion, it really depends on who you are talking to, what year it is and what place. Since 'Christianity' and 'Islam' are such loosely-defined entities and encompass such diversity of opinion within each group, it's such a vague concept that it becomes almost meaningless. Thus it's pretty much an unanswerable question.
 
It could work, if Graeco-Roman paganism is still going strong and remains a powerful force. Then, Islam could be regarded as an intra-Christian, "back to basics" renewal movement.
 

scholar

Banned
Two monotheistic religions that both teach that their God is the only one, all other gods are demons and deceptions of the devil, it's either their way or Hell, and both have a mission by God to convert the world. Conflict is inevitable. Look how Islam and Christianity have treated divergent sects.
Two monotheistic religions based around the exact same deity, just like Christianity and Judaism.
 
Top