Islam extinguished

[Admiral Brown]

why would islam butterfly away if someone conquered arabia 700 years earlier?
how would that stop the annoing millenial trend of midleastren monoteism?
would that buttefly away gnosticks and quasy-christian sects?
and aniway why put so much importance on a single religion? for ewery religion that suceeds theres 10 exactly alike that fail for reasons not ewen important enough to be noticed... butterflyed away as it is said
so for ewery muhammed theres another 10 men in mid-life chrisis going out for some alone time in the desert and talking to some god or other
as the nature of any given religion is dictated by the cultural backround in wich it emerges any hipotetical arabic monoteism would look much the same, just as any hipotetical hebrew monoteism looks basically the same

I' don't think this HAS to happen. The Arabs weren't monotheistic before Mohammed, and they hadn't been monotheistic for a really long time. Wtihout mohammed, thy'd probably have stayed as they did.
The Berebers, who lived in a similar environment, weren't monotheistic before converting to Islam, even if they had been in touch with a monotheistic faith for centuries.
So, I don't think that the environment and the culture determinate automatically what type of religion a people will have.

on the other hand the unification of arabian tribes was a pattern seen many times in asia, with many numerous ethnick groups devided in tribes, wich, once united, would amass huge military potential and quickly expand to other territories

Here I do think the environment plays a significant roll.

 

[The Militant One]

Here's an idea:

In the aftermath of Mohammed's death, there were a series of wars called the Riddah, where several Arab tribes rebelled against Mohammed's successors.

Had they been successful, Islam would not have lasted much longer than its founder.

I am seeing this as the single most plausible POD yet. The thought of the Mongols becoming the ancient world's Nazi's is just too far out there in my opinion. Mohammed dying young or mother dying in child birth has a 50/50 chance of actually happening. But you all know as well as I that there have been movements in the past that have nearly been wiped out or wiped out because of infighting and domestic problems.

I would like to see a TL that makes sense it this scenario were to happen. makes me curious what the world would look today. So far, I have the following being butterflied away or happening instead:

1. An Islamic Persia which became the center of science and medicine while Europe was going through the dark ages.
2. There would be no Crusades.
3. Possibility of a Christian Middle East and a Buddist central/south Asia.
4. With no Crusades, there would have been no reason for the Jews to leave the Middle East in the first place so it is possible that the holocaust might have not been as public or severe.
5. Modern terrorism would have shifted for other various causes.
6. it is possible that with no idea of Islam to rally the Afghani's for a resistance, the USSR might have held onto the country.
7. Islamic Vs. Christian tribal fighting in Africa would have never happened.
8. What 9/11?

Can anyone else refine mine or come up with more?

 

[Keenir]

There would be no Crusades.

sure there would - there were crusades against the Algensians(sp), the Cathars, and I think against the pagan Lithuanians.

Modern terrorism would have shifted for other various causes.

it would've stayed a Christian/Marxist thing.

Christian tribal fighting in Africa would have never happened.

it would've been Christian vs Christian and Christian vs Animists.

What 9/11?

there was one in - Peru? Argentina? - in OTL a few years before the US got hit. also on 9/11.

 

[Tyr]

Anything post 1 would be totally irrelevant anyway.

 

[Kalan]

sure there would - there were crusades against the Algensians(sp), the Cathars, and I think against the pagan Lithuanians.

But only after the first crusades to reconquer the Levant were made, so without that example they wouldn't take plaece.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

But only after the first crusades to reconquer the Levant were made, so without that example they wouldn't take plaece.

Reconquer ? One should not abandon the symbol "x" in matters like this Like Saddam's wars towards Iran and Kuwait which were clearly NOT jihad nor that they were reclamation attempts, de facto.

 

[Theodoric]

But only after the first crusades to reconquer the Levant were made, so without that example they wouldn't take plaece.

I wouldn't say so. It might not be called a Crusade, but I'm sure Rome was plotting on killing the Cathars in a religious mass slaughter anyway, crusade or not.

 

[MerryPrankster]

you wanna tell a Sarmatian that his faith is identical to that of an Essene, a Zealot, and a Domne?

I think you mean "Samaritan."

The Sarmatians were a steppe-nomad people from the Roman period.

 

[MerryPrankster]

1. An Islamic Persia which became the center of science and medicine while Europe was going through the dark ages.
2. There would be no Crusades.
3. Possibility of a Christian Middle East and a Buddist central/south Asia.
4. With no Crusades, there would have been no reason for the Jews to leave the Middle East in the first place so it is possible that the holocaust might have not been as public or severe.
5. Modern terrorism would have shifted for other various causes.
6. it is possible that with no idea of Islam to rally the Afghani's for a resistance, the USSR might have held onto the country.
7. Islamic Vs. Christian tribal fighting in Africa would have never happened.
8. What 9/11?

Can anyone else refine mine or come up with more?

If Islam self-destructs after Mohammed's death, Persia would be Zoroastrian or (eventually) Nestorian, not Islamic.

 

[rcduggan]

sorry, but can you cite a source for this? Yes the Mongols killes A LOT of people in Persia, but not 90%. If that were the case, the Persians would have gone the way of the Aztecs, Caribs, and Tainos; no civilization can survive that level of slaughter. Also, the Mongols at this phase were NOT Buddhist: they were Shamanists, and the Ilkhans had converted to Islam within a few generations of the conquest.

http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html
(Source)

EDIT: There is also a JSTOR source here, but you need an account to access it.

The first Ilkhan, Hulagu, converted to Buddhism in his old age. The second Ilkhan, Abaqa was nominally a Buddhist. It was not till the third Ilkhan, Tekuder assumed the throne that he converted to Islam. But then Arghun after him was also a Buddhist, and so was every other khan until Mahmud Ghazan converted to Islam. * Even after Mahmud, his brother Oljeitu was first a Christian, then a Buddhist, then finally a Muslim.

Therefore - seeing as only one of the Ilkhans was ever a Tengriist, that Buddhism would have a strong presence in the Ilkhanate.


*An random note: typgin Gaykhatu (the name of an Ilkhan) in Google brings up a suggested correction of "Gaychat."




EDIT: Might as well not double-post...

I wouldn't say so. It might not be called a Crusade, but I'm sure Rome was plotting on killing the Cathars in a religious mass slaughter anyway, crusade or not.

This may be nitpicking, but the crusaders didn't call what they were doing a crusade. That term did not appear until the 1600s to describe the crusades. The crusaders viewed themselves as soldiers making a pilgrimage, although a heavily armed one.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta's_Trip_Three.html
(Source)
"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" -GENGHIS KHAN

Now my respect and admiration for the Great Khan has just dropped by 40 points !!

 

[moetah]

Now my respect and admiration for the Great Khan has just dropped by 40 points !!

You taught the Mongols were a bunch of polite gentlemans playing polo on their horses?

 

[rcduggan]

The thought of the Mongols becoming the ancient world's Nazi's is just too far out there in my opinion.

How come? What I posted was simply what happened IOTL, they killed around 90% of the population. If it had been 2% more, there would have been only 200,000 people left in Persia, and it would be settled probably by Buddhist Mongols. As my source says " The total population of this area may have dropped temporarily from 2,500,000 to 250,000 as a result of mass extermination and famine."

The Mongols killed up to forty million people IOTL, and another 75 million indirectly from the Black Plague. They used extermination and famine, so
in that respect they could be considered "ancient world Nazis." If it had been a little bit more, Islam may have been wiped out or at least severely diminished in Mongol-controlled lands.


(note: I am not advocating anything here, just stating facts. )

 

[Keenir]

I think you mean "Samaritan."

I think so...or Sarmaritan - the group which included the woman at the well, whom Jesus spoke to in the Bible.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You taught the Mongols were a bunch of polite gentlemans playing polo on their horses?

Don't give a damn sh**t about the Mongols, I'm talking about their supreme leader! And until that post I had been thinking of Genghis Khan as a wise, noble, and mature figure, if ruthless....

 

[sphinxeguy]

Don't give a damn sh**t about the Mongols, I'm talking about their supreme leader! And until that post I had been thinking of Genghis Khan as a wise, noble, and mature figure, if ruthless....

I thought he was being rather poetic.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

I thought he was being rather poetic.

Maybe, still I feel bad about him now....

 

[sphinxeguy]

Maybe, still I feel bad about him now....

"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" -GENGHIS KHAN

You just don't see language like that from modern day perpetrators of mass genocide and slaughter.

The Khan is such a lady killer.

 

[Ridwan Asher]

You just don't see language like that from modern day perpetrators of mass genocide and slaughter.

That, of course is true.

 

[Valdemar II]

"The greatest happiness is to vanquish your enemies, to chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth, to see those dear to them bathed in tears, to clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters" -GENGHIS KHAN

You just don't see language like that from modern day perpetrators of mass genocide and slaughter.

I don't know Hitler could be quite poetic

"Ein Reich. Ein Volk. Ein Führer" quite catchy.