Islam Nonexistant - What Religious Effects?

[Midgard]

so...Islam is to blame for the instability in France and such areas?

Umm... not what I was saying. The original poster asked what the religious effects of no Islam might have been. I think that there is a good chance the lack of Islam would have led to stronger Western Mediterranean civilization and weaker Papacy - such situation could have also prevented the destruction of most of what was left by unstable, martial-oriented "classic-feudalistic" cultures to the north.

I'm sure the Copts didn't need the Inquisition to feel persecuted by the Byzantines....or for the Jews to feel slammed-into-a-wall by just about everyone.

As the Coptic rebellions of the late VIIIth and IXth centuries show with distinct clarity, their lot in Muslim Egypt was far from enviable. After that time, they were effectively too powerless to do anything.

The Inquisition was, by the way, an example, not a source of all evils in the world.

I say "states" because it's easier than saying "social and-or economic and-or linguistic zones that may or may not have rulers in common"

...and because I know I always forget things to put in all-inclusive definitions like that.

With the Byzantine presence in Italy not thoroughly compromised by the affairs elsewhere, reunification of Italy under a single power is possible - however (and in this I go back to Renaissanse Italian authors and their observations) the presence of independent Papacy always created a door for any would-be Christian invader (especially after Charlemagne's coronation), and always created unstable political structures. My point is that if the Byzantines were capable to concentrate their entire focus on Italy (and they definitely would have had the resources to do so if these resources were not tied up fighting the Arabs - not to mention they would have been quite willing to retake Italy too, given a chance), they would have ended up with a single polity there, which would have had much easier chance protecting the peninsula against the incursions. As it was in OTL, there were numerous smaller states and powerful (but not sufficiently powerful) Papacy that often used outside forces to accomplish their ends. That alone creates pretext for numerous invasions, especially when you consider that an average Papal reign is not that long, and different independent policies of the Holy See tended to lead to even more foreign interference at the behest of the current occupant or his enemies.

 

[Leo Caesius]

With regard to navies, the Arabs were able to raise navies quickly in the same fashion as other Mediterranean powers - by subcontracting. Navies under Arab control are only "Arab navies" in the loosest possible sense, and when non-Arab sailors turn to piracy I fail to see how they could be described in any meaningful way as "Arab raiders".

I think Wozza is completely and totally wrong about the Mediterranean being an "Islamic backwater". Classical Islamic civilization owed considerably less in nearly every sense to the pre-Islamic civilizations of the peninsula than it did to the civilizations of the lands it inherited. But, just to make sure we're not completely talking at cross purposes, I'd be very interested to hear from Midgard and Wozza just what this stark "discontinuity" entailed and how it represented a greater break from tradition than, say, the conquests of Justinian. Bear in mind that most of the inhabitants of the lands conquered by Justinian or for Islam were neither Greek-speaking nor Orthodox in faith.

I also strongly take issue with Midgard's characterization of his hypothesis as new and controversial and contrary to popular belief. In 2007, the Liberty Science Center in Jersey City opened an international traveling exhibit on the sciences in the Islamic Middle East, the first of its type in the country. I served as a consultant. My sister, who worked there at the time, told me that they received complaints of the sort that Midgard makes virtually every day. The exhibit was a complete flop, and to my knowledge they never found another museum in North America willing to host the traveling exhibition. During the summer they were actually forced to close the museum completely, send all employees home, and put them on unemployment for a month or two. Obviously the Muslim community in NJ was pleased by the exhibit, but apparently nobody else was... and it was a really neat exhibit, too.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Incidentally, speaking of "Greek fire" - the use of naphtha in combat was not particularly Greek but was certainly known to the Mesopotamians centuries or even millennia before it travelled to Constantinople. The Arabs used a combination of naphtha, quicklime, and sulphur already in the time of Muhammad (and after the 8th century incorporated asbestos padding into the lining of the troops that used naphtha, the naffaa6uuna). What made "Greek Fire" so special was not the formula, which the Greeks got from somewhere else - possibly even the Arabs - but the delivery system, which in any case was invented by a native of Phoenicia.

Obviously, it stands to reason that the knowledge of weaponizing petroleum came from the regions where petroleum is plentiful. So much for this banner example of Byzantine ingenuity!

 

[SavageDays]

Umm... not what I was saying. The original poster asked what the religious effects of no Islam might have been. I think that there is a good chance the lack of Islam would have led to stronger Western Mediterranean civilization and weaker Papacy - such situation could have also prevented the destruction of most of what was left by unstable, martial-oriented "classic-feudalistic" cultures to the north.

Yep. Dead on. I was looking for your collective ideas on how religions might have developed without influence from Islam, and how countries might have also developed likewise. Also how nations might have changed with influences from smaller minority religions that would have otherwise been marginalized or wiped out by Islam's rise. Someone mentioned Manicheans earlier...there's an example.

I never meant to imply that Islam is the source of the world's misery. I hope no one is thinking that. I'm just asking for thoughts on what may or may not happened without it. I guess you could open a whole other thread, if it hasn't already been done, on any other religion being taken out of the equation if you wanted to. Same idea. Just conjecture!

 

[Leo Caesius]

I think that, without Islam as a convenient bad guy, the division between the western (Latin) and eastern (Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox/Church of the East) will grow even more severe. If the Byzantine Empire survives in some shape or form, it will probably assume the role in TTL that Islam did in the OTL. I also think that the Oriental Orthodox churches (Armenians, Syrians, and Copts) will probably remain widespread and eventually form the basis for separatist responses to the empire.

I don't really see Zoroastrianism as a credible rival at this point, either. By this point, the most populous part of the Sasanian empire was Mesopotamia, and Christians of various stripes probably comprised a plurality if not a majority of the population there (though I think that the numbers adduced for Christians in other parts of the Sasanian empire are probably inflated).

As far as Manichaeism goes, it was obviously widespread but I'd be interested to know how popular it was in the various countries in which it was attested. I'm also curious as to what extent Manichaeism could be considered an independent religion on its own and to what extent it might be considered a possibility within a variety of religious traditions. It could well be that Manichaeism ends up influencing these traditions in different areas, so that Manichaean texts or beliefs become more mainstream (though probably not canonical; note, for example, that many of the Gnostic texts from Nag Hammadi were probably part of the library of the Pachomian monastery in the neighborhood).

 

[Wozza]

I think Wozza is completely and totally wrong about the Mediterranean being an "Islamic backwater". Classical Islamic civilization owed considerably less in nearly every sense to the pre-Islamic civilizations of the peninsula than it did to the civilizations of the lands it inherited. But, just to make sure we're not completely talking at cross purposes, I'd be very interested to hear from Midgard and Wozza just what this stark "discontinuity" entailed and how it represented a greater break from tradition than, say, the conquests of Justinian. Bear in mind that most of the inhabitants of the lands conquered by Justinian or for Islam were neither Greek-speaking nor Orthodox in faith.

But Islam is also a Meospotamiam and Persian civilisation, and it's centre of gravity has often been on the fertile crescent. The Abbasids never even tried to capture Constantinople. I did qualify my statement of backwater but I stress again the rise of centrifugal forces in the Mediterranean from the 8th century onwards, suggesting that this is not core territory.

Looking at trade also the Muslims were much less Mediterranean focussed -Islamic coins and items ended up in England via Russia and Scandinavia for example. This says a lot about the role of the Vikings but also shows how Muslims travelled in a range of directions, not just through the Med.

In the conquered territories a change of dominant religion, a dramatic change of script and steady but substantial change of administrative practices all represent major changes. In architecture and material culture there is perhaps more evolution.

I would be tempted to say there are larger changes in the unconquered territories, Asia Minor suffers complete urban destruction thanks to Arab raiding and during the 8th century even Constantinople was pretty deserted. Arab raiding also takes its toll on south-west Europe, but is only one of several factors.

And one small thing - Justinian spoke Latin not Greek.

 

[carlton_bach]

It seems that you are equating medicinal accomplishment with overall advancement, which is like saying that France is a better team than Germany by the virtue of having a better goalkeeper. I think the picture is much more multi-faceted than that. Not to mention the little something in 1204 which destroyed much Byzantine knowledge and archives.

No, medicine is a good indicator because unlike most off the other fields of applied knowledge, it has a long-standing tradition of publication by name and written transmission of knopwledge. In the ancient and medieval world, tracing the origin and transmission of technologies is often impossible because written records rarely survive and names are hardly ever mentioned. Look at the transmission history of the mappae clavicula for an example (the Western world's earliest explicit reference to candy) - the experts aren't sure whether it originated in Byzantium, Lombard Italy or elsewhere and nobody knows whether it was expanded in copying or whether the earliest extant manuscript is an excerpt. Obviously, while theology is a good field for tracing publications since names and written records are commonplace, the mutual influence between the spheres was limited by not sharing the same frame of reference. Medicine is one field where Latins, Greeks and Arabs freely learned from each other, so you would expect it to reflect the overall exchange with at least some degree of accuracy. And it can't be because medicine was especially favoured by Arab culture. The tradition of hospital management actually stems from Byzantine roots and their medical theory is largely based on Greek antecedents, as they openly write. So, the one field where we actually have a paper trail indicates conventional history is right. It would be interesting to do the same for astronomy, although in that area, advances were much more limited.

As to the 1204 event, many disasters befell the Arab world between 800 and 1200 and its science was not lost. Even after the Mogol invasions, we can still trace Arab scholarship well, and it's not like this is a field that has see excessive efforts. Where is the disseminated Byzantine knowledge? Why couldn't the Renaissance searchers unearth more of it if they could find the Greek historians and dramatists?

 

[Wozza]

As to the 1204 event, many disasters befell the Arab world between 800 and 1200 and its science was not lost. Even after the Mogol invasions, we can still trace Arab scholarship well, and it's not like this is a field that has see excessive efforts. Where is the disseminated Byzantine knowledge? Why couldn't the Renaissance searchers unearth more of it if they could find the Greek historians and dramatists?

In general a noticeably low proportion of Byzantine written material has survived - we have for example 60,000 court document seals and, err, no court documents. This can be attributed to the strong focus of high culture in Constantinople only from the 7th-circa late 11th centuries and the Empire's long drawn out and ultimately very total destruction - many Greek settlements in Asia Minor were destroyed not just occupied by the Turks. This very much limits what came over in the Renaissance.

 

[Valdemar II]

"Arab" pirates at this point in history would have been highly anachronistic. There were none. The Arab presence in North Africa at this time was negligible and none were sailors, let alone pirates. The pirates were the same ones that had been pirating since the dawn of time. Some of them may have nominally become Muslim, but I don't think we can say this with any certainty.

As for whether the island had been depopulated as a result of piracy in the past, I am quite positive that it had, although it will be a while before I can get to my books and give you any specifics.

One more thing. It has become a truism that refugees fleeing the Ottomans kick-started the Renaissance. You, on the other hand, want us to believe that refugees fleeing the more civilized portions of southern Europe for the north to escape Arab Muslim raiders (for which I'd like to see some evidence, really) kick-started the Dark Ages? I find both ideas to be hard to swallow, not to mention completely contradictory.

No the Dark Age didn't start there, the regugees kickstarted European civilisation as a distinct entity separate from the Earlier Trans-Mediterreanean "Western" Civilisation. They move the centre of the "West" to the Rhine and Po valley from the Mediterreanean Sea, and removed Mahgreb and to some extend Spain from the "West". I doesn't put anything positive or negative in that, and the Dark Age didn't start there, and likely a split between the South and North would have happen even without the Muslims, just with the Italian peninsula and whole of Spain joining the South instead of just Mahgreb and South and Central Spain.

 

[Keenir]

Umm... not what I was saying.

you said-

Originally Posted by Midgard
Rise of Islam = weakening of Byzantine power
Weakening of Byzantine power = no chance in hell to retake Italy
No chance in hell to retake Italy = relative power vacuum
Relative power vacuum + political instability in the West = Pope Power!!!

As the Coptic rebellions of the late VIIIth and IXth centuries show with distinct clarity, their lot in Muslim Egypt was far from enviable. After that time, they were effectively too powerless to do anything.

I'm not saying their lots under the Muslims was sunshine and buttercups; I'm saying they were persecuted less, as well as less often, than they were under the Byzantines.

The Inquisition was, by the way, an example, not a source of all evils in the world.

very true: Byzantium had a set of particularly nasty anti-Jewish laws.

With the Byzantine presence in Italy not thoroughly compromised by the affairs elsewhere, reunification of Italy under a single power is possible -

possible, yes; more than likely, no..

My point is that if the Byzantines were capable to concentrate their entire focus on Italy (and they definitely would have had the resources to do so if these resources were not tied up fighting the Arabs - not to mention they would have been quite willing to retake Italy too, given a chance),

Constantine the Great set up his capital in Constantinople.

Heraclitus himself considered moving his capital to Egypt.

these are two examples - off the back of my head - demonstrating that pre-Islamic Byzantine Emperors didn't always put Rome at the top of their to-do lists.

 

[Keenir]

the rise of centrifugal forces in the Mediterranean from the 8th century onwards, suggesting that this is not core territory.

Looking at trade also the Muslims were much less Mediterranean focussed -Islamic coins and items ended up in England via Russia and Scandinavia for example. This says a lot about the role of the Vikings but also shows how Muslims travelled in a range of directions, not just through the Med.

the Romans themselves ended up in the Fertile Cresent, in England, northern France and parts of Germany, north and western Iberia, fought Queen Candice of Ethiopia (after defeating Cleo 7 at Actium).....so even the Romans weren't much on staying a Mediterranean-focused people.

 

[Euroman26]

Some would argue that the arab world mirror Europe, being democratic.
If there hadn't been any Islam!

/Fred

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

Christianity would spead in Arabian peninsula if Islam is nonexistant.

 

[Cornelius]

Without islam Byzantium would have got a possibility to stabilize herself, getting a better grip over the liberated territories. The sectarism would have been a problem for sure and could have prompted a violent suppression of all the heretical currents and, possibly a civil war. On the long term Sicily, the other mediterrean islands and the province of Africa would have remained byzantine (barring a berber uprising). The Iconoclasm would have probably never been invented and maybe the west would have never received the refugee from the iconoclastic purges. Hispania would have remained a westgoten kingdom, with a future Spain completely different from ours. We would have a few cities less like Tunis and Cairo.

As for conquering Italy and crushing the Papacy, I think you are forgetting that the Persians had been beaten not utterly exterminated, it was just a matter of time before they regained their power. The Balkans were never an easy front and you have to take in consideration the various nomads like the Avars, Bulgars etc...The main problem would still be the internal stability, thou.

Cold logic would dictate to adress this problems first and to find a diplomatic solution with the Lombards, but an emperor could have decided to follow Justinan's steps and ignore logic...

As for the mediterrean question, it's without doubt that the roman empire had all his economic, political and cultural centers along the shores of the sea (Keenir, the regions you named were frontiers). And I think that, at least from the abbasid, the caliphate was more interested in the Middle east region than the mediterrean. Though, you should remember that muslims are descendents of the classical world as the franks or the byzantines. The cultural elites that runned the caliphate were usually of syrian, egyptian or persian ethnic. The actual arab element was scarcely represented and this was the reason of many grievance against the early ommaydes.

After the fall of the west empire (and even before) commerce through the sea had been declining, but it never stopped completely. Without the islamic war of conquest and with a more stable Byzantium commerce could have restarted. Probably the byzantine fleet would tried to eradicate pirates from the sea (of any religion or race: piracy is an equal oppurtunity job )

 

[Xen]

Some would argue that the arab world mirror Europe, being democratic.
If there hadn't been any Islam!

/Fred

It could also be argued without Islam to shape European society, then Europe would mirror the Arab world, where petty dictators rule with an iron fist in a mix of absolute monarchism and theocracy, and corrupt one party republics. {this of course is a generalization}

Democracy may not have developed (or should I say re-developed) in a world without Islam.

 

[Wozza]

It could also be argued without Islam to shape European society, then Europe would mirror the Arab world, where petty dictators rule with an iron fist in a mix of absolute monarchism and theocracy, and corrupt one party republics. {this of course is a generalization}

Democracy may not have developed (or should I say re-developed) in a world without Islam.

Aside from the sheer time interval involved making practically any long-term outcome possible why should the existence of Islam in particular affect this?

 

[Euroman26]

I would argue that Christinanity contains the basic elements for the start of democracy!

/Fred

 

[Tyr]

*That would be correct spelling of Midgård

Midgawd surely?
Oh. My. Gaaawwwwwd.

I would argue that Christinanity contains the basic elements for the start of democracy!

Not particularly.
Modern democracy arrises (after a very long path) out of the Germanic tribe's kind of 'democracy'.
When they turned christian this was generally reduced (mostly coincidental/part of the other effects that made them turn christian, etc...)

I see you're completely ignoring the Sassanids here...

Not only did the Sassanids aggressively promote Zoroastrianism, they were also very determined to root out Buddhism.

At they were pretty successful at it too - around IIRC 600 AD, Buddhism flourished in Soghdiana, but by the beginning of the 8th century, Zoroastrianism had become the dominant religion in Soghdiana, and a contemporary Chinese Buddhist pilgrim mentioned that there was only one functioning Buddhist temple in all of Samarkand (at the time, the largest Soghdian city), and that there was only one monk in that temple.

For comparison: pilgrims who came about a century earlier, mentioned the presence of various temples and hundreds of monks.

..
In other words: Buddhism propably won't spread westwards ITTL either, except that that will be thanks to a Zoroastrian block instead of an Islamic block.

They weren't so widespread as the muslims were though.
I could well see Buddhism trickling through a relatively small empire that was against it where it couldn't through a huge empire that was against it.
And of course east of the Persians you have places where buddhism has already spread, ITTL it won't be rooted out by the muslims.

 

[Alratan]

To get back to the original suggestion, I'd suggest that we'd see the rise of a Monophysite power in the Middle East to contend with the Chalcedonian Byzantine church.

 

[Dan1988]

Just a small question: how would a "no Islam" scenario affect the Persian language?