Islamic Africa.

Nubia falls not long after Egypt. Does Islam continue to spread further south and do the Arab conquerors of Egypt and Nubia even desire to expand?
 
Er, I think this would butterfly Islam into oblivion. When, exactly, did Egypt "fall" by your definition?
 
I think what he's talking about is a POD during the time that the Rashidun's were rampaging everywhere and forcing a Koran down everybody's throats.

Basically, the Rashidun's conquer Egypt as per OTL, but manage to break further through in Sudan/Nubia/Axum/What the fuck ever you want to call it, and start spreading in Eastern Africa more than focusing on North Africa/Levant.
 
Taking and Islamicizing Ethiopia would like reduce the chances of that region being isolated during the Middle Ages. Being more deeply linked up with Indian Ocean trade would likely be very good for Ethiopia, as the fortunes of that power tended to wax and wane according to the amount of power and influence it could exert over regional trade routes. A powerful Ethiopia would have a lot of soft power and influence, allowing Islam to spread further.

From there, you could see Islam spreading along the Somalian coast earlier than OTL, which may mean that it reaches the Monomotapa-like civilizations as well. An Islamic power colonizing South Africa would also help.

In general, Islam could have spread further and deeper than it did in OTL, but there would likely still remain pagan regions, some of which will be vulnerable to Christianization. It might be possible to limit that to, say, the Congo region.
 
Didn't happen.

Sure. There was no conquests, no massacres, no religious discrimination, no killing of the infidel for being infidel, yeah yeah. There's one thing when you're trying to be fair, but it's another altogether to say "it didn't happen". The best you can say is "it didn't quite happen in such simple terms" or "it was somewhat of an improvement in perspective of the time period".
 
Sure. There was no conquests, no massacres, no religious discrimination, no killing of the infidel for being infidel, yeah yeah. There's one thing when you're trying to be fair, but it's another altogether to say "it didn't happen". The best you can say is "it didn't quite happen in such simple terms" or "it was somewhat of an improvement in perspective of the time period".

There's a big difference between arguing that it wasn't completely peaceful and Utopian, and arguing that the conquests were rampaging destruction slaughtering infidels for being infidels (sounds rather more like the Crusades, which were done by a religion that doesn't mandate fair treatment to nonbelievers) and other such acts of, in a word, barbarism.
 
Sure. There was no conquests, no massacres, no religious discrimination, no killing of the infidel for being infidel, yeah yeah. There's one thing when you're trying to be fair, but it's another altogether to say "it didn't happen". The best you can say is "it didn't quite happen in such simple terms" or "it was somewhat of an improvement in perspective of the time period".

He said "shoving Qur'an to people's throats", which implied forcing conversion, which Rashidun Caliphate never really did, even to the Zoroastrian Persians. I also doubt that Rashidun Caliphate ever killed infidels for being infidels. The rest did happened though.

Anyway he has already admitted that he was only being hyperbolic.
 
Considering such an early conquest of Nubia and Ethiopia, it is likely that Islam itself would change as it is adopted by those peoples. Early on Islam would have different influences working on it which would subtly change it. Later on, the Islamic Kingdom of Ethiopia might still be waging war with Arabs arguing one or the other is heretic.
 
Sure. There was no conquests, no massacres, no religious discrimination, no killing of the infidel for being infidel, yeah yeah. There's one thing when you're trying to be fair, but it's another altogether to say "it didn't happen". The best you can say is "it didn't quite happen in such simple terms" or "it was somewhat of an improvement in perspective of the time period".

There wasn't any ramming of the Quran down anyone's throats, nor was there a lot of massacre and killing infidel for being infidel. Conquest and bloodshed, yes. But not a lot of religious compulsion. I think that's what was being objected to.
 
I'm not sure Nubia falling makes that much difference - it became Muslim anyway, and the transmission of Islam in Africa occurred mostly across the Sahara and inland from the East African coast. Perhaps it would have had a greater head start and penetrated further south, but Islam kind of requires urban civilization to flourish.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Taking and Islamicizing Ethiopia would like reduce the chances of that region being isolated during the Middle Ages. Being more deeply linked up with Indian Ocean trade would likely be very good for Ethiopia, as the fortunes of that power tended to wax and wane according to the amount of power and influence it could exert over regional trade routes. A powerful Ethiopia would have a lot of soft power and influence, allowing Islam to spread further.

From there, you could see Islam spreading along the Somalian coast earlier than OTL, which may mean that it reaches the Monomotapa-like civilizations as well. An Islamic power colonizing South Africa would also help.
Muslim Great Zimbabwe! Mediterranean crops reaching southern Africa! :cool:
 

Arrix85

Donor
As a way to expand Islam you could prevent Ethiopian aid to the first followers of Muhammed, which were given shelter by Ethiopia, so later on it was held to a sort of special standard for a while. A more energetic jihad from across the Red Sea could wipe out Christianity from there, and that could help spreading Islam in Eastern Africa.
 
Top