Islamic Europe (NOT an Islamaphobic thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ingemann

Banned
Given how in the one time Arabs conquered signifigant portions of Europe that emphatically didn't happen I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.

Seeing as slavery of both Africans and Americans was the major source of income to the Mahgreb states, and that the enslavement of Russians was a major if not the biggest source of foreign capital for the Tartars or you know the whole Battle of Tours, it was a glorified slave raid by Iberian Muslims. I think we can safely say it did happen.

So why do think that will change when they run into the even less organised North Europeans?
 
Out of curiosity, when did Bengal reach a pre-industrial stage?

It was shortly before the British conquest, they had reached a point where they had a very valuable cottage industry for textiles that was essentially one step away from industrial production.

As far as I know, Bengal had a very valuable high end textile cottage industry, but they never tried to mass produce. In fact, Gujarat and south India had lower quality, but large volume production of cotton textiles that they exported in large quantities to Persia, Ottoman empire and Europe. Bengal essentially had a silk and muslin industry that catered to nobility and royalty, but never lowered itself to mass production - hand woven silks were of the highest quality, but the very quality demanded an inordinate amount of effort in producing it. I may be missing something, but exactly what definition are you applying to proto-industrialisation?

Proto-industrialisation was there (as Maidros says it was in fact the South Indians who were moving closer to mass production). As is always the case with Indian industrial Revolution scenarios, the failing is that India is energy poor in terms of easily accessible fossil fuels.
 
Why? Every time Muslims reached marginal areas populated by war-like tribes they set up slave markets.

That might have been the situation in Asia, but Europe IMHO is on a slightly higher level, especially Italy & Spain (do we have Arabic influence in Spain in this TL?)
 
Kick
It's likely that Christianity would be a minority religion, about the size of, say...Sikhism today. Medieval Islamic states were quite tolerant of Christianity, as well as Judaism.

The status of women in Europe would probably be better than IOTL.

Yes, I Agree.

The statues of women in Europe would be the same as the Christian Europe is, For Example: Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Albania are Muslim Nations and they have a Positive Status of Women.

Also Albanian Muslims are Tolerant of Christians and Jews, they also Helped the Jews in WW2.

Yes of Course Muslim Europe will be tolerant of Christian and Jewish Minorities.

But the Attitudes of Homosexuality will be worse and Behind than IOTL.

Because, Islam is a lot More Resistant towards Homosexuality than Christianity and Judaism. (No Offense)

Also, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are Extremely Homophobic Nations. especially Albania is the most Homophobic Country in Europe as we know it.

even attitudes towards Homosexuality in America and Europe will be even far worse than IOTL, Stonewall will never happened at all. Gays will remained in Closet, Any Openly Homosexuals are beaten to death in the Streets, Parks and Other Places in Europe, America and Australia.
 
Who would conquer such a state? If this is some sort of humongous caliphate that conquers all of this, then likely we have a far worse situation for Europe than otl. What happened to Iraq is not guaranteed to not also occur in a alternate Italy ruled by this hypothetical Islamic unmah.
 
Who would conquer such a state? If this is some sort of humongous caliphate that conquers all of this, then likely we have a far worse situation for Europe than otl. What happened to Iraq is not guaranteed to not also occur in a alternate Italy ruled by this hypothetical Islamic unmah.

Depends on who does the conquering. It's theoretically possible for an Alexander to rise and form an army far in advance of Mediaeval Europe, and take over all or most of it before Christendom adapted, especially if he comes through right after the Black Death. His generalship and army would be what keeps this huge state together while he's alive, but as we know, Alexander wasn't all that much of a statesman, so it's likely to fall apart on his death. But he could at least destroy and replace the power structure of Christendom. I can't imagine too many peasants would be sad to see their old lords and ladies go, and an improved economy (the at-least temporary elimination of borders should help trade, and Arabic numerals on their own, along with algebra, could significantly aid finance. And getting back the Black Death, the scarcity of labour would help the condition of the smallfolk, who may link this improvement to the arrival of their new rulers) afterwords should convince some of this 'Islam' thing having its merits.

But keeping a significant Christian minority, even if decentralised, might encourage a rise in secular thought (theological explanations to the world probably seem more arbitrary when not everyone you know worships the same religion), and any Islamic conquest of Europe would likely disperse both Muslim and Byzantine scholars and texts through the continent. This more broad dispersal of academics and likely need of translations between Latin and Arabic means a huge number of book are needed, encouraging someone to innovate movable type and, oh yes, we have the ball rolling.

As for the discovery of America, it may take a while. Columbus was pretty lucky in convincing enough backers that the Earth was significantly smaller than what it really was. A ruling class that may be more experienced with mathematics probably won't place some quack above Aristophanes and his tried and true calculations, and would definitely be very hesitant to risk their very expensive ships and sailors on the assumption that there will be a continent along the way to save them.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, I Agree.

The statues of women in Europe would be the same as the Christian Europe is, For Example: Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Albania are Muslim Nations and they have a Positive Status of Women.

Also Albanian Muslims are Tolerant of Christians and Jews, they also Helped the Jews in WW2.

Yes of Course Muslim Europe will be tolerant of Christian and Jewish Minorities.

But the Attitudes of Homosexuality will be worse and Behind than IOTL.

Because, Islam is a lot More Resistant towards Homosexuality than Christianity and Judaism. (No Offense)

Also, Albania, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are Extremely Homophobic Nations. especially Albania is the most Homophobic Country in Europe as we know it.

even attitudes towards Homosexuality in America and Europe will be even far worse than IOTL, Stonewall will never happened at all. Gays will remained in Closet, Any Openly Homosexuals are beaten to death in the Streets, Parks and Other Places in Europe, America and Australia.
You have necroed THREE separate threads in the last 12 hours, two of them more than 3 years dead. In all of these cases you had to click through a warning that told you you were necroing the thread. That alone would be worthy of at least a harsh warning.

However, you were not only violating the dead, you were doing it with malice.

In each of the necros you including this same exact sentence:

"Because, Islam is a lot More Resistant towards Homosexuality than Christianity and Judaism. (No Offense)"

Not only is factually incorrect it is also obviously a display of intentional bigotry. It IS offensive, and you damned well know it, putting a disclaimer at the end doesn't change that.

Be glad you are only kicked for a week. You have no idea how badly I wanted to kick you three times in a row for doing this THREE times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top