Middle East development in Altered Timeline

OTL that happened, it is called Salafism. People here have too positive a view of the Reformation, it was essentially a civil war, in Germany, that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, for little positive.

The ideology behind “salafism,” from even a narrow point of view however, predates the fall of Baghdad. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal lived during the height of the Abbasid period and the Mihna (inquisition). There further is no such thing as a reformation in Islam and such a concept does not exist until Islam met the West in recent Ages. Islam itself constitutes a separate realm than that of those lands influenced mostly by Rome and the Church of the Middle Ages, just as it differentiates from Hindustan.

One thing should be noted, fiqh (law) and the interpretation of the classical masters of the Middle Ages was just as or more conservative than those scholars which followed them in the 14th century. This further is interesting considering the fact that no golden age disappeared. Egypt continued to improve itself following 1260 and great talent arose from there and surrounding areas. Post Mongol Islamic scholars were numerous and matched equally the skill of their predecessors. Ibn Taymiyyah for instance was prolific and is one of the most important scholars in the modern Islamic world. His works have been wholly preserved, kept and are still read. How many scholars of the 900s Abbasid period are still read today or do we have more than circumstancial evidences for their works? It is quite high. Whilst this may be evidence that the Mongol host destroyed it totally, the idea that everything known to the Abbasid was held in Baghdad, seems lacking.
 
The ideology behind “salafism,” from even a narrow point of view however, predates the fall of Baghdad. Ahmad Ibn Hanbal lived during the height of the Abbasid period and the Mihna (inquisition). There further is no such thing as a reformation in Islam and such a concept does not exist until Islam met the West in recent Ages. Islam itself constitutes a separate realm than that of those lands influenced mostly by Rome and the Church of the Middle Ages, just as it differentiates from Hindustan.

One thing should be noted, fiqh (law) and the interpretation of the classical masters of the Middle Ages was just as or more conservative than those scholars which followed them in the 14th century. This further is interesting considering the fact that no golden age disappeared. Egypt continued to improve itself following 1260 and great talent arose from there and surrounding areas. Post Mongol Islamic scholars were numerous and matched equally the skill of their predecessors. Ibn Taymiyyah for instance was prolific and is one of the most important scholars in the modern Islamic world. His works have been wholly preserved, kept and are still read. How many scholars of the 900s Abbasid period are still read today or do we have more than circumstancial evidences for their works? It is quite high. Whilst this may be evidence that the Mongol host destroyed it totally, the idea that everything known to the Abbasid was held in Baghdad, seems lacking.

I think that the whole "Mongol caused the end of the Islamic Golden Age" is just a way to blame external factors for what fundamental happened for internal reasons. I don't think you need to take it very serious. When we look at "Golden Ages" they're usual cause by times of plenty (some exception exists) and the moment the money begins to dry out they tend to end. We can see it in Europe with Italians and Dutch who in a long periods was the centres of art, craftmanship and science, but as the money no longer flood into the coffin, the developments slowed down and other states came ahead of them.
 
The ideology behind “salafism,” from even a narrow point of view however, predates the fall of Baghdad

This is true, however arguably groups like ISIS, who are the most "radical" salafi, which I know is reductionist, are believers in Sola Fide. I.E. they believe there is no need for Imams as all people are able to read the Quran and come to the "correct" conclusions. In this sense, for clarification, ISIS as a group are analogous to Reformed Christians, if only in their view of the religion.

no such thing as a reformation in Islam and such a concept does not exist until Islam met the West in recent Ages

Again this is true but not my point, my point was that people on www.alternatehistory.com have a tendency to make the reformation this amazing incident that freed the Western World from the jaws of Catholic Obscurantism, which I would argue it wasnt.
 
This is true, however arguably groups like ISIS, who are the most "radical" salafi, which I know is reductionist, are believers in Sola Fide. I.E. they believe there is no need for Imams as all people are able to read the Quran and come to the "correct" conclusions. In this sense, for clarification, ISIS as a group are analogous to Reformed Christians, if only in their view of the religion.



Again this is true but not my point, my point was that people on www.alternatehistory.com have a tendency to make the reformation this amazing incident that freed the Western World from the jaws of Catholic Obscurantism, which I would argue it wasnt.

Can you produce evidence that ISIS said that texts do not require some interpretation by the Ahl ul Hali wal Aqd (those in high positions)? As far as I know, their position was same as almost any Muslim, simply that they believe that many of the ulema are invalid, by way of agreeing to the UN and other similar actions or inactions.

EDIT: is it not sola scriptura? Texts alone?
 
Last edited:
Can you produce evidence that ISIS said that texts do not require some interpretation by the Ahl ul Hali wal Aqd (those in high positions)? As far as I know, their position was same as almost any Muslim, simply that they believe that many of the ulema are invalid, by way of agreeing to the UN and other similar actions or inactions.

EDIT: is it not sola scriptura? Texts alone?

Firstly on Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are theologically the same belief, i.e. that A Godly Pious Christian will through the grace of god come to believe the same thing, just by reading the Bible.

Secondly, ISIS has restricted the Ahl ul Hali wal Aqd, to those on its leadership. This can in many ways be seen as comparable to the "purge" of Christianity were Reformed and Lutherans rejected traditional beliefs and the traditional religious community, while I am wrong to say the they are one to one the same in this belief it is highly comparable. This is because no normal person can in their day to day lives consider philosophy, and so the average German Peasant would listen to whatever preacher he agreed most with, in this sense ISIS and its rejection of the Ulema for not conducting eternal war is the same. That being that it is the same in the sense of the wholesale rejection of traditional Islamic/Christian Leadership, in exchange for a more "puritanical" belief system, that attempts explicitly to cleave as close to the source text as possible.
 
Top