More widespread Ibadi sect?

Hi,everyone!
I'm superninja76,as you probably already know,and while I was bored earlier today I decided to learn more about Islam,for some reason.
While I was doing my research,I noticed a third sect existed.
They are called the Ibadi's,I recognized them from EU4 (Which I play alot.)
So,i decided to learn more about them.
Apparently,they are a ultra-moderate muslim sect,really small (Only country with a ibadi majority is oman! :eek:)
So,I started wondering..How would you get a more widespread ibadi sect,and what would happen if it did spread?

Also,completely off-topic but if anyone remembers my posts about the 1473 expedition that might've reached canada,I unfortunately am unable to write a tl about it. Sorry.
 
John7755 is pretty knowledgeable in regard to matters about Islam. He can most likely provide some insight. A thread about the Ibadi sect was created not too long ago and has some information in it as well.
 
Historically and in the modern day ins small numbers, their were Ibadi communities in arts of North Africa; in Algeria the Rustamid dynasty were Ibadi's and they and the refugees from their kingdom formed the nucleus of the smaller communities in modern North Africa, which can primarily be found in M'zab (North Central Algeria, the Nafusa mountains of Libya and Djerba island (the main big island) of Tunisia.
 
Best way might be a more successful Oman spreading their form of Islam along the trade routes.

The Ibadi state in Algeria (Rustamids, was it?) being more successful could be interesting.

With these two facts, would it be plausible to have Indonesia, Oman, and the Maghreb as Ibadi majority? Or for that matter, al-Andalus/Iberia as an Ibadi region as well? And from the Maghreb, have Ibadi spread into West Africa and become the dominant form of Islam there.

That almost seems like an Ibadi-wank to me, I'm not really sure how plausible that that might be.
 
Ibadhism would so read more easily with more success by more radical Khawarij groups especially in North Africa. Part of the reason Kharijite sentiments diminished was the failure of the Zanj revolt, the Fatimids and the changing geopolitical sphere away from the Caliph, Mu'Tazila and questions of Islamic legitimacy simply to ones skill in battle. Keep the zeitgeist of the 9th and 10th century and Ibadhi Muslim will be sprinkled throughout Iraq and Syria going into the 1400s.

In North Africa it is very possible that Ibadhi or Kharijite movements become the identity of the Berber people in the same way that southern Iraq became Shi'i or areas of the Zanjan and Golestan became Shi'i. So allow those to go forward and we could have Ibadhi minority in Morrocco, majority in Algeria and minority in Tunisia, rather than isolated pockets throughout the Maghreb.

One problem with Kharijism is that it is always a reaction based religion, it begins and becomes popular due to an event or as a reaction to illegitimacy or in times of trouble or when there is ethnic strife. Unless someone knows the signs, it is impossible to decipher Khawarij belief from Sunni belief thus they blend together and only come out as different when the mood of the land is conducive for it. Shi'i excluding the fact that without the Safavid period would be significantly smaller, was more successful after the 11th century because they distinguished themselves so much from Sunni thar ethnic communities remained Shi'i and made it completely their identity, whereas the Khawarij just changed their identities with the wind.
 
Forgot about making this thread,just remembered it.. :eek:
While john's post about the ibad(h?) seems pretty interesting,the kharijites just seem like they would end up being a carbon copy of the sunnis.
On the other hand,a ibadi indonesia seems like a really nice idea to look at.
Could the omanis spread ibadism to south-east asia?
 
The main problem of Ibadism is that it's part of a khawrij label (altough that it should be considered as part of what of it is debated, including among Ibadi) and at least outside Arabia, and have more appeal for muladi (converted) than for Arabs as its stressed moral equality of Muslims.

It's especially obvious in al-Ifriqiya and al-Maghrib (possibly al-Andalus as well, tough I don't remember a particularily significant Ibadi presence).

And while it allowed Ibadism (as Khawrij branches in generals) to blossom on marginal communities (socially and/or ethnically and/or socially), it generally prevented them to really reach the cores or elites as a whole.

For medieval North Africa, it basically means a Berber-wank, which is going to be hard to achieve without some orthodox support (as Almoravid beneficied).

People mentioned the Banû Rustam / Rustemids, but the Imamate of Tihert was more about a moral legitimacy on dominance than a strong state, and deprived of a charismatic leader, it tended to go back to the traditional tribal confederation.

Assuming that Ibadi outnumber the Sufris at the time of the Great Berber Revolt of 739/740, and somehow manage to be more successful (basically taking on the whole of al-Ifriqiya and maybe al-Andalus), it might changes things durably.
Not that a Berber Caliphate (Sufri or Ibadi) seems really likely to be anything more than meteoritic to me, due to the structural weakness of their political organisation, but it could give Ibadi a certain legitimity and a strong presence along the coastal line (the true place of power in the region) making the Ibadi communities more than oasis and marginal entities.

An ovbvious PoD would be Abd al-Rahmân ben Rustam being victorious against the wali of al-Misr and managing to keep all al-Ifriqiya, but it doesn't seems really bound to happen : even if he does pulls that, the relative disunity among Arabo-Berbers provide a weakness that Abbasids and their vassals would certainly use, with the possible support of Sufris.

Another PoD may be having Idrissid failing to take on al-Maghrib, allowing tribes as Banû Midrar of Sijilmassa to take on the whole of the region.
Then again we're talking of a mostly tribal entity, at best as cyclical chiefdom.

That said, all of these, if not managing to provide with an Ibadi power in North Africa (which is problematic giving the really tight link between political power and religion in Arabo-Islamic world), gives room for a more widespread Ibadi presence at least for Middle Ages.

Now, the situation is a bit different at the opposite side of the AI world.
Ibadism in Oman and Yemen certainly lacked the ethnic part it had in Africa, but I think it's interesting to point that they still occupied a particular place in the Arabic peninsula, traditionally more open to trade and foreign influence.

As John7755 يوحنا, if you manage to tweak enough things for the Abassids (for the worse) it would certainly give more credence to unheterodox schools both trough legitimacy boost and support from more and more independent-minded elites.
Giving the place of these region on spice trade (he who controls the spice, controls the universe!).

But that's not the only possibility in Asia, tough : southern Persia, Khwarezm and Sidh can provides room for Ibadi Turks or Turko-Persian entities, would the orthodox caliphates being unable to entierly wheight.

That said, note that Islamic branches and schools were quite porous to each other until the end of medieval era (even if you do have periods of dogmatisation of these, critically with Fatimid rise) : a more successful Ibadi presence in Arabo-Islamic world could mean that some of their beliefs and principles being adopted (after modification) by mainstream Islamic teachings, thus making them either less distinguishable, or less successful.
 
Top