Muhammad lives another decade, oversees the conquest of Syria?

In OTL the Arab expansion into Syria began in 634, only a few years after the death of Muhammad. Which leads me to wonder what it would have meant if Muhammad had lived to oversee this. Given that he was in his early 60s at the time of his death, and given that death was the result of a fever, I don't see any reason that his lasting another decade is implausible.

I am of course making an assumption here that Muhammad chooses to order such a campaign as Abu Bakr did and sees similar success. Alternatively we could consider as a POD that the earlier battle of Mu'tah(in 629) is a victory for the Arabs, and that the victory encourages Muhammad to authorize further campaigns against them(his fatal fever can then be hand-waved away as the work of butterflies).

So, if we take as a given that the Arabs have the same successes against the Byzantines as OTL, what might the significance of Muhammad being alive be? Surely there will be theological consequences, since the new territories would change the political dynamic and potentially inspire new visions and theological perspectives from Muhammad. Perhaps the tendencies of the early Caliphate towards discouraging converts might be avoided given Muhammad's more egalitarian perspective?(OTOH, being more cynical, perhaps he'd be swayed by institutional pressures to preserve that income. In which case his approval may mean that the Arabist tendencies of early Islam might prove harder to reform). I'm also thinking that whichever city he chooses as the new capital(especially if it's also his place of death) might acquire the status of a fourth holy city of Islam?

Another possibly very major change is that the expansion will have begun before the Ridda wars take place. I'm wondering if we might not see any Ridda wars at all, if Muhammads longer lifespan leads to a clearer succession. I also suspect that the euphoria of having established an empire(and of course the lucrative opportunities thereof) may discourage rebellion.

OTOH if Ridda war analogues do occur against Muhammad's successor, I could see an argument in favour of their being more successful. For starters the caliphate may still be engaged in struggle against the Persians and Byzantines at the time, and so have little to spare for the resubjagation of Arabian territory, which after all is far less of a cash-cow. Also the fact that their capital would no longer be in Arabia, and perhaps that the most loyal Muslims would have abandoned Arabia to participate in the conquests, may weaken their position there.

One possible scenario: while the caliphate is able to conquer Syria and Egypt, the Persians empire successfully thwarts their Mesopotamian campaign(simply through the chips falling differently, as none of the campaigns were as sure thing to my understanding). I'd presume Muhammad would then choose a capital in either the lower Levant or Egypt, with the upper Levant being a frequent point of contention between the Byzantines/Persians/Caliphate in the years to come. Importantly this means the Caliphates hegemony in Arabia will be insecure(it's easier to project power into Eastern and Southern Arabia from the Persian coastline then it is from Syria/Egypt) and perhaps the Ridda war analogues take on the character of a proxy war between the Persians and the Caliphate?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Another possibility: Muhammad's son Ibrahim died(and for that matter was born) after the battle of Mu'tah, so if Mu'tah's our POD it opens the door to his surviving to adulthood courtesy of butterflies. Alternately, Muhammad could have fathered new sons in the years remaining to him.

So I'm wondering how the Muhammad having a male heir, but one too young to take the reins of power, might play out. Perhaps it opens the door to a shogunate-type dynamic, where Muhammad descendants are held in great esteem and de jure rulers, but not necessarily de facto?

Or Ibrahim could die before taking power/siring sons of his own. Which might lay the foundations for a civil war and accusations of rival factions having assasinated him, not so dissimilar to the Sunni-Shia split of OTL(but potentially even more acrimonious given that it's Muhammad's only male heir?)
 
Last edited:
Another possibility: Muhammad's son Ibrahim died(and for that matter was born) after the battle of Mu'tah, so if Mu'tah's our POD it opens the door to his surviving to adulthood courtesy of butterflies. Alternately, Muhammad could have fathered new sons in the years remaining to him.

So I'm wondering how the Muhammad having a male heir, but one too young to take the reins of power, might play out. Perhaps it opens the door to a shogunate-type dynamic, where Muhammad descendants are held in great esteem and de jure rulers, but not necessarily de facto?

Or Ibrahim could die before taking power/siring sons of his own. Which might lay the foundations for a civil war and accusations of rival factions having assasinated him, not so dissimilar to the Sunni-Shia split of OTL(but potentially even more acrimonious given that it's Muhammad's only male heir?)

A Islamic Diadaochi situation perhaps?
 
A Islamic Diadaochi situation perhaps?
Yeah.

Another potentially very interesting possibility: if Muhammad dies while Ibrahim is still juvenile*, and you have rebels recognizing Ibrahim as the legitimate Caliph but disputing the claim of the person ruling in his stead? What happens when Ibrahim finally comes to power, if the rebels have failed to overthrow that ruler and yet have not been crushed? In theory Ibrahim could grant them amnesty in exchange for coming back into the fold. OTOH they might choose to continue resisting based on the excuse that he is not truly sovereign but instead the puppet of the illegitimate ruler.

So basically you have "Diadochi" competing to possess the Caliph to add greater legitimacy to their own position. I imagine this might provoke a backlash of religious dissidents(and opportunistic hangers-on) wanting to restore true power to the Caliph and reunify the Caliphate. In which case...

standards.png
 
Last edited:
First thing first, the Islamic state of Ahl Sunnah Wa l'jma'ah or the Ummah/Ulema (the term used when saying the two groups collectively), never discouraged reversion to Islam. I have said that conversion was not sought completely as the Islamic state was dedicated to the expansion of the religion through physical jihad into those that create Fitnah or mischief in foreign lands. The ulema are clear, there are two ways to combat Fitnah; if within Islam it is combatted through Sharia and the Hadood of Allah and if in a foreign land through isolation from such vices during periods of weakness (al-Istaraaj) or through jihad.

1. I personally doubt the Riddah wars occur in a Mu'tah victory tl. Most of the tribes that would participate in the opposing side would be in Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc... They would be preoccupied, as well, by that time there will be legitimate sects of Islam that these groups will latch onto as opposed to simply rejecting taxes.

2. I doubt Muhammad will move the capital. Why would he? Out of all the Salaf and him being the Rasul, he is the oldest and most attached to the land of the Quryaish. It is impossible barring destruction to have him or Abu Bakr move the capital from the Hijaz.

3. I doubt the Sassanids could hold and yet the Byzantines fold. In comparison, I would argue that the Sassanids by this point where a more and more minor player in the scheme of things.

I am currently very busy, I will let you respond then respond more substantially to you or any other's response.
 
Arguably, what would be more interesting is what else Muhammad would teach during that time. Ten years is a long time; with things such as the Satanic Verses showing that Muhammad was open to going back on some of the things he said, those ten years could have a lot change in the Quran.
 
First thing first, the Islamic state of Ahl Sunnah Wa l'jma'ah or the Ummah/Ulema (the term used when saying the two groups collectively), never discouraged reversion to Islam. I have said that conversion was not sought completely as the Islamic state was dedicated to the expansion of the religion through physical jihad into those that create Fitnah or mischief in foreign lands. The ulema are clear, there are two ways to combat Fitnah; if within Islam it is combatted through Sharia and the Hadood of Allah and if in a foreign land through isolation from such vices during periods of weakness (al-Istaraaj) or through jihad.

1. I personally doubt the Riddah wars occur in a Mu'tah victory tl. Most of the tribes that would participate in the opposing side would be in Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc... They would be preoccupied, as well, by that time there will be legitimate sects of Islam that these groups will latch onto as opposed to simply rejecting taxes.

2. I doubt Muhammad will move the capital. Why would he? Out of all the Salaf and him being the Rasul, he is the oldest and most attached to the land of the Quryaish. It is impossible barring destruction to have him or Abu Bakr move the capital from the Hijaz.

3. I doubt the Sassanids could hold and yet the Byzantines fold. In comparison, I would argue that the Sassanids by this point where a more and more minor player in the scheme of things.

I am currently very busy, I will let you respond then respond more substantially to you or any other's response.
As far as the capital is concerned, I'd assumed that practical considerations would weigh against governing the newfound empire from Mecca. It may be that I am mistaken about that, or that the attachment that you refer to would outweigh that?

As for the Sassanids, I'm not suggesting that it's the most likely scenario, just considering it as one possibility. Is it merely unlikely for them to endure in your opinion, or so unlikely as to essentially be impossible?
 
As far as the capital is concerned, I'd assumed that practical considerations would weigh against governing the newfound empire from Mecca. It may be that I am mistaken about that, or that the attachment that you refer to would outweigh that?

As for the Sassanids, I'm not suggesting that it's the most likely scenario, just considering it as one possibility. Is it merely unlikely for them to endure in your opinion, or so unlikely as to essentially be impossible?

The transfer of a capital in early Islam will be contentious no matter where it is placed unless a city such as Mari survives through the ages saddling between Iraq and Syria, which is still contentious but at least less so. Early Muslim rulers such as Abu Bakr are simply not going to move the capital from Arabia, it simply is not feasible until enough of the most early and tribalistic Salaf fall out.

Not impossible, but the Sassanids are by far the weakest opponent the Rashidun/Umayyad battled in its history. At this point, the Sassanids are likely significantly weaker than the Khazar to the north and far, far weaker than the Gökturks and Tang to the east.
 
Arguably, what would be more interesting is what else Muhammad would teach during that time. Ten years is a long time; with things such as the Satanic Verses showing that Muhammad was open to going back on some of the things he said, those ten years could have a lot change in the Quran.
I'd agree. Not only the length of time having passed, but the psychological effect of actually seeing that state and religion he founded overwhelming the Byzantine and Persian armies. Also, his growing older opens the possibility of being afflicted by mild(or less then mild) senility. How do the followers of a prophet respond to that? Sweep it under the rug? Take the position that he retains special insight regardless of his mental state?
 
Last edited:
I'd agree. Not only the length of time having passed, but the psychological effect of actually seeing that state and religion he founded overwhelming the mightiest empires of the day. Also, his growing older opens the possibility of being afflicted by mild(or less then mild) senility. How do the followers of a prophet respond to that? Sweep it under the rug? Take the position that he retains special insight regardless of his mental state?

Queue the schisms!
 
I'd agree. Not only the length of time having passed, but the psychological effect of actually seeing that state and religion he founded overwhelming the Byzantine and Persian armies. Also, his growing older opens the possibility of being afflicted by mild(or less then mild) senility. How do the followers of a prophet respond to that? Sweep it under the rug? Take the position that he retains special insight regardless of his mental state?

Interesting. This is where I am of little assistance however. I operate primarily within accounts and plausibility, the imaginative part is to you to decide.
 
The transfer of a capital in early Islam will be contentious no matter where it is placed unless a city such as Mari survives through the ages saddling between Iraq and Syria, which is still contentious but at least less so. Early Muslim rulers such as Abu Bakr are simply not going to move the capital from Arabia, it simply is not feasible until enough of the most early and tribalistic Salaf fall out.
Taking another angle here: if Muhammad remains in the Hejaz, and further sets forth a clear ruling and precedent that the capital shall not be relocated- perhaps this opens the door to a shogunate-type relationship between the caliph and the military leaders/governors in the North, much as the Shogun and Emperor were based in different capitals? Especially if Ibrahim(or a later-born son) survives and is recognized as caliph as a juvenile. After all, it's hardly optimal to govern or manage military affairs from the Hejaz, nor is it much of a power base, and once you have powers-that-be establishing themselves in the Northern territories they'll have every reason to want things to be kept this way.
 
Taking another angle here: if Muhammad remains in the Hejaz, and further sets forth a clear ruling and precedent that the capital shall not be relocated- perhaps this opens the door to a shogunate-type relationship between the caliph and the military leaders/governors in the North, much as the Shogun and Emperor were based in different capitals? Especially if Ibrahim(or a later-born son) survives and is recognized as caliph as a juvenile. After all, it's hardly optimal to govern or manage military affairs from the Hejaz, nor is it much of a power base, and once you have powers-that-be establishing themselves in the Northern territories they'll have every reason to want things to be kept this way.


That's an interesting scenario, I doubt if we rewind history often it would occur more than a tiny percentage, however it is still interesting.
 
Taking another angle here: if Muhammad remains in the Hejaz, and further sets forth a clear ruling and precedent that the capital shall not be relocated- perhaps this opens the door to a shogunate-type relationship between the caliph and the military leaders/governors in the North, much as the Shogun and Emperor were based in different capitals? Especially if Ibrahim(or a later-born son) survives and is recognized as caliph as a juvenile. After all, it's hardly optimal to govern or manage military affairs from the Hejaz, nor is it much of a power base, and once you have powers-that-be establishing themselves in the Northern territories they'll have every reason to want things to be kept this way.

Didn't something like this sort of happen IOTL with the Abbasids in Baghdad?
 
Top