Possibility of Muhammad being a Christian Saint?

[Deltadiamond]

So here's the idea. Christians were fairly common in pre-Islamic Arabia (or so my brief research has told me). Therefore, it's not impossible that Muhammad (as in, founder of Islam) could have been raised/converted to Christianity before he founds Islam OTL.

So what I'm asking here is; if Muhammad had been a Christian before everything else started up, what might have been the likely result? Would we see Islam being considered another branch of Christianity, or would it be accepted as Eastern Orthodox doctrine? If the 'Muslim' conquests still occur, what might happen differently? Would Byzantium and Arabia put aside their differences for a bit to fight the Persians, or would Muhammad concentrate more on the heretics to his North and West?

Later on, what might happen based on the relations between Christians and 'Muslims'? Events like the Reconquista and Crusades could obviously be butterflied, but it seems that a whole lot else could as well, even conflicts and events that weren't obviously connected to religion could wind up differently. For example, without Charles Martel repelling the Muslims at Poitiers, would Charlemagne's life resemble his OTL one?

Anyway, just looking for feedback and ideas here.

 

[Sian]

IIRC Mohammed was raised by his uncle, which while maybe not subscribing to Christianity, then leaned towards it, qua his relationship and trading with the Byzantine Syria.

 

[Artaxerxes]

So here's the idea. Christians were fairly common in pre-Islamic Arabia (or so my brief research has told me). Therefore, it's not impossible that Muhammad (as in, founder of Islam) could have been raised/converted to Christianity before he founds Islam OTL.

So what I'm asking here is; if Muhammad had been a Christian before everything else started up, what might have been the likely result? Would we see Islam being considered another branch of Christianity, or would it be accepted as Eastern Orthodox doctrine? If the 'Muslim' conquests still occur, what might happen differently? Would Byzantium and Arabia put aside their differences for a bit to fight the Persians, or would Muhammad concentrate more on the heretics to his North and West?

Later on, what might happen based on the relations between Christians and 'Muslims'? Events like the Reconquista and Crusades could obviously be butterflied, but it seems that a whole lot else could as well, even conflicts and events that weren't obviously connected to religion could wind up differently. For example, without Charles Martel repelling the Muslims at Poitiers, would Charlemagne's life resemble his OTL one?

Anyway, just looking for feedback and ideas here.

Muhammed basically happened in the middle of a power vacuum at the periphery of two empires who'd fought each other to a stand still and then suffered massive plagues and tax base loss. I could see him or someone like him coming to the fore if for some reason the Eastern Empire hadn't been starting to shake apart and Iran had still continued to fall apart. Perhaps you'd get a kind of Arabic Joan of Arc figure, someone giving the Arabs a sense of identity but still remaining christian?

Also its hard to judge exactly what the Arabs thought during the conquest iirc (I'm going by what I've read in Tom Hollands work here) but it most likely wasn't heresy, sources from around the time of the prophet are maddeningly rare and even the Qua-ran barely actually mentions the conquests during the prophets life time. I think the best analogy for the Arabic conquests would be the Balkan wars and the rise of Slavic states, just the religious strife in the Middle East between Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism eventually saw a figure rise up using ideas from each to unite a culture that did not feel part of any of them.

Perhaps with a clearer doctrine and stronger push to convert Arabs to the South you could make an Arabic saint but you'd probably need a lot more stable Roman Empire for that to happen.

For example, without Charles Martel repelling the Muslims at Poitiers, would Charlemagne's life resemble his OTL one?

You'd have a Vandal Empire still at large in Spain, possibly you'd see Charlemagne focus more on border wars with them rather than riding to the aid of the Pope against the Lombards. In which case you've got the massive butterfly of a rather different western Christianity.

 

[Deltadiamond]

Also its hard to judge exactly what the Arabs thought during the conquest iirc (I'm going by what I've read in Tom Hollands work here) but it most likely wasn't heresy, sources from around the time of the prophet are maddeningly rare and even the Qua-ran barely actually mentions the conquests during the prophets life time.

I think the best analogy for the Arabic conquests would be the Balkan wars and the rise of Slavic states, just the religious strife in the Middle East between Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism eventually saw a figure rise up using ideas from each to unite a culture that did not feel part of any of them.

I was talking about the 'Muslim' Christian attitude towards the Orthodox Greeks. Seeing as Muhammad certainly took advantage of the OTL situation, I assume he'd do the same here. I was just wondering whether he would go for Egypt/Levant first of Mesopotamia/Persia. I guess that if they never viewed the Christians as outright heretics and were doing conquest more for the sake of it than for religious reasons, then it's more likely that they might head for Egypt.

Perhaps with a clearer doctrine and stronger push to convert Arabs to the South you could make an Arabic saint but you'd probably need a lot more stable Roman Empire for that to happen.

The 'saint' bit was just me trying to get people to look at the thread, though I am wondering what might happen with another Christian power joining the various Catholics and the Byzantines.

You'd have a Vandal Empire still at large in Spain, possibly you'd see Charlemagne focus more on border wars with them rather than riding to the aid of the Pope against the Lombards. In which case you've got the massive butterfly of a rather different western Christianity.

I don't exactly know that Charlemagne more or less founding Western Europe is set in stone, especially with a POD more than a century before his kingship. Perhaps the Merovingians linger on a bit longer, perhaps Germany/Italy just go their own separate ways from France. I'm having trouble thinking of what exactly what would happen without Muslims in Northwest Africa, or even with 'Muslim' Christians in the area.

 

[SvoHljott]

So what you're asking for is a Muhammad who still founds Islam but with the mindset that it is in itself a branch of Christianity (and Muhammad views it as such), and is also regarded by the Orthodox and Catholic churches as a branch of Christianity, albeit a heretical one?

If so, you might be interested to know that Islam was, in its very early years, considered a heretical branch of Christianity by Christians to the west, until they learned more about what it is.

Muhammad never viewed Islam as a branch, though. I'm not sure that if Muhammad were a Christian, he'd bother uniting the Arabs and invading others. Maybe he'd be a radical preacher, but there's no telling with those kinds of butterflies.

 

[Deltadiamond]

So what you're asking for is a Muhammad who still founds Islam but with the mindset that it is in itself a branch of Christianity (and Muhammad views it as such), and is also regarded by the Orthodox and Catholic churches as a branch of Christianity, albeit a heretical one?

I'm wondering more if, should Muhammad have those opinions but still create a more or less OTL Islam (albeit more christian-ish), what the reaction of the various churches might be. Essentially, what if Islam was founded by someone who is already established as firm Christian, and initially spreads among Christians.

If so, you might be interested to know that Islam was, in its very early years, considered a heretical branch of Christianity by Christians to the west, until they learned more about what it is.

That is indeed very interesting, and would possibly change reactions between the budding Caliphate/Patriarchate/Whatever and the other Christians.

Muhammad never viewed Islam as a branch, though. I'm not sure that if Muhammad were a Christian, he'd bother uniting the Arabs and invading others. Maybe he'd be a radical preacher, but there's no telling with those kinds of butterflies.

I know that it's unlikely that Muhammad would be doing what he did OTL given the POD, but if he's just a minor radical preacher, the question might as well be "What if Muhammad never existed?". So let's say that he is at very least an influential radical preacher.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I was talking about the 'Muslim' Christian attitude towards the Orthodox Greeks. Seeing as Muhammad certainly took advantage of the OTL situation, I assume he'd do the same here. I was just wondering whether he would go for Egypt/Levant first of Mesopotamia/Persia. I guess that if they never viewed the Christians as outright heretics and were doing conquest more for the sake of it than for religious reasons, then it's more likely that they might head for Egypt.

Thing is with some slight tweaks the Muslims might not see or be seen as heretics, the religious situation in the area was very fluid, the rise of Islam helped cement the boundaries of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in a way that we find hard to grasp nowadays. It also didn't arise fully formed, it took work to get Islam to the point where its beliefs could be codified (something like 200 years after Muhammed iirc).

With some tweaking its possible that you could see a major branch of Christianity form and give an identity to the desert nomads in the way that Arianism took off in Northern Europe and Nestorian Christianity eked out a living in the East.

 

[Deltadiamond]

Thing is with some slight tweaks the Muslims might not see or be seen as heretics, the religious situation in the area was very fluid, the rise of Islam helped cement the boundaries of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in a way that we find hard to grasp nowadays. It also didn't arise fully formed, it took work to get Islam to the point where its beliefs could be codified (something like 200 years after Muhammed iirc).

With some tweaking its possible that you could see a major branch of Christianity form and give an identity to the desert nomads in the way that Arianism took off in Northern Europe and Nestorian Christianity eked out a living in the East.

I didn't think that that was how religion worked at the time (worded very badly), but I was thinking that the 'Muslim' Christians would probably be a unique branch/sect (if not incorporated into Orthodoxy).

Do you have any ideas about how expansion? I've basically been thinking about whether they'd go for Egypt or Persia first, but I don't know enough about the period. Especially if the religions are more accepting of each other's presence, I could see the 'Muslim' Christians allying more with the Greeks than with the Zoroastrians.

BTW, to my knowledge East Africa wasn't much to speak of at the time, so there'd be no real motivation for conquest. Does anyone know if that's true or not?

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Therefore, it's not impossible that Muhammad (as in, founder of Islam) could have been raised/converted to Christianity before he founds Islam OTL.

In some ways, Muhammad was a "Christian" even before founding Islam, he had rejected idols and was listening to Christians (and Jews too). Heck, according to what is commonly told among Muslims, after his first 'revelation' he and his then wife consulted her cousin, a Christian proest.

Now, for Muhammad to be seen as a "mainstream" Christian saint, I suppose the issue here is the Trinity. Muhammad's Islam main point of contetion with Christianity is the whole Trinitirian God aspect versus absolutely just one God. Perhaps the sect that Muhamamd met were Ebionites (or Arians?) who rejected the Trinity, hence Islam developed that way (unless of course it's his 'revelation from angel' thing that tells him all this, so that's a harder POD to change unless we go to the ASB forum ).

So, POD of Muhamamad more influeced by Trinitarian, mainstream Christian priests rather than the less orthodox sects? Perhaps his wife's cousin is strong Catholic who influenced him to be a Catholic Christian preacher (note Islam does seem to venerate the Vrigin Mary, even having her name in one of the Koran's chapters, thoguh not as highly as Catholic's "Mother of God" title) .

 

[SvoHljott]

I know that it's unlikely that Muhammad would be doing what he did OTL given the POD, but if he's just a minor radical preacher, the question might as well be "What if Muhammad never existed?". So let's say that he is at very least an influential radical preacher.

You might end up with something more like a rejuvenated Arianism in that case. Muhammad could possible prescribe to Arian's beliefs (OTL he was very much so influenced by Arian Christianity), so perhaps Muhammad will preach a form of Christianity where Jesus is not the son of God but rather a messenger of God, and thus a very heretical form of Christianity (in the eyes of Rome, at least).

This form of Christianity could potentially survive in the Arab peninsula and spread outside via trade or perhaps even conquests. Perhaps you'll end up with a three or four band-Christianity world, with Roman Catholicism in the west, Orthodoxy in Eastern Europe, Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt, Nestorianism in Persia, Central Asia and the Far East and this "Mohammedan Christianity" to the south.

Here's a map to show what I'm hinting at:

This map assumes the Arabs don't invade Persia or the Byzantines.

I put question marks where I think it's impossible/very hard to determine exactly what would happen.

1. Saxons and Frisi - Without Charlemagne and the Frankish conquests, it's uncertain what would become of them

2. West Slavs - without pressure from the Holy Roman Empire, it is again uncertain

3. Hungary - Same as above

4. Baltic tribes - anything could happen here

5. East Slavs/Russians - Again, who knows. Probably still orthodoxy, though.

6. Khazars - without Islam existing, Khazars could potentially become Orthodox Christians, Nestorian Christians or perhaps even Zoroastrian - Judaism is pretty much out of the question though.

7. Lakhmids - showed signs of Christianity developing, but of course are a Persian vassal. This one will be a real messy competition between Orthodoxy, Nestorianism, Mohammedan Christianity and Zoroastrianism.

8. Oman and Yemen - both ruled by Persia, so uncertain - could go Mohammedan or Zoroastrian.

9. Somali - Orthodoxy existed in tiny numbers before Islam's arrival OTL, so who knows, Orthodox or Mohammedan

10. Berber tribes of Algeria - although it's almost certain they'd become Catholic (or at least Christian) over time, it's impossible to say exactly when. The coast was already Christianized by the 6th century, but the Tuareg inland tribes remained pagan.

 

[profxyz]

I'm tempted to argue because OTL Islam is a social doctrine (with divorce, charity and suchlike) in addition to being a religious one, a Christian Muhammad would probably have preached something that would radically conflict with the political hierarchies of the Byzantine Empire, and as a result would probably have been condemned as heresy - which would have probably created the split between Islam and Christianity anyway.

I don't think there's any doubt that Muhammad would have preferred the Byzantines to the Persians, however. Even as a Muslim his sympathies for the Byzantines were pretty evident (Surat ar-Rum).

If Islam is accepted as a branch of Christianity... depends on how big the difference is. I don't see why a Christian Islam that doesn't accept the authority of Constantinople should be any less inclined to attack the Byzantine Empire, especially one that is holding Christian holy sites in its decrepit state. If Islam becomes an accepted Chalcedonian creed... we might see more expansion into East Africa, Persia, maybe even India (and it's not like Orthodox states never fought the Byzantine Empire). Some Germanic empire would probably still form in Western Europe and become a challenger to Byzantine predominance.

The Byzantines would still probably be hobbled by the continuing Monophysitism/Chalcedonian dispute, which could be a point of tension with the Christian Arab Empire to the south.

 

[Deltadiamond]

SvoHljott, Thanks for the map/groups. I hadn't considered many of those, such as Somalia, Khazars, and various Slavic groups.

Speaking of Khazars, IIRC the reason that they chose Judaism was that it offered a relatively neutral position between the other religions of the time. If Muhammad is a preacher and doesn't expand outside of Arabia (i.e. no major conflicts with Persia or Byzantium), then I could see the Khazars opting for Muhammadan Christianity as the preferred neutral religion.

Also, Artaxerxes said that Islamic beliefs weren't completely solid for quite a while after its founding. If that's the case, then one could pretty much say that Muhammadan Christianity has just about anything as its core beliefs, from it being of paramount importance to convert people by the sword, to it being of paramount importance to never engage in war. It'd probably be somewhere in the middle there, with Muhammad uniting much or most of the Arabian Peninsula but not wanting to get involved with the Byzantine-Persian wars.

I kind of like the idea that Muhammadan Christianity is originally restricted to the Arabian Peninsula, because it has such gigantic knock-on effects for there to not be Muslim Conquests. I don't know how likely that is, though, or how eager his successors might be to expand the realm.

 

[Deltadiamond]

profxyz, thanks for your input. Especially the bit about Muhammad's inclination towards Persia and Byzantion. I guess the Persian expansion might be more likely in that case.

I want to say that at this point I'm thinking more about Muhammad being a sort of Martin Luther, as opposed to a Siddhartha Guatama. As in being a reformer instead of founding a religion. That position, however, might make it harder to convert people who weren't already Christians.



I was actually writing a post about religious differences when you commented, so here it is.

As for actual differences between Muhammad Christianity, I'm going to assume here that I know what I'm talking about with regards to Islam (don't have time to read the Quran just now). What I know suggests that Islam shows Jesus as a "mere" prophet of God, one among many, as opposed to the Messiah. It also states that Muhammad is the last prophet that there will ever be, until the end of time. This would be a huge thing to overcome between Islam and Christianity.

So I'm thinking that the first difference between OTL and this world would be that Muhammadan Christianity recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, but also believes that Muhammad is a prophet that came after him, perhaps to correct the flock that has now gone astray, or something to that effect.

This would be the point where it splits apart from the Orthodox Church, which would most likely be reluctant to recognize some new upstart as the prophet of God. However, Muhammad is safe in Arabia, so it's not like there's much that the Byzantines can do about him. Perhaps they call for an ecumenical council.

Depending on how much support Muhammad's message has in the Byzantine empire, maybe they decide to support him, maybe they decide he's a heretic, maybe they're indecisive, denounce some other sect, and pretend he's not why they all met in the first place. It all depends on how much support he has (political, popular, and in the church itself) and how radical his beliefs are perceived to be by the Greeks.

Muhammad does have one thing going for him though: If he's the last prophet sent by God, then anyone who accepts his teachings as true can instantly call any other reformer/religious dissident a heretic by accusing them of claiming to be a prophet.

If anyone else has further ideas, including a more extensive knowledge of Islam, I would be grateful for their input.

 

[corvus13]

Mohammed is a Christian saint in Turtledove's Agent of Byzantium. I think he's a Christian saint in the Lord Darcy books, too, isn't he?

 

[Deltadiamond]

Mohammed is a Christian saint in Turtledove's Agent of Byzantium. I think he's a Christian saint in the Lord Darcy books, too, isn't he?

I'm not surprised that other people have thought of the scenario, considering how interesting it is. I've been thinking about this a lot today, but I don't want to put the cart before the horse here and write down my thoughts before other people write down theirs.

I have to say though, I'm not so sure that he'd end up being a saint much recognized outside of the Arabian peninsula. At least, not in the situation I've been thinking of, where he starts up his own Muhammad Christianity.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

So I'm thinking that the first difference between OTL and this world would be that Muhammadan Christianity recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, but also believes that Muhammad is a prophet that came after him, perhaps to correct the flock that has now gone astray, or something to that effect.

Uh...that is OTL Islam. Jesus is Messiah, Muhammad is last prophet, inlcuding "Muhamamad comes to correct flock". Jesus is still the Chosen one to get resurrected at end of days, defeat Anti Christ, etc.

The difference (well, most important difference), as I mentioned in my post, is the rejection of te Trinitarian nature (aspect?) of God. Without this issue, this ATL Muhammad could still convince the Byzantines he is a Christian saint, well if he wants recognition as an Orthodox/mainstream Christian.

Perhaps you confuse the Messiah issue with the crucifiction issue, Muslims do not believe Jesus was crucified so that there is a major issue that the POD needs to change.

Otherwise ATL Muhammad be more of an Ebionite (or Nestorian? Arian? Where exactly do these two stand on the trinity and/or crucifiction?).

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Uh...that is OTL Islam. Jesus is Messiah, Muhammad is last prophet, inlcuding "Muhamamad comes to correct flock". Jesus is still the Chosen one to get resurrected at end of days, defeat Anti Christ, etc..

Muslims do NOT see Jesus as the Messiah, but as a special Prophet of sort and not as specially Chosen (but important none the less). As far I know, there is some subtile nuance - and clearly NOT Son of God.

 

[WanderingWanderer]

Muslims do NOT see Jesus as the Messiah, but as a special Prophet of sort and not as specially Chosen (but important none the less). As far I know, there is some subtile nuance - and clearly NOT Son of God.

Uh...there's actually a quote in the Koran about Jesus as Messiah, I'll try to find back home (not comfartable lifting translations from the net). Messiah here as in the Jewish believe in Messiah, NOT messiah = Son of God. Jesus is definitely refered to as 'Al-Masih' during my days in the madrasah.

And yeah, Jesus is freakin' special, considering Muslims do believe in the virgin birth. And as I mentioned, he's the one who gets resurrected and fight Anti-Christ during the whole end of days (though he and the Mahdi -not same as Messiah!- also get killed later, long story ).

 

[Matteo]

Muhammad may be a christian saint. But not one reckoned by the roman catholic Church.

He would may been a member of the Nestorian Church.

 

[JonasResende]

Just to point out none of your Christological titles besides "Son of God" are strictly religious.
There were Messiahs both before and after Jesus, AFAIK both more or less ended up the same way. Messiah is a political rather than religious title.
Likewise, Son of Man, not strictly religious (its used in Ezekiel in a different context), although the reaction regarding this as blasphemous when Jesus referred to Himself as such implies that it was.
And Lord is simply the Greek translation of YHWH used in the Septuagint.

So Mohammed accepting Jesus as Messiah would not necessarily have religious overtones. The Church at the time wasn't split between Rome and Constantinople yet (not officially, anyway), so Mohammed's Christianity can't choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Although, it can go Nestorian or Eutychian in its affirmation of the person of Christ. Maybe your Mohammedan Christianity can accept the filioque as opposed to the Byzants if and when it comes up. Since the Council of Toledo accepted it as part of the Creed due to it being used in Spain that they were reclaiming from the Arian Vandals.