Spread of Islam if met by Persian and Byzantine resistance?

While Islam has a reputation of being a religion spread by the sword, in some areas, such as Africa and southeast Asia, it largely spread through trade links and cultural interaction.

Now suppose that the incredible good timing that the Arab armies of Islam had in overwhelming the Persians and taking a fair chunk of the Eastern Roman Empire had been slightly off. The Romans and Persians perhaps beat each other down a bit less, so that they are able to meet and repell the Arab invaders.

Now, in this scenario where there initial expansion has been stifled, just how successful could Islam be? Could Arab traders still spread their faith down the east African coast and across to the Indies? What would the lack of Persian and Byzantine cultural infusion do to the development of the religion? How much would a purely Arab faith, spread abroad by merchants, differ from what we know?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Iran will probably not be Muslim, but there would be several Muslims in Iran. Trade with East Africa would probably spread Islam there. Indies is harder, with Iran not Muslim, we'll probably not have a strong Islam in India, which will hinder the spread of Islam to the East Indies.
 
Depends on how far the Arabs initially manage to go. Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia are likely to be taken in any case, that would mean Byzantine and Persian infusion however, even if to a lesser extent. Egypt would fall eventually, but it might take much longer. Maghrib probably would not, not in a short time however.
If instead the OP requires Islam confined to Arabian Peninsula, it would probably remain peripheral. Consequences are huge, but i don't see Islam as spreading very much outside not-so tolerated minorities in the two Empires and the Swahili and Somalian coasts.
Maybe the Arabs would focus on conquering Ethiopia and expand through sub-saharan Africa.
 
I was planning doing the same thing in my Belisarius TL: the Caliphate's armies are repelled before they can hold Mesopotamia and Levant.
Anyway, I think Islam would still spread by trade and maybe some migration (IIRC Arabia at this time was quite wealthy and populous).
But actually I was thinking something more radical: what if the Byzantines and Sassanids, after successfully defending their respective territories, jointly invade Arabia as an act of revenge?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I was planning doing the same thing in my Belisarius TL: the Caliphate's armies are repelled before they can hold Mesopotamia and Levant.
Anyway, I think Islam would still spread by trade and maybe some migration (IIRC Arabia at this time was quite wealthy and populous).
But actually I was thinking something more radical: what if the Byzantines and Sassanids, after successfully defending their respective territories, jointly invade Arabia as an act of revenge?
They would probably go in and pillage and then leave the place, except the Hijaz coast, that was quite rich. No need keeping poor desert, only the rich citites matter.
 
If the initial forces sent into mesapotamia and the levant are easily crushed, like they would have been had the two empires not destroyed each other for decades, then the opposite could just as easily happen: the arabian red sea coast is raided and devastated in a pre emptive strike (like what the romans did to germania at their height), arabian unity disintegrates, some tribes revert back to their old polytheistic beliefs while other succumb to gradual influence from the great religions in Persia and the Byzantine Empire and islam remains a minor religion, maybe only acknowledged in history books as a heretical sect of christianity.

Persia would also probably want to take over the part of arabia adjacent to the persian gulf if a hostile power rules it.

Also I remain highly sceptial that east africa would adopt a religion with no prestige, while most of east africa all the way south to ethopia is already christian.

And if islam is pushed back initially, then there probably won't be any gradual conquest of adjacent regions. The reason why they got so far OTL was incredible luck to begin with, and the huge momentum that gave them.
 
I was planning doing the same thing in my Belisarius TL: the Caliphate's armies are repelled before they can hold Mesopotamia and Levant.
Anyway, I think Islam would still spread by trade and maybe some migration (IIRC Arabia at this time was quite wealthy and populous).
But actually I was thinking something more radical: what if the Byzantines and Sassanids, after successfully defending their respective territories, jointly invade Arabia as an act of revenge?

They also would probably meet a damn hard resistance, in a difficult enviroment the Arabs are accustomed to fight in, and their are not. If the Arabs have a strong religious motivation, the Empires' invasion of Arabia would probably fail. They could pillage some place and take prisoners in skirmishes, but they'd suffer heavy losses and won't be able to exert lasting control. The campaign is going to be a pain in the ass for both.
Arabia is not all desert, but it's DRY. The Arabs know where water is. Invaders don't.
 
Top