The Consequences of a World Without Islam?

[John Fredrick Parker]

I've wondered before, sans Islam, what the chances were for Central Asia to go Christian, and maybe conquer Persia -- and if they were good enough, whether Christianity (or more likely, a sect thereof) could play the globalizing role Islam did OTL...

 

[The Ubbergeek]

I've wondered before, sans Islam, what the chances were for Central Asia to go Christian, and maybe conquer Persia -- and if they were good enough, whether Christianity (or more likely, a sect thereof) could play the globalizing role Islam did OTL...

The problem is, this neglegate the EASTERN realms.

In central asia, Buddhism was already there, and Buddhism in general got an HEAVY blow from Islam, from Central Asia to India. And farther butterflies - the Chams in modern days Vietnam by example converted to Islam (not all of them though) later. Uyghurs too.

 

[Flocculencio]

We have Nestorianism as well in South East Asia actually, it could get popular in South East Asia.

I think Ma-I will survive without Islam without a proselytizing and militaristic religion near them they will survive although backward and most probably isolated even if Manila rises as a popular trading hub.

Nestorianism, was, at best, the religion of a tiny minority. Not a good candidate when there's already a dominant religious tradition.

 

[Flocculencio]

Guys, the East Indies were Hindu-Buddhist for over a thousand years before Islam arrived.

Majapahit was Hindu to its end in 1527. Bali, for example, is still Hindu.

It could transfer to Buddhism, which would be interesting.

maybe missionaires from Sri Lanka or Indochina (Theravada for Thailand and Burma and Cambodia I think, Theravada, then mahayana in Vietnam - if I am right) to those lands (and places like Madlives?).

If Islam never happens, will that stay true? Will Buddhism travel down the islands? Will whatever replaces Islam?

Buddhism was already there in combination with Hinduism. The people had their folk beliefs and the state favoured whichever a particular king happened to favour at any one point.

 

[Count Dearborn]

What, the eastern Romans are going to forget about that why again?

Well, some early Chirstians supposedly had the habit of burning the works of pagans.

 

[Elfwine]

Buddhism was already there in combination with Hinduism. The people had their folk beliefs and the state favoured whichever a particular king happened to favour at any one point.

That seems to indicate a level of religious. . . . how to put this . . . indifference . . . unlike Europe or the "Middle East".

Buddhist, Hindu, whatever your majesty pleases, we'll stick to what we've always believed. And the kings never consistently, strongly doing anything that would change this.

This isn't meant to be critical, just observing how very un-fanatical this is.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

That seems to indicate a level of religious. . . . how to put this . . . indifference . . . unlike Europe or the "Middle East".

Buddhist, Hindu, whatever your majesty pleases, we'll stick to what we've always believed. And the kings never consistently, strongly doing anything that would change this.

This isn't meant to be critical, just observing how very un-fanatical this is.

Meh, Germans ended with a similar deal in a way - 'religion of the Prince' thing.

Well, some early Chirstians supposedly had the habit of burning the works of pagans.

It was exagerated by later scholars maybe.

 

[Elfwine]

Well, some early Chirstians supposedly had the habit of burning the works of pagans.

But any works that Islam would have been able to preserve obviously survived that period in the first place.

 

[Elfwine]

Meh, Germans ended with a similar deal in a way - 'religion of the Prince' thing.

But if the Prince wanted Protestant subjects, sucked to be a Catholic and vice-versa.

This seems to have avoided that.

 

[Flocculencio]

That seems to indicate a level of religious. . . . how to put this . . . indifference . . . unlike Europe or the "Middle East".

Buddhist, Hindu, whatever your majesty pleases, we'll stick to what we've always believed. And the kings never consistently, strongly doing anything that would change this.

This isn't meant to be critical, just observing how very un-fanatical this is.

But that's pretty much how it's always been across Asia.

It's the same thing in China with the Three Religions (Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism) or with Shinto and Buddhism in Japan.

Individual kings or dynasties might actively promote their own philosophy but the difference between these and the Abrahamic religions is that none of the Dharmic or Sinic religions is exclusivist.

 

[Flocculencio]

But if the Prince wanted Protestant subjects, sucked to be a Catholic and vice-versa.

This seems to have avoided that.

Again, it would have depended. Part of the reason why Buddhism almost died out in India is that the Hindu renaissance adopted a pretty hardline attitude towards them- stupas were destroyed and Buddhists discriminated against in some states. However it's true that the main blow came with the Islamic invasion which pretty much wiped out Buddhism in North India though it did endure in slow decline in South India into the 1400s.

 

[Elfwine]

But that's pretty much how it's always been across Asia.

It's the same thing in China with the Three Religions (Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism) or with Shinto and Buddhism in Japan.

Individual kings or dynasties might actively promote their own philosophy but the difference between these and the Abrahamic religions is that none of the Dharmic or Sinic religions is exclusivist.

It's still odd, speaking from the European perspective. Understandable, and probably a lot more rational, but one of the ways East is not West and vice-versa.

Again, it would have depended. Part of the reason why Buddhism almost died out in India is that the Hindu renaissance adopted a pretty hardline attitude towards them.

Fair enough. Though why did that happen in that case as opposed to the usual...tolerance feels like the wrong word here, but I can't think of a better one?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

In central asia, Buddhism was already there, and Buddhism in general got an HEAVY blow from Islam, from Central Asia to India. And farther butterflies - the Chams in modern days Vietnam by example converted to Islam (not all of them though) later. Uyghurs too.

On Vietnam and, of course, the Uighurs -- point taken. I'm certainly not claiming Christianity could pull off everything Islam did, much less in the same manner.

On Buddhism though, you have to ask -- what did Islam offer the steppe peoples to give it such an advantage over Buddhism, and couldn't a sect of Christianity replicate it?

 

[The Ubbergeek]

On Vietnam and, of course, the Uighurs -- point taken. I'm certainly not claiming Christianity could pull off everything Islam did, much less in the same manner.

On Buddhism though, you have to ask -- what did Islam offer the steppe peoples to give it such an advantage over Buddhism, and couldn't a sect of Christianity replicate it?

Buddhism was simply there before. And Christianism was weaker in the region...

SEDENTARY peoples at least, I heard. And there is somes - the city folks like Sogdians(?). I am not making that, there is paintings and all that - as those Buddhas in Afghanistan...
And ask that to Mongols, who picked tibetan buddhism later in their case.

 

[Flocculencio]

Fair enough. Though why did that happen in that case as opposed to the usual...tolerance feels like the wrong word here, but I can't think of a better one?

I think it's just the weight of tradition over time. In places like Cambodia and Thailand, Buddhist leaning dynasties gained power over time and the Hindu components of the amalgamated religion decreased to the point where the only Hindu elements left in modern Thai or Cambodian Buddhism are the Hindu epics which still form part of their mythology. The reverse happened in India- the great Buddhist empires of North India suffered political setbacks and fell apart. The Hindu Rajput nobility swarmed into the gap, establishing their own dynasties in North India and of course pushing patronage to their Hindu priests and practices. Over the next couple of centuries the monasteries declines in relation to the Hindu temples and were therefore vulnerable in a way the Hindu priesthood were not when the Muslims invaded.

 

[LordKalvan]

Well, there is a tendency at times to paint the muslim legacy as 'bad'... So, maybe the good things brought by the caliphates and all are also butterflied away.

Matter of fact, on this board at least the muslim legacy is most of the times painted as "good". Which is IMHO an ideological statement, not an actual evaluation of said legacy. Islam - like Christianity and in more recent times communism - had both positive and negative legacy, which are usually so interconnected that it is nonsense to try to separate them from each other and weigh the "good" and the "bad" on a scale. Unless one had an agenda, and an ideological POV to promote.

The caliphate had its ups and downs, and a significant amount of internal strife. The same is quite likely to happen in a fragmented Levant, but one can hope that the fragmentation itself can reduce the bad, without affecting the good (or possibly finding in diversity even more kinds of "good").

We're back at the old and hoary discussion if a monolythic empire (assuming that such an unlikely beast ever existed) is preferable to a gaggle of different polities: an ideological debate if there ever was one.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Matter of fact, on this board at least the muslim legacy is most of the times painted as "good". Which is IMHO an ideological statement, not an actual evaluation of said legacy. Islam - like Christianity and in more recent times communism - had both positive and negative legacy, which are usually so interconnected that it is nonsense to try to separate them from each other and weigh the "good" and the "bad" on a scale. Unless one had an agenda, and an ideological POV to promote.

The caliphate had its ups and downs, and a significant amount of internal strife. The same is quite likely to happen in a fragmented Levant, but one can hope that the fragmentation itself can reduce the bad, without affecting the good (or possibly finding in diversity even more kinds of "good").

We're back at the old and hoary discussion if a monolythic empire (assuming that such an unlikely beast ever existed) is preferable to a gaggle of different polities: an ideological debate if there ever was one.

Well, I am here since a long time, and I saw enough posters starting with 'no ISLAM = positive changes in future." And ideologically, there is many who do indeed this; darkening this legacy.

 

[LordKalvan]

Well, I am here since a long time, and I saw enough posters starting with 'no ISLAM = positive changes in future." And ideologically, there is many who do indeed this; darkening this legacy.

I've been on this board longer than you have; and it is quite obvious that there are idiots and bigots, on both side of the divide and whichever is the topic.

As a matter of fact this thread has been above average, and there has been no real ranting - up to now at least.

Still I fail to see where you come from, when you make statement like the one being quoted.
Do you mean that a world without Islam must be by definition worse than OTL? Why?

I would assume that out of the infinite number of possible timelines where Islam never came to be (not to mention the infinite number of timelines where Islam came to be, but did not last) an infinite number of them is worse than OTL, an infinite number is better and finally there was no difference in the degree of general happyness of humankind on an infinite number of TLs too.

Following your argument, it should not be possible to write a TL where the outcome is "better" than OTL. For whatever definition of "better" you care for, obviously.

A world without Rome would darken the legacy of the City; a world with without Alexander would darken the legacy of the guy (and possibly of all the Macedonians too ). I could go on but I think you can understand where I'm going: an AH board should be a place where new ideas and possibilities are discussed and explored; ideally even a place where one might find good and engaging TLs. However if there are a lot of taboos, if some possibilities cannot be explored, or must be explored forcibly according to an ideological prejudice, then I think it is not really the place I'm looking for.

 

[LSCatilina]

Little or no knowlegde of Classical Greek philosophy, and theatre.

What, the eastern Romans are going to forget about that why again?

And what makes you think both that greek philosophy and theater were absent from western Latinity, exactly?

For the greek philosophy, Plato was by exemple already commentated by St-Augustine or Isidorius of Sevilla or Alcuin. Or the use of dialectic by Bede. Or Johannes Scotus Eriugena...

For the theatre, you have more point about saying it wasn't know. However, what was unknown was the classical vision of theater (Isidorius thinking that theater was only about miming by exemple), the greco-roman theater was put to rest yes.

But, as in Byzantium, what survived was mime, pantomime, recitation of ancient texts. As an anedctode, when the group Cantilena Antiqua wanted to make some carolingian music, they used some that were in fact musicalisation of classical texts (here Horacius).

Why? Because the classical theater was considered by the father of churches as instrument of devil (admittedly, stories of pagans and intervention of their gods was hardly compatible with Christianity). But, unless your definition of theater is only "classical theater", you had a theatrical history about the early Middle-Ages that passed by a separation of text and play.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

In a world without Islam, two things will also never happen, because they were directly influenced by the Islamic conquests:
- forced mass conversions to Christianity (and the whole idea to promote Christianity with the sword)
- the Crusades

But the Islamic conquests were also responsible for the beginning of the Age of Discoveries (finding an alterante way to India after the direct route had been blocked).

And there is the theory that the Islamic conquest prevented earlier outbreaks of the bubonic plague in Europe.