Western Islam or Eastern Islam: which is the more radical divergence?

[Mr_Fanboy]

Imagine, if you will, two scenarios...

• Western Islam: In this world, the early Muslim conquests of Byzantine territory in the Levant,. Egypt, and North Africa, as well as Visigothic Hispania, are roughly as successful as they are in our timeline. However, to the east, the Rashidun Caliphate is never able to fully defeat the Sasanian Empire, nor lay the groundwork for permanent, uncontested Muslim rule of Mesopotamia. Zoroastrianism remains the dominant religion of the Persian people, at least in the short term, and Islam never finds a significant foothold in Central, South, or Southeast Asia by war or trade. Various steppe peoples probably still mount successful invasions of much of Eurasia at some point, but none ever do so under the banner of Islam, so there is no precise equivalent of the Ottoman or Mughal empires.
• Eastern Islam: Here, the early Muslim invaders do successfully invade Persia and points east, thus establishing a firm presence for their religion throughout much of Asia and affording groups such as the Turks at least contact with it, if not conversion. However, to the west, the Muslims are never able to fully oust the Byzantine Empire from the Middle Eastern and North African holdings, and Arab armies are certainly never able to invade parts of Western Europe such as Italy or Gaul. The Franks never have the opportunity to fight any Muslims, and the Mediterranean remains a Christian lake.

Which scenario represents the biggest change from our timeline, both in the near term and the long term? Which would have the bigger impact for the Muslim world as we know it, both in terms of theological development and geopolitical significance? What about the world at large?

 

[Abd ar-Rahman II]

Which scenario represents the biggest change from our timeline, both in the near term and the long term?

Eastern Islam even if surviving Zoroastrisme represent a bi

Which would have the bigger impact for the Muslim world as we know it, both in terms of theological development and geopolitical significance?

Not sure about this one but probably western Islam seeing how many of early Muslim theologians come from Khorrassan . But a lot is butterflied here anyway and some theologian direction who were taken and popularized OTL might not happen with other path taken . Anyway both Islam could relatively greatly diverge from OTL with a PoD that far back .

What about the world at large?

Both are important but seeing how much Europe have shaped OTL world I guess change that affect Europe will probably do greater change so eastern Islam I guess

 

[Iluvatar]

If the Caliphates fail to completely destroy Byzantine power in the Near East and North Africa (let's say they take Egypt and Syria, but no Muslim power ever conquers the Exarchate of Africa or Anatolia) then there will be significant implications for European history. For example, if Byzantium has more breathing room on its eastern frontier then it will be able to exercise greater influence in Italy - especially if it maintains a hold on Carthage and Sicily. This means the Papacy will be subject to firmer oversight from the Emperor in Constantinople, which reduces the likelihood of a 'Great Schism' like the one we saw IOTL. There almost certainly won't be a Frankish pretender to the imperial rank.

Spanish and Portuguese history would be very different without the period of Muslim rule - the Visigoths would maintain their power longer, for instance. Which is not to say that Iberia would remain Visigothic indefinitely, given the demographics of the territory, but there would never be an Arab Conquest of Hispania, no Battle of Poitiers and no Reconquista. This alters the history of colonialism, assuming that an Age of Exploration still takes place (which seems likely, simply due to geography).

So many things would change in European history, and because of Europe's influence on world history this would be an enormous divergence from OTL.

In contrast, a failure of the Caliphates to overthrow the Sassanid Persians and expand their influence further into Asia would not have such a significant impact. This is not to say things wouldn't change enormously - they would; Indian history alone, for example, would diverge massively from its OTL counterpart. Persia, Central Asia, India, southeast Asia - even Russia and China - would all be different. However, unless the absence of Islamic influence somehow leads to these regions acquiring worldwide power on par with OTL Europe, the course of European (and, because of that continent's disproportionate global influence, world) history would not diverge quite as far from OTL.

I don't at all mean to dismiss the significance of these regions outside of Europe to world history, I'm simply making a judgement based on the degree of European influence on worldwide history IOTL.

 

[Brahman]

Islam without Iran and Turks would be much bigger change

 

[cmakk1012]

Owing to the very significant effect Iran has had on Islam overall due to the output of its many thinkers and military leaders, as compared to the no less important but arguably less widespread effect of the westernmost Islamic thinkers (eg. Maghrebi or Andalusian Muslims), I would argue western Islam would be more divergent than eastern Islam.

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

After iran became muslim, it seems Iranian culture and traditions were often intrinsically associated with islam in many places (in places like India, Islam was linked first and foremost with iran rather than Arabic culture).

Why is this?

 

[Brahman]

After iran became muslim, it seems Iranian culture and traditions were often intrinsically associated with islam in many places (in places like India, Islam was linked first and foremost with iran rather than Arabic culture).

Why is this?

This was because Iran was the only region where Islam only took over religiously, but Culturally the people remained Iranian, instead of being assimilated in Arabic Culture like North Africa or Levant, as such when Native Islamic Powers in Iran emerged, they were very distinctly Persian in culture, It was these Persians who converted much of Central Asia, Including the Turks to Islam, as such when the Turks did adopt Islam, they also adopted Persian Culture with it, and where ever they Invaded, they bought the Culture with them, Like Indian Subcontinent or Anatolia

 

[HistoricalArthropod]

This was because Iran was the only region where Islam only took over religiously, but Culturally the people remained Iranian, instead of being assimilated in Arabic Culture like North Africa or Levant, as such when Native Islamic Powers in Iran emerged, they were very distinctly Persian in culture, It was these Persians who converted much of Central Asia, Including the Turks to Islam, as such when the Turks did adopt Islam, they also adopted Persian Culture with it, and where ever they Invaded, they bought the Culture with them, Like Indian Subcontinent or Anatolia

Now that you mention it, this makes sense. Islam in central, south, east and southeast asia is very persianate, wheras islam in places like sub saharan africa is more arab like asthetically.

 

[Brahman]

Now that you mention it, this makes sense. Islam in central, south, east and southeast asia is very persianate, wheras islam in places like sub saharan africa is more arab like asthetically.

It was Persianate, but it has been now increasingly being more and more Arabized due Saudi Funding as well as the loss of prestige of being associated with Persian Culture

 

[Otto Kretschmer]

Wasnt discrimination by the Byzantines and Sassanids one reason why Arabic assimilation was so successful? Aramaic speakers had a different religion than the one of Byzantines/Sassanids and their language had lower status, so they quickly adopted the language of their Arabic cousins

 

[Nivek]

Wasnt discrimination by the Byzantines and Sassanids one reason why Arabic assimilation was so successful? Aramaic speakers had a different religion than the one of Byzantines/Sassanids and their language had lower status, so they quickly adopted the language of their Arabic cousins

Yes plus both were brutal overlords that muslim were a massive improvement

The first scenario doesn't make sense would make more sense that the rashidun and then ummayds keep their peace with persians and then steamroll the Romans

WI: Umayyad Caliphate conquers and reunites entire former Roman Empire, becomes Romanized?

This is a continuation of a small discussion on the Reverse the Fates of Rome and China thread. For background: I believe Walter Schiedel questioned the geographical thesis. The Mediterranean was very possibly more conducive to integration than pre-Sui China, where all rivers ran west-east and...

www.alternatehistory.com