Westernized Islamic Maghreb TL (Brainstorming/WI/PC/AHC)

I've started planning a TL in which the Maghreb is part of the Islamic world but culturally western with a Romance language being the primary language alongside Berber and to a lesser extent, Arabic.

The POD would be in the 1000s with the Almoravids crushed early on by an upstart Berber tribe from Algeria which then goes on to seize the entirety of the Maghreb before involving itself in Iberia. Due to the reforms of the first king, the nation would go on to be part of the western world despite being also part of the Islamic world.

So what ideas have you guys got? Also, what would be the results of such an event happening?

[EDIT]: Ideas thought up:
  • The Berbers follow an extremely heterodox form of Islam that causes them to be spat on by the rest of the Islamic community injuring the ties of the Maghreb to the Middle East severely.
  • The Berber religion is very egalitarian but also very zealous and logical/reasonable.
  • The founder of the movement is a former shepherd who would be convinced to lead the movement by a woman who would claim to be a prophet.
  • The movement saw figures gain prominence amongst the Almoravids infiltrating the system from the inside before launching a series of assassinations that would spark a peasant rebellion which would be led by the shepherd in overthrowing the Almoravids.
 
Last edited:
A large part of Arabization has to do with the strict nature of islam, namely that the official language of god and higher office aught to be arabic, and that non-arabs are excluded from such posts is why so many from MENA abandoned their local identities in favor of adopting arabic, even going so far as to invent fictitious genealogies with Arab ancestors.

So it's possible that a political overthrow is not enough, but rather a religious shift away from traditional Islam into a regional heretical branch with a totally different cultural outlook might be enough to propel the Berbers out of the reaching arms of Arabization and into the European sphere of economic, religio-cultural, and intellectual exchange.

The result is perhaps a large christian/secular minority in the urban bourgeoisie which keep in touch with their European business partners during the Enlightenment and colonial exploration eras. A unified Berber state, or at least a succeeding Moroccan state, would be a colonial competitor alongside Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, France, and England. Not being privy to the catholic treaty of Tordesailles, there might be some Berber colonies in the Americas, and trade posts in the Indian ocean and West Africa.

From there, the butterflies make anything possible.
 
i dont know the plausibility of it, is western world like now because majority of it is catholic? andalusia can be included in western world because they mainly engage within western europe ( which i doubt even if they survive as independent states ), if the king in this TL mainly engage with european then the most suitable be included in group of mediteranian states like italians because roman legacy cultures.
 
A large part of Arabization has to do with the strict nature of islam, namely that the official language of god and higher office aught to be arabic, and that non-arabs are excluded from such posts is why so many from MENA abandoned their local identities in favor of adopting arabic, even going so far as to invent fictitious genealogies with Arab ancestors.

So it's possible that a political overthrow is not enough, but rather a religious shift away from traditional Islam into a regional heretical branch with a totally different cultural outlook might be enough to propel the Berbers out of the reaching arms of Arabization and into the European sphere of economic, religio-cultural, and intellectual exchange.

The result is perhaps a large christian/secular minority in the urban bourgeoisie which keep in touch with their European business partners during the Enlightenment and colonial exploration eras. A unified Berber state, or at least a succeeding Moroccan state, would be a colonial competitor alongside Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, France, and England. Not being privy to the catholic treaty of Tordesailles, there might be some Berber colonies in the Americas, and trade posts in the Indian ocean and West Africa.

From there, the butterflies make anything possible.

The Berbers seem to have not been the most traditional of Muslims until the rise of very orthodox movements like the Almoravids and Almohads as a counter. The muslims in Andalus had also come to be seen as heterodox by other muslims and the Barghwata followed a branch of Islam which believed that there was a prophet after Mohammad (a big no no in Islam) and even had a Quran written in Berber. So the Berbers could possibly end up like the Alawites; muslims who are seen as non-muslims by the rest of the Islamic world. In regards to the Christian populace, I could see them surviving as they began to drop in numbers heavily once the Almoravids and Almohads came around.

i dont know the plausibility of it, is western world like now because majority of it is catholic? andalusia can be included in western world because they mainly engage within western europe ( which i doubt even if they survive as independent states ), if the king in this TL mainly engage with european then the most suitable be included in group of mediteranian states like italians because roman legacy cultures.

I think Euro-centric would be a better word to use than western. The Maghreb as a region is usually in the sphere of Europe or the Middle East and what I am looking for is it to shift into Europe's sphere around 1000 AD. In regards to the Mediterranean Europeans, I find the king of this TL to find good allies in the Normans since I could see the Maghreb of this TL developing into something akin to Norman Sicily.

No Banu Hilal migration to the Maghreb is a good start.

Definetly, though it is possible that they could be a unifying force amongst the Berbers and they are later expelled.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to think of a couple of PODs. Which one seems the best? Ideas are of course welcome

1. Ibn Yasin is never sent to the Sanhaja and thus the Almoravids never arise. Instead, the Hammadids become the major power in the region and crush the Banu Hilal instead of using them as mercenaries against the Almoravids (since they don't exist).
2. A fictional tribesman rises to prominence after managing to defeat a small Almoravid force and he gathers a force around him (Mount and Blade style). Eventually, he begins to gather serious support and would liberate Tlemcen following its capture by the Almoravids. After some battles, the Almoravids are crushed and this upstart becomes the main power in the region. I was reading Almoravid tactics and they had a system similar to the phalanx. OTL, the Romans defeated the phalanx so maybe this Berber upstart uses Romanesque tactics to defeat the Almoravids.

We must take into account that a western Maghreb would need to be active navally (is that even a word?). Thus I think it would be good if we let the Banu Hilal ravage the interior for a bit to cause migrations to the coast which OTL caused an economic boom.
 
Getting the majority of people in the area to be both Muslim and Romance speaking, especially with a POD after 1000 AD, is already pretty hard.
 
Getting the majority of people in the area to be both Muslim and Romance speaking, especially with a POD after 1000 AD, is already pretty hard.

Not necessarily.
The majority of the populace spoke Berber and the Arabization increased dramatically following the Banu Hilal migration which would need to fail for a western Maghreb. With a dynasty that promotes the urbanite populations, we could see African Romance replace Arabic as the language of government and I wouldn't say that the Berbers couldn't even get rid of Arabic as a liturgical language since the Barghwata did that once they translated the Quran to Berber (note that the usage of translated Qurans for religion (a.k.a in prayers etc) is haram in Islam).
 
It was already marginalized by that period, we barely have a handful of second-hand attestations. It doesn't look promising at all IMO.
 
Last edited:
@Euskadi Herria

1. What do you mean when you say that the Muslim of the past considered 'al-Andalus Muslims' were heterodox? The only point that I can fully imagine in this case, would be that perhaps the Umayyad period of Iberia can be seen as such, as they claimed to be legitimate holders of the Caliphal title, despite the Abbasid possession then. Otherwise, al-Andalus in terms of Sunni percentages and aqeedah (status of the heart) were less divided and less fitnah (mischief, chaos, disunity) than Iraq, the supposed centre of the Abbasid Caliphate. Mu'Tazila even within Iberia was less prominent than in Iraq at the time and Iberia had nowhere near as many Shi'a of the radical ghulat variety than Iraq and certainly lacked the same levels of Khawarij/Shurha influence that Iraq suffered from.

2. Why would ghulat-esque Shi'a-Khawarij/Shurha be seen as more Western than Sunni?

3. The ruling regarding Shi'a, Khawarij and Mu'tazilah is clear-cut and universal in the past (and today), according to mainstream Sunni Islam. We make takfir (excommunication) only on some groups, yet some groups we may say we can make takfir on collectives, yet not on individuals. Some groups too, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to make takfir, such as Buddhism or any type of traditional folk religions or Hinduism. By necessity too, we make ruling that a Christian of any type is an unbeliever by necessity. Ghulat Shi'a, who receive this name by way of exaggerations regarding Ali, Fatima, Husayn ibn ali, Hasan ibn ali, etc etc and claiming them to be Allah in personage, are those who are seen as unbelievers by necessity just as a Buddhist would be, simply because said Ghulat uses Arabic or the Quran, does not confer any status beyond comprehension of the Arabic tongue. In regards to other Shi'a, the ruling is clear that the ulema (scholars) make takfir on entities and ideas. Such as, we do not sya that the entirety of Shi'a in the Twelver school is kafr, but that particular ideas enunciated by the ulema of the Shi'a confer disbelief, such as Wilaya at-Tawkwaniyyah (Allah has given all creation to the Imams and Fatimah al-Zahra) or the cursing of the Prophet's companions. Even for instance the opinion of al-Kulayni and most Twelver ulema that Ayesha murdered the Muhammad (SAW) is seen as an offense warranting takfir. So, the Barghawata and other similar ghulat Shi'a in the Maghreb were already seen in this manner as likened to Alawi (Ghulats) and this is recorded in the history of the time by al-Tabari and others.

Khawarijism-Shurhism and associated groups, such as Ibadhi, are more complex. The opinion is that the idea that the more minor Shurha beliefs, such as minor sins = disbelief (such as alcohol drinking) is not an offense that warrant takfir. However, more major Shurha views that allowed takfir and gave the ability of past scholars to refer to them as infidels, was their radical members who said ideas such as Abu Bakr and Umar were legitimate caliphs, yet Ali ibn Talib, Ayesha, Uthman ibn Affan, Khalid ibn Walid, etc were all apostates or that the Quran is corrupted or similar items. These groups among the Berber in the past and in other regions of the Islamic world, are referred to as apostates and infidels by the chronicles handed down to us.

4. How will you narrow down the belief system that you wish for these Berber to have? Among those prevalent among the Berber, you can have your choice of the Shurha or varying degrees of the Shi'a, assuming you wish them to not be Sunni.
 
@Euskadi Herria

1. What do you mean when you say that the Muslim of the past considered 'al-Andalus Muslims' were heterodox? The only point that I can fully imagine in this case, would be that perhaps the Umayyad period of Iberia can be seen as such, as they claimed to be legitimate holders of the Caliphal title, despite the Abbasid possession then. Otherwise, al-Andalus in terms of Sunni percentages and aqeedah (status of the heart) were less divided and less fitnah (mischief, chaos, disunity) than Iraq, the supposed centre of the Abbasid Caliphate. Mu'Tazila even within Iberia was less prominent than in Iraq at the time and Iberia had nowhere near as many Shi'a of the radical ghulat variety than Iraq and certainly lacked the same levels of Khawarij/Shurha influence that Iraq suffered from.

2. Why would ghulat-esque Shi'a-Khawarij/Shurha be seen as more Western than Sunni?

3. The ruling regarding Shi'a, Khawarij and Mu'tazilah is clear-cut and universal in the past (and today), according to mainstream Sunni Islam. We make takfir (excommunication) only on some groups, yet some groups we may say we can make takfir on collectives, yet not on individuals. Some groups too, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to make takfir, such as Buddhism or any type of traditional folk religions or Hinduism. By necessity too, we make ruling that a Christian of any type is an unbeliever by necessity. Ghulat Shi'a, who receive this name by way of exaggerations regarding Ali, Fatima, Husayn ibn ali, Hasan ibn ali, etc etc and claiming them to be Allah in personage, are those who are seen as unbelievers by necessity just as a Buddhist would be, simply because said Ghulat uses Arabic or the Quran, does not confer any status beyond comprehension of the Arabic tongue. In regards to other Shi'a, the ruling is clear that the ulema (scholars) make takfir on entities and ideas. Such as, we do not sya that the entirety of Shi'a in the Twelver school is kafr, but that particular ideas enunciated by the ulema of the Shi'a confer disbelief, such as Wilaya at-Tawkwaniyyah (Allah has given all creation to the Imams and Fatimah al-Zahra) or the cursing of the Prophet's companions. Even for instance the opinion of al-Kulayni and most Twelver ulema that Ayesha murdered the Muhammad (SAW) is seen as an offense warranting takfir. So, the Barghawata and other similar ghulat Shi'a in the Maghreb were already seen in this manner as likened to Alawi (Ghulats) and this is recorded in the history of the time by al-Tabari and others.

Khawarijism-Shurhism and associated groups, such as Ibadhi, are more complex. The opinion is that the idea that the more minor Shurha beliefs, such as minor sins = disbelief (such as alcohol drinking) is not an offense that warrant takfir. However, more major Shurha views that allowed takfir and gave the ability of past scholars to refer to them as infidels, was their radical members who said ideas such as Abu Bakr and Umar were legitimate caliphs, yet Ali ibn Talib, Ayesha, Uthman ibn Affan, Khalid ibn Walid, etc were all apostates or that the Quran is corrupted or similar items. These groups among the Berber in the past and in other regions of the Islamic world, are referred to as apostates and infidels by the chronicles handed down to us.

4. How will you narrow down the belief system that you wish for these Berber to have? Among those prevalent among the Berber, you can have your choice of the Shurha or varying degrees of the Shi'a, assuming you wish them to not be Sunni.

1. Of course not all Muslims of the past saw the Andalusians as heterodox. Rather I am talking about the Almoravids. When they came to Andalus, they saw the princes and were disgusted by their indifference to Islam and that is why we saw the Almoravids exile many of the princes to Morocco as they took over. Thus in this case, the Almoravids associated decadence (and the adopting of European traditions) with heterodoxy.
2. Rather than making the region be seen as more western, it would distance the Maghreb from the Middle Eastern sphere and it is my hope that through such a thing, we gain get a Maghreb which is in the orbit of Europe.
3. I understand your points (being a former Muslim). I would find it beneficial if the Maghreb would come under the control of a dynasty which following a sect of Islam which changed so much that even non-Muslims would call that sect un-Islamic. I think Bahai would be a good example of something that might be seen ITTL. Maybe the religion that comes out takes bits from Islam and Christianity as well as Berber paganism to have something in between (I could easily see Mary becoming part of an analogue to the Trinity).
4. I'll spend some time thinking off some beliefs of this sect and make a post later on.
 
  • Reason is the final arbiter between what is good and what is wrong. Sacred texts are divinely inspired and logic and reason must be applied when reading them; this is to avoid illogical behaviour as this causes chaos which is promoted by Satan.
  • There is a duality between God (order, good, etc.) and Satan (bad, chaos, etc.).
  • Humans are not being tested, rather they are in the midst of the cosmic battle and must side with good (God) or evil (Satan). Being on the former side allows you to spend an eternity in heaven whilst being with Satan causes you to spend an eternity in his flawed copy. Martyrs for God will be able to partake in this cosmic battle. The cosmic battle is God trying to liberate humanity from the ignorance of Satan.
  • The first obligation of any human is to search for knowledge both spiritual and worldly as knowledge is the only way to logically figure out what is right and what is wrong. Knowledge is itself sacred and divine. Due to this, Adam and Eve are the most divine humans as they are the only humans to be born in Heaven (no child is born to them whilst in Heaven).
  • It is believed that bad actions arise from a lack of knowledge and ignorance but also from a deficiency which can drive one to do bad eventhough they have knowledge.
  • In regards to hadith, if they are logical and reasonable, they are correct.
  • Satan created the universe and the natural laws within it and it is for that reason that there is bad in the world (death, natural disasters, disease). Whereas Satan created the universe, God created the spiritual universe which is where the righteous go once they die. Here they live a life free of ignorance.
  • A prophet is a man or woman who has achieved a level of knowledge which has allowed them to no longer need the material universe created by Satan. It is believed that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Salih's religion were all once the correct faith, however, they have been corrupted over time. It is thus the job of somebody who has come to understand the nature of existence to bring back truth and knowledge. People like Mani, Buddha and Plato are regarded as prophets.
  • God and Satan are both born from wisdom that is out of the reach of man and no logic or reason could figure it out. It is as hard to imagine as it is to imagine what came before existence. God, however, was born with knowledge whilst Satan wasn't. In search of knowledge, Satan created his own material universe but failed to use logic and reason and thus the world is flawed unlike the spiritual universe that God inhabits. The humans which Satan created are flawed attempts at copying the wise humans of God's spiritual universe. In a sense, humans are a painting of reality; they may look beautiful but when compared to the original, they are nothing.

These are just some ideas. In summary, God and Satan are brothers who are in a cosmic battle against one another. God has a spiritual universe whilst Satan's material universe is a flawed copy of the former. It is the goal of every human to liberate themselves from the copy and be in the true universe. All of this with Islamic stuff thrown on top with sprinkles of Christianity and Berber paganism.

Opinions on this? Is it maybe too gnostic and needs to be toned down a bit? Suggestions are also welcome.
Also, what POD do you guys think would be good for such a timeline.
 
This is in short, a very Gnsotic and Greek take. As far as I know, the Berber were not so heavily influenced by the Gnosticism of the Hellenic-Syriac world. The Shurha gained popularity in the Berber world for the reason that the Shurha held very clear ideals regarding the egalitarian nature of rulership. Their famous statements, where they described their views as a true democracy where the prince is beholden to the people and is one of them. Or that even a slave can become the Caliph, without any lineage. Such ideas were very popular on the fringes of the Islamic World such as Iran, Baluchistan, Maghreb, Yemen, Oman and by extension as a metropole, Iraq. In contrast to this Shurha conception that disseminated itself as counter points to the primary Sunni Islamic tradition, thus molding itself to Berber resistance against Arab Caliphal rule, this Gnostic religion you propose would have to be existing in the region prior through possibly stronger Manichaeism in the region prior to Islam or a sort of hyper Batinist-dualist Ghulat Shi'a sect formed somewhere in Iraq, Syria or Egypt that spreads to the Maghreb through a method similar to other 'subversive' sects that arrived in the area during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods.

Also, is it clearly known that Mani and Buddha were known in the Maghreb at this time? Manichaeism as far as I know was absent from this region generally, especially by 700 AD. As well, to what extent do the Berbers of the Maghreb have access to Platonic literature? In regards to Buddha as a prophet, Buddha would certainly not be known of this far west unless Manichaeism is present in some capacity.

@Euskadi Herria
 
This is in short, a very Gnsotic and Greek take. As far as I know, the Berber were not so heavily influenced by the Gnosticism of the Hellenic-Syriac world. The Shurha gained popularity in the Berber world for the reason that the Shurha held very clear ideals regarding the egalitarian nature of rulership. Their famous statements, where they described their views as a true democracy where the prince is beholden to the people and is one of them. Or that even a slave can become the Caliph, without any lineage. Such ideas were very popular on the fringes of the Islamic World such as Iran, Baluchistan, Maghreb, Yemen, Oman and by extension as a metropole, Iraq. In contrast to this Shurha conception that disseminated itself as counter points to the primary Sunni Islamic tradition, thus molding itself to Berber resistance against Arab Caliphal rule, this Gnostic religion you propose would have to be existing in the region prior through possibly stronger Manichaeism in the region prior to Islam or a sort of hyper Batinist-dualist Ghulat Shi'a sect formed somewhere in Iraq, Syria or Egypt that spreads to the Maghreb through a method similar to other 'subversive' sects that arrived in the area during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods.

Also, is it clearly known that Mani and Buddha were known in the Maghreb at this time? Manichaeism as far as I know was absent from this region generally, especially by 700 AD. As well, to what extent do the Berbers of the Maghreb have access to Platonic literature? In regards to Buddha as a prophet, Buddha would certainly not be known of this far west unless Manichaeism is present in some capacity.

@Euskadi Herria

1. A very legitimate point on the prevalence of Gnosticism in the Maghreb. Forgot to take that into account. Your points on Shurha are very important too, more so for the Berbers who appear to have been more egalitarian than other groups. There is evidence to suggest that Berbers had a matriarchy. I think this egalitarianism could be further strengthened through having a female prophet (married to the founding king). When I mentioned Mani and Buddha, I wasn't trying to say if these two were known in the Maghreb. I was just giving examples of peoples who would be regarded as prophets. I, however, would agree that my Gnostic take is less realistic than an egalitarian sect of Islam.

2. If we do go with an egalitarian sect of Islam, I could imagine it probably arising in response to the rise of the Almoravids and gaining popularity amongst the Christian minority. I could see it actually arising as a peasantesque rebellion.
 
1. A very legitimate point on the prevalence of Gnosticism in the Maghreb. Forgot to take that into account. Your points on Shurha are very important too, more so for the Berbers who appear to have been more egalitarian than other groups. There is evidence to suggest that Berbers had a matriarchy. I think this egalitarianism could be further strengthened through having a female prophet (married to the founding king). When I mentioned Mani and Buddha, I wasn't trying to say if these two were known in the Maghreb. I was just giving examples of peoples who would be regarded as prophets. I, however, would agree that my Gnostic take is less realistic than an egalitarian sect of Islam.

2. If we do go with an egalitarian sect of Islam, I could imagine it probably arising in response to the rise of the Almoravids and gaining popularity amongst the Christian minority. I could see it actually arising as a peasantesque rebellion.

Well, the egalitarian aspect of the Shurha was in regards to matters of faith and class, but not in terms of exterior religions and in terms of tolerance of 'weak faith'. It is a complex topic though, which I can enunciate if you do wish to use the Shurha/Kharijite.

In regards to peasant rebellions, the Khawarij/Shurha have a particular methodology relating to rebellion and subversion, often seen as the height of offensive hiyal or deception, called Kitman. Kitman is an offensive lie or deception with the purpose of gaining trusts and positions in an area and using this to plan revolts and assassinations. In the Abbasid period, this kitman was a greatly feared method of subversion known to be used by the Khawarij partisans in Iraq and other rural areas on the fringes. With it, many local rulers gained certain scruples and caution when taking on assistants, servants, etc... It should be known, kitman is considered a sin and is haram by Sunni ulema and by most Shi'a ulema, however, in the Shurha beliefs of the time, the concept of active kitman was completely permissible when targeted against a supposed unjust ruler or infidel ruler.
 
Well, the egalitarian aspect of the Shurha was in regards to matters of faith and class, but not in terms of exterior religions and in terms of tolerance of 'weak faith'. It is a complex topic though, which I can enunciate if you do wish to use the Shurha/Kharijite.

In regards to peasant rebellions, the Khawarij/Shurha have a particular methodology relating to rebellion and subversion, often seen as the height of offensive hiyal or deception, called Kitman. Kitman is an offensive lie or deception with the purpose of gaining trusts and positions in an area and using this to plan revolts and assassinations. In the Abbasid period, this kitman was a greatly feared method of subversion known to be used by the Khawarij partisans in Iraq and other rural areas on the fringes. With it, many local rulers gained certain scruples and caution when taking on assistants, servants, etc... It should be known, kitman is considered a sin and is haram by Sunni ulema and by most Shi'a ulema, however, in the Shurha beliefs of the time, the concept of active kitman was completely permissible when targeted against a supposed unjust ruler or infidel ruler.

Very interesting, I know of being allowed to lie when in a non-muslim nation but kitman is something I never heard off. Thanks for the information.
 
Very interesting, I know of being allowed to lie when in a non-muslim nation but kitman is something I never heard off. Thanks for the information.

I do not know of this ruling, it is considered haraam in my opinion on the basis of Hanbali fiqh any sort of lie.. For instance, income taxation or the sales tax (maqs) is considered haraam, however committing deception and not paying a tax is also a sin and one should instead pay the tax and allow the sin of the tax to be transferred to the ruler. Same for mandatory conscription or similar obligatory actions imposed by both Islamic and kuffar states. A lie thus toward a Buddhist who has legally no coherent respect in Sharia is entitled to not be lied to as the lie is still a sin for the Muslim, no matter to whom it is directed or in which land it is enunciated. In my experience also, by this view, all madhab or schools of ruling, declare that such practices as taqiyyah are also haraam.
 
I do not know of this ruling, it is considered haraam in my opinion on the basis of Hanbali fiqh any sort of lie.. For instance, income taxation or the sales tax (maqs) is considered haraam, however committing deception and not paying a tax is also a sin and one should instead pay the tax and allow the sin of the tax to be transferred to the ruler. Same for mandatory conscription or similar obligatory actions imposed by both Islamic and kuffar states. A lie thus toward a Buddhist who has legally no coherent respect in Sharia is entitled to not be lied to as the lie is still a sin for the Muslim, no matter to whom it is directed or in which land it is enunciated. In my experience also, by this view, all madhab or schools of ruling, declare that such practices as taqiyyah are also haraam.
Interesting, I guess it must be more of a Salafist thing then since those are the main kind of Muslims I'm surrounded by.
 
So the Maghreb will be following a somewhat egalitarian branch of Islam and is united under a single dynasty (for the time being). How would this nation interact with its neighbours? In Iberia we have the Christians battling the Taifas whilst in Italy we have the Normans.
 
Top