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

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: Before 1900' started by Euskadi Herria, Dec 30, 2018.

  1. snassni2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    I don't get it. You want a westernized muslim maghreb but you want to make them follow a sect that is not muslim? Doen't make sense IMO. Just get rid of the islamic in the title.
    What does westernized mean?
     
    kholieken likes this.
  2. Euskadi Herria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    What I'm going for is a Maghreb which follows an Islamic sect that isn't regarded as Islamic by other muslims (look at Alawites). Westernized means that it is part of the western cultural sphere (a.k.a Europe).
     
    Fred Guo likes this.
  3. TachfineAlMansour Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2018
    Just a Chiite sect would be pretty hard to pull out, remember that the almohads were regarded as heretics by the other powers, that mainly pointed the fact that Ibn Tumart took the place of the prophet, and in a sense it was a cause of their demise. I would advice to take a very libertinated Shafe'i morocco, that's my best advice. And whatever you do, if you keep your POD, BUTTERFLY THE ALMORAVIDS, they are the worst thing that can happen to your Morocco.
     
  4. Euskadi Herria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Yeah, the Almoravids are a pain.
     
    TachfineAlMansour likes this.
  5. Planet of Hats Palm of the West Donor

    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    Location:
    Land of Rust and Snow
    No Banu Hilal migration is probably a good start, not only in terms of retaining a more Berber cultural feeling, but in terms of retaining the necessary infrastructure to support a prosperous North African string of societies and communities. The arrival of the Banu Hilal turned North Africa from a net food exporter to a net food importer - they brought their goats with them, and goats are pretty damned good at stripping every last edible thing from a patch of ground. Ibn Khaldun notes that anywhere the Banu Hilal went, they left a desert. Add that to their societal impact: They not only brought their language and culture, but they reduced urbanity in the region and increased reliance on nomadism, and they broke up key trade networks in the region and introduced even more instability than already existed. Avoid their arrival, and Ifriqiya and the Maghreb remain greener, with more farms and more cities, more reliance on Berber languages and more opportunities to have larger concentrated populations with higher numbers of specialists.

    Basically just averting the Banu Hilal in and of itself gets you halfway to what you're going for.
     
    mrmandias and Historyman 14 like this.
  6. Euskadi Herria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    The Banu Hilal truly did great damage to the Maghreb. In fact, as I think about it, it might be possible for the Maghreb to become part of the European sphere simply with the Banu Hilal being diverted elsewhere.
     
  7. Planet of Hats Palm of the West Donor

    Joined:
    May 10, 2016
    Location:
    Land of Rust and Snow
    Averting the Banu Hilal is a big enough POD to completely alter the makeup of North Africa - physically, culturally and structurally.
     
    Euskadi Herria likes this.
  8. Lampiao Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2015
    Location:
    Pasargadae
    If you shift Arabic and Berber, you're pretty much describing OTL here. The Maghreb os largely Francophone and Francophile. A little less than half of the population can speak French and if you only count people with some degree of education these numbers can easily go to a large majority.
     
  9. Euskadi Herria Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    When I was talking about a romance language, I was referencing African Romance.
     
  10. Falecius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Location:
    Anarres
    You have more detailed knowledg on the topic, but my understanding is that taqiya is generally considered permissible whenever the alternative would be directly harmful, fo instance if a Muslim in non-believer territory would risk persecution, he would be permitted to temporarily conceal his belief for safety.
    In Sunni jurisprudence, however, this the exception, not the rule. Under ordinary circumstances, Islam enjoins sincerity. Shi'as often take a different approach whereby concealment of belief can be the right thing to do in some circumstances (as opposed to a lesser evil). In general, however, Muslim authorities tend to show some pragmatism on this point.
     
  11. kholieken Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    To be Western, Maghreb had to be Christian. Their relations with other Muslim is irrelevant. You just turn them into Canarian Guanches or Aztecs.
     
  12. snassni2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Why not keep them Sunni but more influenced by Alandalus . Later on it could lead to a new Madhab. Without the Banu Hilal, the moroccan dynasties would be economicaly more stable and stronger. Which means they could support Alandalus against the christians.
    As language they could develop a mix of pre-hilalian arabic dialect, amazigh, hebrew and latin. The used script would be arabic but including new letters like in OTL Farsi or Urdu.
     
  13. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Some forms of hiyyal/deception are allowed. However, taqiyah which is dissimulation, intentional concealment of one’s belief is not allowed. For instance, if tawheed is illegal in one’s country and you must worship idols, then you are not allowed to perform taqiyah or Kitman and perform these actions with the goal to survive. One who is forced is removed of the fault of the sin, however he should do it with the outward resistance to it. Yet, taqiyah entails a person to with his mouth confess belief in these idols for protection or kitman you proclaim belief in these idols for an offensive goal of subversion.
     
  14. Falecius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Location:
    Anarres
    But it would be permissible to abstain to make one's Muslim faith apparent in a non-Muslim country, where being recognized as a Muslim would entail inherent danger. That is, concealing faith without pretending to willingly worship idols (the latter being obviously a sin if done willingly). I am under the impression that there is some degree of leeway in such cases within the range of fiqh opinions.
     
  15. Jürgen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2016
    No the thing which enable a country to be part of the West historical was whether they could intermarry with the European nobility and royalty. So we need a Maghreb where the local rulers practice monogamous marriages and they’re willing to send their daughters abroad to marry Christian rulers. It was how Russia integrated into the West.
     
  16. John7755 يوحنا Lightweight Faqih

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    There is some leeway sure. My opinion and that if most scholars is that in a dangerous land, one is not obliged to go and openly declare. No, it is obvious that in such places one may simply leave things unspoken and avoid religious discussion. However, taqiyah is not necessarily this, taqiyah often entails what in normal situation is a lie, but due to the cause becomes a positive action. In Sunni Islam, there is no legal means to which one can do this. However, if the cause is understandable, then one may say that this is not a grave sin. Nevertheless, the ruling is that taqiyah, intentional concealing through lies is completely haraam as a general rule.

    Within the Shi’a and or Khawarij-Shurha views however, their sects permit taqiyah and kitman. Some more radical than others, some like the Nusayriyyah/Alawites take taqiyah to the level that any sort of admission of religious belief is a breach of taqiyah. Kitman in some ways is the more feared form of hiyyal in the sense that it is an offensive maneuver whereby the person uses this deception to gain certain positions to sufficiently subvert a particular land or group. This was used by Khawarij through its history and I believe Shi’a reject at least its general usage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2019 at 3:54 PM
    Euskadi Herria and Falecius like this.