What if Islam never caught on?

I've been contemplating an AH where Mecca defeated Mohammed's army and as a result Islam died out before it could flourish- what would be the likely course civilization would have taken in such a scenario?
 
Probably a monotheistic Persian religion, likely based on Christianity, fills its place, or a different sect of Christianity does. Politically, depending on how things go with Persia and Byzantium, it could be a business as usual approach after some recovery, or they could collapse into several states with rump empires. India likely has less Hindu nationalism because they haven't been fighting Islamic invaders for centuries. Europe is going to be unrecognizable as the specter of Islam isn't a constant threat for a few centuries. Arabia remains a backwater known only as that really big desert until the combustion engine is created.
On a larger scale, millions of people won't be killed, but I'm sure we'll find some other reason to add them back to the body count.
 
Some sort of Arab expansion out of Arabia is inevitable by this point - the Byzantines and Persians are at their lowest points, with the latter collapsing before Arab interference, and population growth in the Arabian peninsula had left it overpopulated. However, if the Arabs do not have the same ideological force they did in OTL, it is possible that Byzantium at least might be able to integrate them into the empire like they did with the Slavs in the Balkans.

In the longer term, it wouldn't surprise me if the split between Constantinople and Rome is even more drastic with the two faiths being considered completely different faiths by the present day.

teg
 
It's an interesting question, and there's really no clear-cut answer.

First, it's important to look at the shape of the Arabian Peninsula without Mohammed. While Mecca and environs are still pagan, the previous century was defined by conflict between Christian Ethiopians and several Jewish Arabic kingdoms. To make a long and complicated story short and overly simplified, Ethiopia is sort of on its way up, and hasn a better than even shot at owning the entire Arabian Peninsula when all's said and done. The Persians won't like it, but the Persians and Byzantines have just exhausted one another in a series of bloody conflicts.

Byzantium is likely to lose Egypt and Syria; that's almost inevitable at this point. Neither the Persians nor the Byzantines really have the energy to hold Egypt, and the monophysite majority would like to be independent. So it's quite possible they break away and eventually take the greater Syria region with them. Of course, there's a chalcedonian population, but more on them in a minute.

As for a Christian-based religion coming to dominance in the east: there are 2 realistic possibilities: Nestorian Christianity, which is already spreading along the silk road at this point, and Manicheanism, which seems to have been the preferred religion of groups as far east as the Uyghurs before they converted to Islam. Since competition between the 2 was already ongoing, let's keep that dynamic in place for the foreseeable future, but possibly have manicheanism win out with the Turks, Mongols and other northern steppe peoples, while Nestorianism is a minority faith in these groups, but quite popular with traders and makes modest in-roads into China. You could have Persia convert to either, or neither, depending on your preference.

As for Europe: by this time it's predominantly Catholic, with the last Arian kingdoms among the Goths having long since converted. The big exception are the Lombards, who are starting to make their presence felt. The Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage might have more staying power here: Ravenna could eventually face competition from the Franks, though whether the Carolingians take power without Tours is an open question. Carthage could face some problems from an independent Egyptian state based out of Alexandria, which brings me back to the Egyptian Chalcedonians who would likely have left Egypt for the nearest friendly orthodox region: the exarchate. Given that infusion, and the fact that the berbers probably won't want to ally with Egypt, Carthage could retain its independence, but is going to be increasingly distant from Constantinople as time goes on.

I think it's an interesting idea and look forward to seeing where you take it.
 
I find it funny that you post this the day before Ramadan.

At any rate, the one thing that I always liked about AH scenarios wherein Islam does not catch on (barring the fact that it would probably erase me and my religion from existence) is that the linguistic diversity of North Africa's common languages does not take a hit. There was a Romance language catching on in Africa before the conquests, and even Punic was still alive and well right up until Arabic snuffed it out.

How is North Africa going to fair, do you think? Probably a lot like Spain would have if the Moors had not invaded, yes? So eventually that Romance language may actually become the dominant language of North Africa? Wouldn't that be something. It would certainly blur the lines of race drawn along the Mediterranean.

Also, I always like to wonder at the potential of the Zunbils in Afghanistan, and the possibility that they might actually became a major power of some kind.
 
It's an interesting question, and there's really no clear-cut answer.

First, it's important to look at the shape of the Arabian Peninsula without Mohammed. While Mecca and environs are still pagan, the previous century was defined by conflict between Christian Ethiopians and several Jewish Arabic kingdoms. To make a long and complicated story short and overly simplified, Ethiopia is sort of on its way up, and hasn a better than even shot at owning the entire Arabian Peninsula when all's said and done. The Persians won't like it, but the Persians and Byzantines have just exhausted one another in a series of bloody conflicts.

Byzantium is likely to lose Egypt and Syria; that's almost inevitable at this point. Neither the Persians nor the Byzantines really have the energy to hold Egypt, and the monophysite majority would like to be independent. So it's quite possible they break away and eventually take the greater Syria region with them. Of course, there's a chalcedonian population, but more on them in a minute.

As for a Christian-based religion coming to dominance in the east: there are 2 realistic possibilities: Nestorian Christianity, which is already spreading along the silk road at this point, and Manicheanism, which seems to have been the preferred religion of groups as far east as the Uyghurs before they converted to Islam. Since competition between the 2 was already ongoing, let's keep that dynamic in place for the foreseeable future, but possibly have manicheanism win out with the Turks, Mongols and other northern steppe peoples, while Nestorianism is a minority faith in these groups, but quite popular with traders and makes modest in-roads into China. You could have Persia convert to either, or neither, depending on your preference.

As for Europe: by this time it's predominantly Catholic, with the last Arian kingdoms among the Goths having long since converted. The big exception are the Lombards, who are starting to make their presence felt. The Exarchates of Ravenna and Carthage might have more staying power here: Ravenna could eventually face competition from the Franks, though whether the Carolingians take power without Tours is an open question. Carthage could face some problems from an independent Egyptian state based out of Alexandria, which brings me back to the Egyptian Chalcedonians who would likely have left Egypt for the nearest friendly orthodox region: the exarchate. Given that infusion, and the fact that the berbers probably won't want to ally with Egypt, Carthage could retain its independence, but is going to be increasingly distant from Constantinople as time goes on.

I think it's an interesting idea and look forward to seeing where you take it.


Aksum at this point lacks the power to invade and control Arabia outside the coast of Yemen. The manpower in the Hijaz and the possible alliances of Arabs from the Nejd, Haasa, Oman, Yemen, etc at this point is too much for an invading army without a tech advantage arriving far from home. After all, the Aksumites were bested at Makkah not long before this, expelling them from Arabia and that was their absolute peak. From here on out Aksum has to deal with changing trade patterns, demographic change and famine/disease. It will almost inevitably by this point move inward away from the coast deep into Ethiopia and recede to the point of being the target of invasions from Arabia.

I also doubt the independence of Syria and Egypt. No such movement ever occurred as far as I know during Byzantium's rule and only once during the Abbasid period due to adjusted Jizya tax. Those areas will have to come about outside of a determinist populace. What is more likely is a civil war in which Egypt defeats a Greek/Anatolian party and Alexandria becomes the center of the Roman Empire of sorts.
 
Even without Islam there were still monotheistic currents (Hanifism, Rahmanism) and self-proclaimed prophets in OTL Arabia around that period with the potential to catch on.

Also aside from Christian and Jewish Arabian kingdoms though (along with Hejaz based Ebionites), perhaps a segment of ATL Arabs embrace other belief systems like Arabian forms of Zoroastrianism (via Sassanid encroachment), Manicheaism and via Indian Ocean Trade various Dharmic belief systems such as Buddhism, etc?

Can see North Africa being considered culturally part of an ATL Europe with surviving African Romance, Punic and Amazigh languages though likely embroiled in conflicts between various Christian or semi-Christian sects (perhaps even the odd fledgling non/anti-Christian gnostic belief system or two), while Zoroastrianism might be able to reform via a new post-Sassanid dynasty with Aramaic potentially remaining prominent in Levant, Mesopotamia as well as parts of Central Asia and Arabia.

Central Asia is likely to be a mix of Nestorian Christian, Manichean, Buddhist and possibly a reformed missionary form of Zoroastrianism along with communities of Hindus, Jains in places such as OTL Afghanistan though unsure of the survival of Tengrism.
 
Okay this is a single, one off idea but the previous post just struck me. Are there religious sects in Mesopotamia that might be able to capitalize on Sassanid/Byzantine weakness, thus creating an independent state in the region? Could Nestorianism or Monophysitism be used to rile up the Aramaic speaking natives of the region to a large enough degree that they unite under a common cause and manage this? Maybe forming alliances with influxes of migrating Arabs?
 
Okay this is a single, one off idea but the previous post just struck me. Are there religious sects in Mesopotamia that might be able to capitalize on Sassanid/Byzantine weakness, thus creating an independent state in the region? Could Nestorianism or Monophysitism be used to rile up the Aramaic speaking natives of the region to a large enough degree that they unite under a common cause and manage this? Maybe forming alliances with influxes of migrating Arabs?

Sure, that's perfectly possible, but it's equally likely that the Sasanians utilize whatever power they have to co-opt the Church of the East. I think that the latter Shahs, particularly Khosrow, were well on their way towards such a position of compromise. Plus the Aramaic-speaking peoples, though economically prosperous were not in this era particularly martial. Most actual soldiers were recruited from the Iranian plateau.
 

scholar

Banned
Some sort of Arab expansion out of Arabia is inevitable by this point - the Byzantines and Persians are at their lowest points, with the latter collapsing before Arab interference, and population growth in the Arabian peninsula had left it overpopulated. However, if the Arabs do not have the same ideological force they did in OTL, it is possible that Byzantium at least might be able to integrate them into the empire like they did with the Slavs in the Balkans.

In the longer term, it wouldn't surprise me if the split between Constantinople and Rome is even more drastic with the two faiths being considered completely different faiths by the present day.

teg
Arabic unity made expansion inevitable, a unity created almost single handedly by Muhammad and his successors. Without their unity, it really didn't matter how hurt Persia and the Byzantines were, they wouldn't have been nearly the threat they would have been, and would more likely be employed as mercenaries and allies instead - as they were before this point. Break their unity, easy without Muhammad, and unless you assume a similar analog at a similar time then the Arab expansion is effectively butterflied. Steppe Hordes of central Asia have always been massive and disruptive, but Temujin and his Mongol Horde are exceptional. While you would, perhaps, get a united Arabia, you will never get another Muhammad unless you intentionally make an analog out of it.
 
The reason why Islam proved to be such a strong influence is that it is an internally consistent system of belief. So, even when it was brand new, it fit like a glove. This is why in the vacuum of Islam, we are likely to see another large, theologically consistent belief system in time take its replace, the main candidate being Nestorian Christianity.

Manicheeism was only a belief system of the elite, and Zoroastrianism and other isms were small and regional. At this time Nestorianism already spread from Egypt to India and China. THey had a Pope in Baghdad. Simple inertia would bring the Arabs under conversion just as the Nordics, Poles, and Russians all converted under a brand of Christianity over the next six centuries. But that's the thing...it might take another 600 years for these peoples to convert.

So, the Arabs, until their conversions, might simply be the Middle Eastern analogue of the Vikings. Without a coherent ideology to fight behind they won't be as successful (they'll be lucky to make it to Spain), but they will definitely go far, sack a lot of cities, intermarry with the locals like the Germanic tribes.


THe result is that Nestorianism today is a major world religion, probably bigger than Catholicism. The two versus one natures of Christ will be this battleground that everyone, even if they don't care, will know about by default. Nestorians would be considered non-Chrsitians (including Copts and Ethiopian Orthodox) and they likewise would see western CHristians as other.

THere is a good chance there is no modern analogue of SHi'ism, as Nestorianism was a very centralized religion. All religious texts and liturgies were in Syriac, even in India, and they had a Patriarch in which had unquestioned authority over the whole (something Islam did not have, thereby leading to factionalism.) So, the modern analogues of ISIS and what not will likely be fighting over the supposed differences of interpretations (modernists versus reactionaries) or, they may just fight over good old fashioned money and land without any religion factoring into it. Terrorism is mostly butterflied away, as Jihad is not the vehicle to attain forgiveness for personal sinfulness...the priest and the sacraments suffice for this. The butterflies of this alone in the 21st century are absolutely huge. I imagine that modern day warfare between the west and the middle east would have less of a humanitarian veneer and will simply be overtly imperialistic.

North Africa likely will still be Donatist today, as DOnatism prevailed after the fall of Rome and for a time after the Arab invasion. ITTL, the Arabs that invade likely convert to Donatism. DOnatism henceforth will be seen as a scourge poised to invade Spain and Italy between the 8th to 15th centuries. We would all today have more familiarity with the importance of the personal holiness of priests and the sacraments, simply because Donatism will be considered an unchristian religion like Arianism and Gnosticism is today.

As for the Protestant reformation, it likely still happens. Being that Rome is not the undisputed biggest CHristian denomination, Protestants will find that they deal with more CHristological squabbles and they will have a less clear mantle of history to claim inheritance from. Protestants, often wrongly, claim that the ancient Church was being restored in the Reformation. In a world where four large ancient Christian groups still exist in force (Nestorianism, DOnatism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Roman Catholicism) this claim is going to make even less sense.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd that everyone on this site always parrots the same idea that everyone must convert to some religion instead of remaining a cultural tradition. Christianity had been in Arabia for over 400 years by the time of Muhammad, but it was exceptionally minor outside of the Ghassanids, Lahkmids and the Banu Tamin. Yet with all that time; the religion never expanded there outside of lightly. Judaism was an exception, yet it was confined to actual Jews and the kingdoms in Yemen, which ruled over a majority pagan populace. Manichaeism was after 300 years a serious rarity in Arabia, its appeal was to the Syriac world and more mystic populaces as opposed to the ethnophile Arabs who valued the sword above the book. Zoroastrianism is near impossible unless you have thousands of years of Persian rule.

Arabia endured with a vast pagan populace despite the world around them turning to other beliefs. Ethiopia for instance, a greater distance from Palestine, converted to Christianity, yet the Arabs did not. There is a definite cultural reason for this, which pushes one people to accept and the other to reject.
 
Last edited:
The reason why Islam proved to be such a strong influence is that it is an internally consistent system of belief. So, even when it was brand new, it fit like a glove. This is why in the vacuum of Islam, we are likely to see another large, theologically consistent belief system in time take its replace, the main candidate being Nestorian Christianity.

Manicheeism was only a belief system of the elite, and Zoroastrianism and other isms were small and regional. At this time Nestorianism already spread from Egypt to India and China. THey had a Pope in Baghdad. Simple inertia would bring the Arabs under conversion just as the Nordics, Poles, and Russians all converted under a brand of Christianity over the next six centuries. But that's the thing...it might take another 600 years for these peoples to convert.

So, the Arabs, until their conversions, might simply be the Middle Eastern analogue of the Vikings. Without a coherent ideology to fight behind they won't be as successful (they'll be lucky to make it to Spain), but they will definitely go far, sack a lot of cities, intermarry with the locals like the Germanic tribes.

How are you defining theological consistency? I just don't see Nestorianism having the same mass appeal as Islam. Historically very few Arabs converted to it, and I'm not sure it would be willing to undergo the adaptation necessary to become appealing to the Arab population.

Manichaeism is a religion of the elite? Where? It's a religion of a variety of Central Asian and Chinese people, but by the 6th century it's rather limited in its scope in the Near East, as far as I know. Less a religion of the elite and more a religion of a few scattered Syriac holdouts.

Also, your analysis discounts indigenous monotheist movements. Even without Muhammad, I think you could make the case for a variety of monotheist cults spreading in the time period of his life. The thing is, that pagan people don't just inherently convert themselves to Christianity by "inertia" - rather they do so when there's some direct benefit to them. Sure, a hypothetical Arab leader who conquers Mesopotamia is likely as not to convert to the local religion, and the same goes with a conqueror of Egypt or Syria. But I'm not seeing the route which spreads Christianity into the interior, and there's plenty of time for a different homegrown sect, be it heretical or a different religion entirely, to emerge.

The biggest problem with your analysis is predicting anything 600 years in the future with any degree of certainty. By that point, literally anything could have happened, up to and including some radical monotheistic version of Tengri-worship conquering most of the known world under a hereditary succession of prophet-shaman. :p
 
How are you defining theological consistency? I just don't see Nestorianism having the same mass appeal as Islam. Historically very few Arabs converted to it, and I'm not sure it would be willing to undergo the adaptation necessary to become appealing to the Arab population.

Manichaeism is a religion of the elite? Where? It's a religion of a variety of Central Asian and Chinese people, but by the 6th century it's rather limited in its scope in the Near East, as far as I know. Less a religion of the elite and more a religion of a few scattered Syriac holdouts.

Also, your analysis discounts indigenous monotheist movements. Even without Muhammad, I think you could make the case for a variety of monotheist cults spreading in the time period of his life. The thing is, that pagan people don't just inherently convert themselves to Christianity by "inertia" - rather they do so when there's some direct benefit to them. Sure, a hypothetical Arab leader who conquers Mesopotamia is likely as not to convert to the local religion, and the same goes with a conqueror of Egypt or Syria. But I'm not seeing the route which spreads Christianity into the interior, and there's plenty of time for a different homegrown sect, be it heretical or a different religion entirely, to emerge.

The biggest problem with your analysis is predicting anything 600 years in the future with any degree of certainty. By that point, literally anything could have happened, up to and including some radical monotheistic version of Tengri-worship conquering most of the known world under a hereditary succession of prophet-shaman. :p


I tend to agree. Manichaeism was a religion of Mystics and Syriac scholars, it was birthed during the time of intense spirituality following the Jewish revolt. It was almost entirely made to conquer the Roman populace (especially Syriacs and Greeks). The problem was that Manichaeism appealed too heavily to learned scholars and practiced deep secrets, whereas Christianity spread as a peace cult among the lowly rabble. It was because of this early mentality that allowed Christianity to outpace the gnosis cults which could not or had difficulty breaking the class barriers of society.

The problem is the values of Christianity which made it popular amongst poor, exhausted and relatively peaceful farmers in the Syriac and Egyptian spheres, made it abhorrent to the Arab world, which valued strength and justice above anything else. The concepts of Arab life were deep, the sense of self and the warrior culture permeated the individual. It unlike the cultures to the north, were tribal, yet had a burgeoning nationalism, in the sense that it was believed that all Arabs are in some way inner connected despite religious belief or area. This is seen in the many writings of the Arabs before and in the early days of Islam.

Thus the Arabs, created a religion that expressed their views as a people the same way that Jews created a religion to express themselves. The concepts of Islam, were in general used by Arabs long before Muhammad, such as the concept of security pacts, rules on women, Jihad, Ghazw, Tahaakum, Taghoot, etc... However I find otl the unlikely turn of history, it was more likely for the Arabs to continue roughly similarly through history, looking something like the Rajput of India or other Hindu groups.

They would also participate in wars to the north and tip balances in major wars. I could also see the expansion of Arabs from Yemen into Africa as opposed to the Mid East, leading to possibly Arab states along Somalia and Ethiopia, in which case, Arabs could become a majority in Somalia, Eritrea, Adal, etc... And a large minority in Ethioia/Aksum. This would fit the likely trajectory of Arab civilization without Islam, a continued move to gaining slave populations and serving as unruly mercenaries for kingdoms to the North.
 
Last edited:

Fo_Real

Banned
Without the Islamic conquest of North Africa, the region probably would have stayed much closer culturally and politically to Europe. Genetically too, maybe, depending on how much the Arab invasion changed the genetics of the population. Also, without a Reconquista, Portugal and Spain probably wouldn't become centralized as early as they did and so likely wouldn't discover and colonize the Americas, at least no as much as they did OTL. I wonder who would replace them.
 
The concepts of Islam, were in general used by Arabs long before Muhammad, such as the concept of security pacts, rules on women,

Actually, wouldn't a lack of Islam mean that the situation for women in that area of the world would remain unfavourable? I read that when Islam emerged, it was fairly revolutionary in that it strengthened and improved women's rights. Like, prior to Islam, a man could divorce his wife for any reason, but under Islamic law it was only for divorce and even then it had to be proven conclusively.
 
Actually, wouldn't a lack of Islam mean that the situation for women in that area of the world would remain unfavourable? I read that when Islam emerged, it was fairly revolutionary in that it strengthened and improved women's rights. Like, prior to Islam, a man could divorce his wife for any reason, but under Islamic law it was only for divorce and even then it had to be proven conclusively.

You're right that Islam did benefit women at the time of its founding - but the rules that it established in that context were based fundamentally on Arabic culture.
 
How are you defining theological consistency?

That a cogent worldview is offered.

I just don't see Nestorianism having the same mass appeal as Islam. Historically very few Arabs converted to it...

Up until 650 AD, 0 Russians and 0 Varangians converted over to Christianity. So, to say that Arabs simply had not in the past does not mean anything, as they proved open to Jewish proselytism and Nestorianism had succeeded in gaining adherents in the most diverse populations of any world religion until Protestantism and Catholicism in the 19th centuries.

Manichaeism is a religion of the elite? Where?
Everywhere. Only the rich can afford the initiations, tutoring, and time to speculate about their stomach fluids (which is very important in Manicheeism).

Also, your analysis discounts indigenous monotheist movements.

It sure does. Figures like Muhammed, Buddha, and Jesus appear essentially once every thousand years. To posit that someone able to hold his reins will simply just appear does not seem to be reasonable to me.

The biggest problem with your analysis is predicting anything 600 years in the future with any degree of certainty.

That's what the OP asked: "what would be the likely course civilization would have taken in such a scenario?"

By that point, literally anything could have happened, up to and including some radical monotheistic version of Tengri-worship conquering most of the known world under a hereditary succession of prophet-shaman. :p

That's a lil AH snobbery, tis all :). Of course it is highly speculative, this is alternate history after all! Heck, if Hitler choked on a fish bone in 1943 the Nazis could have won the war and the silverback gorilla could be extinct from butterflies we have no way to anticipate. Yet, that should not stop us from making reasonable speculations given a POD.
 
Top