What if Islam never caught on?

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...don't suppose you'd be tempted to write a TL on that subject? Because I'd read the hell out of it :D

EDIT: Regarding the OP, Bruce Munro did this map of a surviving Western Roman Empire in 771 AD. Butterflies meant a lack of Islam.

http://quantumbranching.deviantart.com/art/West-Plus-East-573203171
 
Last edited:
That a cogent worldview is offered.

I'd argue a large number of traditional paganisms offer that as well.

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.

You're right. However, it also critically failed to make substantial inroads in a lot of groups which already had strong identities. I don't believe that Nestorian Christianity, for example, would have had an easy time making inroads into Iran.

Sure there would have been Arab converts to many outside religions in a world without Islam, I just don't see Nestorianism's dominance as anywhere close to inevitable, and I don't think some sort of inertia would just ensure mass conversion.

Everywhere. Only the rich can afford the initiations, tutoring, and time to speculate about their stomach fluids (which is very important in Manicheeism).

Huh? My point was that there simply weren't many living Manichaeans in the near east by the 6th century and by the end of it there were even fewer. And Manichaeism in Turkestan and China was definitely more than just an elite religion. Not sure if you're taking the piss with the whole stomach fluid thing, but from what I know its more about the duality of good and evil. :D

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.

Less successful variations of them occur rather more frequently, especially in a religious tumultuous environment such as pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed in early Islamic times I believe there were a decent number of those figures. Besides, indigenous monotheism doesn't inherently depend on a prophet figure - it existed in our own timeline's Arabia without any clear leader.


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

Awh, I thought my theory was a little more plausible than that... :p but still, I think that postulating about the existence of a protestant reformation in a world without Islam is rather tricky. Works fine in a timeline, but as an answer to the OP's question it doesn't really provide anything more than guesswork regardless of intention.

...I...don't suppose you'd be tempted to write a TL on that subject? Because I'd read the hell out of it :D

EDIT: Regarding the OP, Bruce Munro did this map of a surviving Western Roman Empire in 771 AD. Butterflies meant a lack of Islam.

http://quantumbranching.deviantart.com/art/West-Plus-East-573203171

Huh, that map looks interesting...

I'll consider the timeline thing, but given that I'm just finishing up a massive timeline about steppe peoples and another shorter timeline about world religions I'd rather do something a bit more fresh. Maybe a vignette?
 
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.

In a way yes, however Islam was in some ways a double edged sword in terms of progress for women. The discrimination against women was based almost entirely before Islam based on the view that they were weaker than men in terms of battle and must be defended in order to protect the coming generation. However, there was no centralized organization to actually oppress women, only tribal customs, no state laws restricted women. Women also before Islam at times through strength, attained power in terms of military and rule. This can be seen with Sajah bint al-Harith and Mawiyya (Mavia), such examples would never occur in scope after Islam, which gave a institution to separate the genders.

But as far as laws, yes while Islam institutionalized the separation, the lives of women did improve, as more violent and vicious actions by tribalists were lessened and only sanctioned oppression (haha) was practiced.
 
I'd argue a large number of traditional paganisms offer that as well.



You're right. However, it also critically failed to make substantial inroads in a lot of groups which already had strong identities. I don't believe that Nestorian Christianity, for example, would have had an easy time making inroads into Iran.

Sure there would have been Arab converts to many outside religions in a world without Islam, I just don't see Nestorianism's dominance as anywhere close to inevitable, and I don't think some sort of inertia would just ensure mass conversion.



Huh? My point was that there simply weren't many living Manichaeans in the near east by the 6th century and by the end of it there were even fewer. And Manichaeism in Turkestan and China was definitely more than just an elite religion. Not sure if you're taking the piss with the whole stomach fluid thing, but from what I know its more about the duality of good and evil. :D



Less successful variations of them occur rather more frequently, especially in a religious tumultuous environment such as pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed in early Islamic times I believe there were a decent number of those figures. Besides, indigenous monotheism doesn't inherently depend on a prophet figure - it existed in our own timeline's Arabia without any clear leader.




Awh, I thought my theory was a little more plausible than that... :p but still, I think that postulating about the existence of a protestant reformation in a world without Islam is rather tricky. Works fine in a timeline, but as an answer to the OP's question it doesn't really provide anything more than guesswork regardless of intention.



Huh, that map looks interesting...

I'll consider the timeline thing, but given that I'm just finishing up a massive timeline about steppe peoples and another shorter timeline about world religions I'd rather do something a bit more fresh. Maybe a vignette?

The number of Manichaens is unknown, but according to Islamic sources there were at least thousands in Iraq during the Abbasid period. They were apparently purged by the Islamic authorities.
 
Wasn't the reason that Colombus's voyages of discovery got financed was because the constant warfare, infighting & backstabbing in the Eastern Med & the Middle East made the spice trade with India unreliable.
Likewise the other Western European voyagers who set off West.
So if the trade routes to India aren't disrupted then no drive to finance searches for an alternative route thus the discovery of the America's happens in a totally different way.
 

scholar

Banned
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.
Not really. An Arabic context is inescapable because it took place in Arabia with the Arabian major ethnic subgrouping, but they were no more fundamentally based on Arabic culture than the Quran's abridgment of the Torah and the Gospels. Even what we consider as "arabic" dress in the traditional sense is based off of Persian and Hellenistic clothing, and the rights granted to women could be found elsewhere, and remained denied elsewhere. Arabia had been the dumping ground for Persian, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hellenistic, and Roman influences since its founding, and Monotheism and Henotheism were emerging forces when the region was invaded by the Christian Axumite kingdom, and were on their way to winning significant local support when Persia invaded again. It was the figure of Muhammad that managed to steer and collect these forces, and overcome local pagan influences. The idea that Arabia was thoroughly pagan is one painted predominately by Muslims themselves who see this as their great time of ignorance, and significantly downplay foreign religious influences since that would seem to damage the image of Muhammad receiving instruction only through the recitation of God's word.
 
I'd argue a large number of traditional paganisms offer that as well.

I'd actually argue that they don't. People convert easily from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones. Or, from monotheistic ones from other monotheistic ones. But, not from monotheistic to polytheistic. Polytheistic religion is simply not a cogent belief system IMHO.

You're right. However, it also critically failed to make substantial inroads in a lot of groups which already had strong identities. I don't believe that Nestorian Christianity, for example, would have had an easy time making inroads into Iran.

But they did make inroads into Iran until Parthian persecutions did a number on them and then the Muslims.

Sure there would have been Arab converts to many outside religions in a world without Islam, I just don't see Nestorianism's dominance as anywhere close to inevitable, and I don't think some sort of inertia would just ensure mass conversion.

I disagree. Christianity, in the pre-modern era, has successfully converted its neighbors. Why would the Arabs be an exception, especially when IOTL they adopted a monotheistic religion en masse? The Arabs would likely break out like the Vikings, sacking and looting, and then acquire the religions of those they conquered like the Mongols. The Arabs are surrounded by Donatists and Nestorians (of the Coptic, Syriac/Indian, and Ethiopian variety). They did not have a historical culture where they were going to export ideas. Without Islam, they are going to be idea importers. IOTL they imported math from India, philosophy and sciences from the Greeks, and religion from the Jews/Christians with Muhammad making crap up in the middle. Without Muhammad, they import Judeo-Christian thought, and being that Judaism was dying and Nestorianism is the big boy on the block, Nestorianism is the most likely, though not inevitable, candidate.

And Manichaeism in Turkestan and China was definitely more than just an elite religion. Not sure if you're taking the piss with the whole stomach fluid thing, but from what I know its more about the duality of good and evil.
I disagree. Mystics and philosophers (or anyone who is literate) are not the working class. Manichees were educated.

Besides, indigenous monotheism doesn't inherently depend on a prophet figure - it existed in our own timeline's Arabia without any clear leader.
Again, the Arabs are idea importers. Like the Germans, they would simply syncretize their pre-existing beliefs with those whom they conquer without Islam.

I think that postulating about the existence of a protestant reformation in a world without Islam is rather tricky.

Not really. Rather inevitable with the printing press and the tension between man-made and Scriptural authority. Islam is de-centralized (no Popes or Bishops) so they are, in effect, more like Protestants than Catholics. :)
 
These threads are always fun.

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.

"Europe" would strike me as a meaningless geographical construct in this scenario--far more likely is a divide between the Meditterranean and Northern Europe. As for North Africa, it seems like African Romance was associated with city dwellers and the Roman state apparatus (including Christianity and the Church), Punic was associated with indigenous landowners and peasants as well as heretical religions, and Berber unsettled tribal peoples and migrants so bound to be marginalised as in OTL. Whether its African Romance or Punic doing the marginalisation seems the end result of how religion evolves there.

Aramaic will be dominant in the entire Fertile Crescent, as it was since the the Persian Empire until Islam, though mainly as a language of peasants and the church.

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.

Nestorianism could easily schism, especially with how widespread the church was and how many national and ethnic borders it crossed. The church actually did schism, several times, OTL. But the best example might be something along the lines of Avvakum, Old Believers, etc. in Russia. And a schismatic movement could easily embrace terrorism to a certain degree--look at the story of the death of Samson in the Bible, which a modern person reason could construe as a suicide bombing.

Of course, who's to say it isn't the Middle East ruling the west, with a Persian Empire as great as the Achaemenids dominating the place or something? Who knows what this world would look like by the 21st century.

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.

Donatism barely existed in the 7th or 8th century, the Vandals basically killed it off when they persecuted non-Arians and the Exarchate church seems to have mostly healed the schism. That said, the North African church always had an issue with heretics, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if a new and highly successful heresiarch popped up in the absence of Islam. It'll probably have a proto-nationalist characteristic to it like Donatism, and likely associated with the Punic-speaking populace--though that seems to have slipped into gradual decline during and after the Vandals, and the late 1st millennium is probably the last time for it to remain a major language. But the state-sponsered religion will be Catholicism, since Carthage and the Maghreb were under the Pope in Rome according to the Pentarchy.

Butterflies, man. If the Catholic Church shapes up, there won't be a need for a Protestant Reformation, though there could always be sects like the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards, etc. Considering Protestant thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy, I doubt that'll really be an issue.

Also, don't forget about the Syriac Orthodox Church, the other major Syriac Church. It's non-Chalcedonian but otherwise not associated with the Nestorian Church of the East. It was and is pretty major force in Syrian Christianity, and if the Arabs must convert to Christianity, just as likely IMO as the Nestorians. Especially since I believe it was strongest in the western part of the Aramaic-speaking world, closest to the Hejaz.

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.

Why didn't the Arabs do that OTL in Somalia or Eritrea? The region certainly has a very "Arab" quality to it, but Somalia is pretty renowned as one of the most ethnically homogenous countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

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.

Possibly one of the local Spanish kingdoms, probably on the west coast of Iberia? A Mauretanian kingdom is a cool possibility, since they'd be trading by both land and sea with Sub-Saharan Africa so would probably find Brazil one way or another.

I've read North Africa is pretty genetically mixed, like some people look very "Arab", others look like they wouldn't be out of place in Ancient Carthage or Ancient Egypt. I've sadly never been there to confirm.

Wasn't the reason that Colombus's voyages of discovery got financed was because the constant warfare, infighting & backstabbing in the Eastern Med & the Middle East made the spice trade with India unreliable.
Likewise the other Western European voyagers who set off West.
So if the trade routes to India aren't disrupted then no drive to finance searches for an alternative route thus the discovery of the America's happens in a totally different way.

Considering the Middle East is the crossroads of the world, it's highly likely at some point the spice trade will be disrupted, probably by nomadic steppe invaders or severe internal conflict in Persia.
 
Nestorianism could easily schism, especially with how widespread the church was and how many national and ethnic borders it crossed.

True, but Nestorianism is merely a school of CHristology, it does not require denominational cohesiveness.

And a schismatic movement could easily embrace terrorism to a certain degree--look at the story of the death of Samson in the Bible, which a modern person reason could construe as a suicide bombing.


I disagree, and this ignores a cultural reality specific to Islam--Jihad. There are Christian analogues to it, such as indulgances (i.e. for crusading), but Christianity has sacraments or repenting to do away with sin. Islam really does not have this relief valve. It has Jihad. And so, terrorism is in a great extent the logical cultural consequence of a belief system that leaves it mysterious whether someone has been obedient enough to Allah to go to heaven...Jihad seals the deal. It is not coincidental that many of the suicide bombers were not very obedient Muslims until they conducted Jihad. Many drank, smoked, did drugs, were homosexual, etcetera. Look up all the recent bombers in Paris and Brussels. Look how they found tons of porn on Bin Laden's computer. Jihad is a way of cleansing one from personal immorality. CHristianity has this too, but in the sacraments, or if you're Protestant, tipping your hat to Jesus and saying you repent.
.

Donatism barely existed in the 7th or 8th century, the Vandals basically killed it off when they persecuted non-Arians and the Exarchate church seems to have mostly healed the schism.

I don't know about barely existed. Frend didn't write as such in his great book "The Donatist Church." There was little communication between Rome and North Africa at this time, so we don't have the written documents. But, we still have ruins of tons of churches until the coming of Islam. After the coming of Islam, DOnatism persisted for a few centuries even.

But the state-sponsered religion will be Catholicism, since Carthage and the Maghreb were under the Pope in Rome according to the Pentarchy.
But these were not the majority of the population, though I agree, it is possible the Arab invaders would convert to Catholicism and persecute the Donatists.

Butterflies, man. If the Catholic Church shapes up, there won't be a need for a Protestant Reformation, though there could always be sects like the Waldensians, Hussites, Lollards, etc. Considering Protestant thoughts on Eastern Orthodoxy, I doubt that'll really be an issue.
Protestantism is the result of the printing press and obvious contradictions in the Catholic system of teaching authority. It's gonna happen.
 
Also, don't forget about the Syriac Orthodox Church, the other major Syriac Church. It's non-Chalcedonian but otherwise not associated with the Nestorian Church of the East. It was and is pretty major force in Syrian Christianity, and if the Arabs must convert to Christianity, just as likely IMO as the Nestorians. Especially since I believe it was strongest in the western part of the Aramaic-speaking world, closest to the Hejaz.

What if the ATL Arabs also managed to conceive a heretical Ishmaelite or Hanif influenced Christianity that while believing Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God also believe Abraham chose Ishmael not Issac to be a great nation? With the Biblical account of Ishmael's 12 sons (and one daughter who married Esau) aka 12 Tribes of Ishmael, together with elaborated accounts involving the descendents of the 12 Ishmaelite Tribes (paralleling Biblical history) and how they connect with the historical Jesus being used as a means to unite the Arabs in a similar manner to OTL Islam?
 
Last edited:
True, but Nestorianism is merely a school of CHristology, it does not require denominational cohesiveness.

I'm a bit confused about the use of "Nestorian" in this thread and others--are people using it as shorthand to refer to the Church of the East? Because that's what I mean whenever I use the term in this thread-

I disagree, and this ignores a cultural reality specific to Islam--Jihad. There are Christian analogues to it, such as indulgances (i.e. for crusading), but Christianity has sacraments or repenting to do away with sin. Islam really does not have this relief valve. It has Jihad. And so, terrorism is in a great extent the logical cultural consequence of a belief system that leaves it mysterious whether someone has been obedient enough to Allah to go to heaven...Jihad seals the deal. It is not coincidental that many of the suicide bombers were not very obedient Muslims until they conducted Jihad. Many drank, smoked, did drugs, were homosexual, etcetera. Look up all the recent bombers in Paris and Brussels. Look how they found tons of porn on Bin Laden's computer. Jihad is a way of cleansing one from personal immorality. CHristianity has this too, but in the sacraments, or if you're Protestant, tipping your hat to Jesus and saying you repent. .

I'm more of the school that religion is a cover for what tends to be political or sociological factors. And I don't see why people forced into a similar state as the Middle East can't develop their own interpretation that gets similar results.

I don't know about barely existed. Frend didn't write as such in his great book "The Donatist Church." There was little communication between Rome and North Africa at this time, so we don't have the written documents. But, we still have ruins of tons of churches until the coming of Islam. After the coming of Islam, DOnatism persisted for a few centuries even.

But these were not the majority of the population, though I agree, it is possible the Arab invaders would convert to Catholicism and persecute the Donatists.

From what I was aware, the reason for Donatism's existence became more hazy over the centuries, and the Arian Vandals disliked both Catholics and Donatists equally. I also thought the church had mostly suppressed it by the 7th century and it had lost most of its power. I may be wrong, but I would assume that like with a lot of things in North Africa, the Vandals shook the place up very good.

Protestantism is the result of the printing press and obvious contradictions in the Catholic system of teaching authority. It's gonna happen.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't be anything like the Protestantism we know. The Church could just as easily reform itself to a degree acceptable to most anyone. The Church might never even evolve the practices to the degree that caused such a backlash.
 
True, but Nestorianism is merely a school of CHristology, it does not require denominational cohesiveness.



I disagree, and this ignores a cultural reality specific to Islam--Jihad. There are Christian analogues to it, such as indulgances (i.e. for crusading), but Christianity has sacraments or repenting to do away with sin. Islam really does not have this relief valve. It has Jihad. And so, terrorism is in a great extent the logical cultural consequence of a belief system that leaves it mysterious whether someone has been obedient enough to Allah to go to heaven...Jihad seals the deal. It is not coincidental that many of the suicide bombers were not very obedient Muslims until they conducted Jihad. Many drank, smoked, did drugs, were homosexual, etcetera. Look up all the recent bombers in Paris and Brussels. Look how they found tons of porn on Bin Laden's computer. Jihad is a way of cleansing one from personal immorality. CHristianity has this too, but in the sacraments, or if you're Protestant, tipping your hat to Jesus and saying you repent.
.



I don't know about barely existed. Frend didn't write as such in his great book "The Donatist Church." There was little communication between Rome and North Africa at this time, so we don't have the written documents. But, we still have ruins of tons of churches until the coming of Islam. After the coming of Islam, DOnatism persisted for a few centuries even.


But these were not the majority of the population, though I agree, it is possible the Arab invaders would convert to Catholicism and persecute the Donatists.


Protestantism is the result of the printing press and obvious contradictions in the Catholic system of teaching authority. It's gonna happen.


Because, there was overpopulation in both the Hijaz, Yemen and Nejd at this time period following the expulsion of Aksum. This population was bound to move elsewhere. In otl they migrated with the Islamic conquest into Iraq, Syria, Lebannon, Egypt, etc... In this tl that never occurs and thus I postulate that the alternative demographic expansion would be into Africa.
 
@pattersonautobody:

I think you're relying on a lot of broad, sweeping conjectures to formulate your opinions on this subject.

When you say "Polytheistic religion is simply not a cogent belief system IMHO." you ignore both the fact that plenty of polytheistic religions were able to come up with complex and fully-formed belief systems, and that these belief systems have been compelling to thousands. Abrahamaic faiths have been particularly persuasive to millions of people throughout human history, but that is not, in my opinion, due to their monotheism but rather a variety of ideas and principles within the religion. For many premodern states that converted wholesale, for example, Christianity often was a matter of political power.

Further defining the Arabs as "idea importers" seems rather bizarre. If you disregard the "great man" view of history and instead look at broader social trends, something along the lines of Islam was almost inevitably going to come out of the Arabian peninsula. The conditions were right for it, quite simply. Of course there's no reason it had to be successful or long lasting, but you cannot, I think, discount that the Arab civilizations had a strong, coherent identity and culture of their own. That culture would, I think, inevitably change whatever was exposed to it to some degree.

Muhammad did not as you say "make up crap" but rather synthesized elements of Arabian culture with the prevailing monotheistic trends in Arabia. As for your commentary on Jihad as the only "relief valve" for sin in Islam, I think you're rather missing the point. Since traditionally the role of the ghazi was only available to a very small percentage of the population (and frankly is today as well) I wonder how your worldview explains how the rest of them dealt with sinfulness?

Further overly-broad analyses of yours include saying that Manichaeism was solely the religion of a learned elite. The example of the Uighur Khaganates are enough to disprove that argument.

@metalinvader665: I've been using Nestorian to refer to the Church of the East. I think patternsonautobody may be using it in a broader sense.
 
Last edited:
I disagree, and this ignores a cultural reality specific to Islam--Jihad. There are Christian analogues to it, such as indulgances (i.e. for crusading), but Christianity has sacraments or repenting to do away with sin. Islam really does not have this relief valve. It has Jihad. And so, terrorism is in a great extent the logical cultural consequence of a belief system that leaves it mysterious whether someone has been obedient enough to Allah to go to heaven...Jihad seals the deal. It is not coincidental that many of the suicide bombers were not very obedient Muslims until they conducted Jihad. Many drank, smoked, did drugs, were homosexual, etcetera. Look up all the recent bombers in Paris and Brussels. Look how they found tons of porn on Bin Laden's computer. Jihad is a way of cleansing one from personal immorality. CHristianity has this too, but in the sacraments, or if you're Protestant, tipping your hat to Jesus and saying you repent. .

There's actually peaceful kinds of jihad in which you battle against, say, poverty, or violence. Unfortunately, that has rather been neglected recently...
 
It was not fundamentally based on Arabic culture, Arabic culture merely provided the context and flavor while the key components are an assortment of the borrowed and inherited.

No culture exists in a vacuum. Even if the role of women in Arabic culture was borrowed, it was still a fundamental part of Arabic culture by the time that Muhammad was alive.

After all pre-Islamic Arabian culture cannot be understood without understanding the influences on it. Same with any culture, really.
 
I'd actually argue that they don't. People convert easily from polytheistic religions to monotheistic ones. Or, from monotheistic ones from other monotheistic ones. But, not from monotheistic to polytheistic. Polytheistic religion is simply not a cogent belief system IMHO.



But they did make inroads into Iran until Parthian persecutions did a number on them and then the Muslims.



I disagree. Christianity, in the pre-modern era, has successfully converted its neighbors. Why would the Arabs be an exception, especially when IOTL they adopted a monotheistic religion en masse? The Arabs would likely break out like the Vikings, sacking and looting, and then acquire the religions of those they conquered like the Mongols. The Arabs are surrounded by Donatists and Nestorians (of the Coptic, Syriac/Indian, and Ethiopian variety). They did not have a historical culture where they were going to export ideas. Without Islam, they are going to be idea importers. IOTL they imported math from India, philosophy and sciences from the Greeks, and religion from the Jews/Christians with Muhammad making crap up in the middle. Without Muhammad, they import Judeo-Christian thought, and being that Judaism was dying and Nestorianism is the big boy on the block, Nestorianism is the most likely, though not inevitable, candidate.


I disagree. Mystics and philosophers (or anyone who is literate) are not the working class. Manichees were educated.


Again, the Arabs are idea importers. Like the Germans, they would simply syncretize their pre-existing beliefs with those whom they conquer without Islam.



Not really. Rather inevitable with the printing press and the tension between man-made and Scriptural authority. Islam is de-centralized (no Popes or Bishops) so they are, in effect, more like Protestants than Catholics. :)

Please read my post on this topic... The response is in them.
 
What if the ATL Arabs also managed to conceive a heretical Ishmaelite or Hanif influenced Christianity that while believing Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God also believe Abraham chose Ishmael not Issac to be a great nation? With the Biblical account of Ishmael's 12 sons (and one daughter who married Esau) aka 12 Tribes of Ishmael, together with elaborated accounts involving the descendents of the 12 Ishmaelite Tribes (paralleling Biblical history) and how they connect with the historical Jesus being used as a means to unite the Arabs in a similar manner to OTL Islam?
Interesting, although I thought how it would reconcile with both indigenous Arab monotheism, like some pointed out here in this thread, and "non-mainstream" Christian sects like Ebionitism?
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
No culture exists in a vacuum. Even if the role of women in Arabic culture was borrowed, it was still a fundamental part of Arabic culture by the time that Muhammad was alive.

After all pre-Islamic Arabian culture cannot be understood without understanding the influences on it. Same with any culture, really.
I think you misunderstand my meaning.

If you had said that Chinese character writings rules were fundamentally based on Korea, you would be wrong. That Chinese characters were fundamental to Korean culture and were whole-heartedly absorbed by court and noble culture, but they were not fundamentally based on that culture. Likewise, while Latin was fundamental to many nations for international diplomacy, the Latin language itself was not fundamentally based on Polish or Hungarian political situations.

It is accurate to state that no culture exists in a vacuum, but this is a tool meant to emphasis exchange between nations so that people do not become reductionary when dealing with a country's context. Yet, if you go too far and suggest that because no culture exists in a vacuum, to the point that even things that are distinctly part of another culture's influence are now seen as native, then you recreate a reductionary situation. While such customs were normal by the time of Muhammad, this does not make them distinctly Arabic, especially when we are talking about it in relation to a syncretic religion.

But, now that I see where you are coming from, I realize that my earlier post probably did not contribute too much.
 
Top