What if Islam never caught on?

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.

Jihad is very similar to indulgences as all it is is a spiritual cleansing. Whether or not that cleansing is through nonviolent of violent means is up to the individual, like forgiveness for sins. There is nothing inherent in Jihad that makes it more violent than other cleansings, rather it is the outside forces such as extremists who convince others that the only true Jihad is through violence.
 
Jihad is very similar to indulgences as all it is is a spiritual cleansing. Whether or not that cleansing is through nonviolent of violent means is up to the individual, like forgiveness for sins. There is nothing inherent in Jihad that makes it more violent than other cleansings, rather it is the outside forces such as extremists who convince others that the only true Jihad is through violence.

The most pure form of Jihad is subjective, but in the case of Rasul it was physical which took precedence. Jihad is a mindset which makes war acceptable, for as it is said; Jihad (both) is incumbent upon all Muslim until all Fitnah is removed and the whole of the Earth pays service unto Allah as the Rasul did in his life and his successors, Baqqiyyah wa Tattamadad. To deny this is to be blind.
 
The most pure form of Jihad is subjective, but in the case of Rasul it was physical which took precedence. Jihad is a mindset which makes war acceptable, for as it is said; Jihad (both) is incumbent upon all Muslim until all Fitnah is removed and the whole of the Earth pays service unto Allah as the Rasul did in his life and his successors, Baqqiyyah wa Tattamadad. To deny this is to be blind.

But it still doesn't say violence is the only way to redemption. It's justifying a war, not starting it in the first place.
 
But it still doesn't say violence is the only way to redemption. It's justifying a war, not starting it in the first place.

Hmm, you do not necessarily understand Jihad. It is a struggle, a struggle against what? Against Kufr, Shirk and Fitnah, a war upon all this which is continual, hence the term Baqqiyah Wa Tattamadad (remaining and expanding) as in the Muslim will always remain to expand and engage the Kufr, no matter, which is mental if one lacks the necessary means and physical if one is strong (this is called, Al-Istaraaj). The Jihad is to be a concept which is a constant war upon all Kufr, Dar al-Harb which is the exact same as Dar al-Kufr/Shirk, so in this respect it is a concept that is just the all emcompassing doctrine of war of an ideology with it overceding concepts such as Harb (war), Ghazw(raiding), Suhada (martyrdom), Hiyal (Deception), Dawah (spreading religion), etc...

To wage Jihad and remove Kufr or Fitnah, increases one's Taqwa (piety) and Imaan (faith).
 
Last edited:
Hmm, you do not necessarily understand Jihad. It is a struggle, a struggle against what? Against Kufr, Shirk and Fitnah, a war upon all this which is continual, hence the term Baqqiyah Wa Tattamadad (remaining and expanding) as in the Muslim will always remain to expand and engage the Kufr, no matter, which is mental if one lacks the necessary means and physical if one is strong (this is called, Al-Istaraaj). The Jihad is to be a concept which is a constant war upon all Kufr, Dar al-Harb which is the exact same as Dar al-Kufr/Shirk, so in this respect it is a concept that is just the all emcompassing doctrine of war of an ideology with it overceding concepts such as Harb (war), Ghazw(raiding), Suhada (martyrdom), Hiyal (Deceptiom), Dawah (spreading religion), etc...

To wage Jihad and remove Kufr or Fitnah, increases one's Taqwa (piety) and Imaan (faith).

In philosophy, there are many ways of waging war. One way is violence, another is sparing intellectually. I believe that at its core, Jihad is about purifying the self and using that vessel to help purify others. You don't need an external enemy to struggle, you can struggle against your own imperfections. You don't have to kill when raiding, merely offer a different point of view that leads to another contemplating it. If you are strong physically, you can do missionary work rather than conquest. There are other ways to experience a Jihad other than violence. While I'm not Muslim, I've always respected it for that purpose, and making alms giving a duty.
 
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?

With a combination of replacement theology and retroactive Arabian storytelling (even possibly posthumously appropriating someone like Imru' al-Qais who also sought to unite the Arabs for their agenda), Ishmaelite Christianity would be a kind of proto-nationalist syncretism of Arab monotheism and Christianity with OTL Arab monotheism likely already having a preexisting Ishmaelite narrative (where Abraham chooses Ishmael) for the fledgling movement to build upon.
 
In philosophy, there are many ways of waging war. One way is violence, another is sparing intellectually. I believe that at its core, Jihad is about purifying the self and using that vessel to help purify others. You don't need an external enemy to struggle, you can struggle against your own imperfections. You don't have to kill when raiding, merely offer a different point of view that leads to another contemplating it. If you are strong physically, you can do missionary work rather than conquest. There are other ways to experience a Jihad other than violence. While I'm not Muslim, I've always respected it for that purpose, and making alms giving a duty.

This is your feelings on the matter... But since I am not feeling merciful I will give references.

"Not equal are those who sit and recieve no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and persons. Allah hath granted a place higher who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Allah hath granted good: But to those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit, by a special reward." Quran 4:95

-The Jihad al-Akbar (greater Jihad) is to fight and strive against Kufr, not Jihad al-Nafs or Jihad al-Shaytaan which is to sit and strive against ones self or the entity and concept of Shaytaan.

"And there is life for you in the retaliation, O men of understanding, guard yourselves (from the Kufr or Munafiqeen)." Quran 2:179

- this has a meaning at a micro level, that one must defend one's body from enemy or from Kufr, as to retaliate and destroy the influence, this the life is in the destruction of such Fitnah. However, apply this to the macro level, which is always to be done (if not then you break Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah and Tawheed al-Rabuubiyyah), it points to the destruction of Fitnah is a benefit to the Muslim and the whole of the Earth. Thus one must attack the Fitnah through all means necessary in every part of the world for simply existing it is a danger to your Imaan and Taqwa. Then comes the war against all for the sake of removing Fitnah in all cases and without exception for to leave any without a treaty is to allow Fitnah knowingly, further it is clear that all outside of belief is Fitnah unless it is under rule of the Muslim and thus his Hadood is above them satisfying Rabuubiyyah and his Shariah is placed on the believers which satisfies his Haakimiyyah.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible for ye to dislike that which is good for you (or gives benefit, Maslahah), and ye dislike that which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and ye does not." Quran 2:216

- even if it is adverse to you, the physical jihad is prescribed, as it was for the Salaf in the times of Rasul.



"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell this life (Dunya) for the other (Jannah). Whoso fighteth in the cause of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him shall we bestow a great reward." Quran:4:74

- to give one's life here and all its worried for the cause to increase one's Imaan and Taqwa warrants a great award, beyond Jannah. To be one who sacrifices, Fedayi, is the cause for the rewards of Allah.

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to cause Fitnah in the land is this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and feet should be cut on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them as on this earth, and in the afterlife there shall be grievous chastisement." Quran 5:33

- those who wage war upon Allah, hmm, what does this mean when applied to Rabuubiyyah (Allah is the lord of all)? The Kufr or disbelief which creates Fitnah (mischief in the land), is in constant war against Allah and his Lordship. Thus to utterly eliminate is the goal and commandment of this Surah.

"And fight with them until there is no more Fitnah, and religion is all for Allah." Quran 8:39

- fight all Fitnah until there is none. Very clear, this is a clear cut issue and all scholars of the past agree on this issue.

"O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them, unless maneuvering in battle or intent to join another company, he truly has incurred the wrath of Allah, and his habitat will be in hellfire, a haples journey." Quran 8:15

- to shy away from the battle except as posturing or planning incurs wrath. To retreat in the face of Fitnah is Kufr and this is clear.

"Go forth light armed and heavy armed, strive with your possessions and lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you, if ye but knew." Quran 9:41

- go no matter your power, light or heavy. This can mean the Jihad al-Nafs, but the verb usage to go emphasized one who loves and takes to an action as opposed to Nafs. Thus it can only be Harb/Ghazw, etc or Dawah.


"Allah hath purchased of their persons and goods; for theirs is the garden: they fight in his cause and slay and are slain: A promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, Gospel and the Quran: and who is more faithful in his covenant than Allah? then ye rejoice in the bargain ye have concluded: an achievement supreme." Quran 9:111

-to lose all things and fight is the achievement supreme. One cannot lose possessions in Nafs.

"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment unto the people of it who lead easy lives, but I they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter annihilation." Quran 17:16

- the transgression of the enemy is always Kufr and thus the prescription is Harb, hence Dar al-Harb = Dar al-Kufr. This is clear cut.

This is only some from the Quran. I will not delve into Hadith or official Fatwa or Hukm, as it is exceedingly time consuming. But the Jihad is more than what you say...

Also you say purify others, what do you believe that means? I am sure after reading, you are assured.
 
Last edited:
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.

I like it.

"Lord save us from the southmen!" -some Egyptian monk

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

Just like only the rich or ascetic could afford to speculate on how many natures Jesus had, and how those natures related to one another. Manichaeism can adapt, it was popular enough when Augustine converted to it.
 
This is your feelings on the matter... But since I am not feeling merciful I will give references.

"Not equal are those who sit and recover no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and persons. Allah hath granted a place higher who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Allah hath granted good: But to those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit, by a special reward." Quran 4:95

-The Jihad al-Akbar (greater Jihad) is to fight and strive against Kufr, not Jihad al-Nafs or Jihad al-Shaytaan which is to sit and strive against ones self or the entity and concept of Shaytaan.

"And there is life for you in the retaliation, O men of understanding, guard yourselves (from the Kufr or Munafiqeen)." Quran 2:179

- this has a meaning at a micro level, that one must defend one's body from enemy or from Kufr, as to retaliate and destroy the influence, this the life is in the destruction of such Fitnah. However, apply this to the macro level, which is always to be done (if not then you break Tawheed al-Haakimiyyah and Tawheed al-Rabuubiyyah), it points to the destruction of Fitnah is a benefit to the Muslim and the whole of the Earth. Thus one must attack the Fitnah through all means necessary in every part of the world for simply existing it is a danger to your Imaan and Taqwa. Then comes the war against all for the sake of removing Fitnah in all cases and without exception for to leave any without a treaty is to allow Fitnah knowingly, further it is clear that all outside of belief is Fitnah unless it is under rule of the Muslim and thus his Hadood is above them satisfying Rabuubiyyah and his Shariah is placed on the believers which satisfies his Haakimiyyah.

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible for ye to dislike that which is good for you (or gives benefit, Maslahah), and ye dislike that which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth and ye does not." Quran 2:216

- even if it is adverse to you, the physical jihad is prescribed, as it was for the Salaf in the times of Rasul.



"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell this life (Dunya) for the other (Jannah). Whoso fighteth in the cause of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him shall we bestow a great reward." Quran:4:74

- to give one's life here and all its worried for the cause to increase one's Imaan and Taqwa warrants a great award, beyond Jannah. To be one who sacrifices, Fedayi, is the cause for the rewards of Allah.

"The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to cause Fitnah in the land is this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and feet should be cut on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them as on this earth, and in the afterlife there shall be grievous chastisement." Quran 5:33

- those who wage war upon Allah, hmm, what does this mean when applied to Rabuubiyyah (Allah is the lord of all)? The Kufr or disbelief which creates Fitnah (mischief in the land), is in constant war against Allah and his Lordship. Thus to utterly eliminate is the goal and commandment of this Surah.

"And fight with them until there is no more Fitnah, and religion is all for Allah." Quran 8:39

- fight all Fitnah until there is none. Very clear, this is a clear cut issue and all scholars of the past agree on this issue.

"O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them, unless maneuvering in battle or intent to join another company, he truly has incurred the wrath of Allah, and his habitat will be in hellfire, a haples journey." Quran 8:15

- to shy away from the battle except as posturing or planning incurs wrath. To retreat in the face of Fitnah is Kufr and this is clear.

"Go forth light armed and heavy armed, strive with your possessions and lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you, if ye but knew." Quran 9:41

- go no matter your power, light or heavy. This can mean the Jihad al-Nafs, but the verb usage to go emphasized one who loves and takes to an action as opposed to Nafs. Thus it can only be Harb/Ghazw, etc or Dawah.


"Allah hath purchased of their persons and goods; for theirs is the garden: they fight in his cause and slay and are slain: A promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, Gospel and the Quran: and who is more faithful in his covenant than Allah? then ye rejoice in the bargain ye have concluded: an achievement supreme." Quran 9:111

-to lose all things and fight is the achievement supreme. One cannot lose possessions in Nafs.

"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment unto the people of it who lead easy lives, but I they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter annihilation." Quran 17:16

- the transgression of the enemy is always Kufr and thus the prescription is Harb, hence Dar al-Harb = Dar al-Kufr. This is clear cut.

This is only some from the Quran. I will not delve into Hadith or official Fatwa or Hukm, as it is exceedingly time consuming. But the Jihad is more than what you say...

Also you say purify others, what do you believe that means? I am sure after reading, you are assured.

Fine, Islam is an absolutely barbarous religion that has no place in the world. Is that the point you're trying to get across?
Regardless, religion is open to many interpretations and I could construe all those except the one about crucifixion as capable in a nonviolent manner.
To purify means to make onself ready for God. To purify others would be to convert them. Butchering them doesn't help them because you've taken away any chance they may have to save themselves. As such, you could launch a greater Jihad without waging a physical war if you concentrated on missionary work.
This is all getting off topic, though, as my original point was that Islam isn't any more likely to go off on a killing spree than any other religion.
 
Last edited:
Have their been threads on "what would have happened if Christianity had never caught on."
There have, but we're celebrating Ramadan at the moment :p

On another note, I find it very funny, Roland, that you are arguing with a Salafi about the nature of jihad. Not every Islamicist espouses his interpretation, you know, in fact a great majority of them might disagree. I certainly disagree (I'm no Faqih though), but I will say this. John is very right about the Prophet wanting to make very easy the ability to spread the religion via conquest. Not even proselytize in the same way that crusades did- Islam forbids the killing of civilians in war, and it forbids torture of any kind- because Muslims were a minority in all of Europe lands for hundreds of years. You could see the jizyah as a form of proselytism espoused in those early days, is what I'm also trying to say, but the Jizyah would not have been possible if the Conquerors had not kicked out those pesky "previous" rulers, and been able to set it up. In places where proselytism was not really a goal, such as in Mughal India or SE Asia, the Jizyah was abolished/never really instituted, respectively.
 
@Isfendil, proselytism was a goal for most SEAn Islamic states. The bigger difference is probably in that SEAn Islam was dominated by indigenous leadership, especially in population centers like Java where a thin layer of Islam was just added over the Javanese core.
 
Sometimes, but I've regularly noticed this forum has no Islam threads far, far more frequently.

I doubt that this is insidious and more because people here have studied in the western tradition of history and thus have a lot more difficulty imagining a world without Christianity to move it around, whereas they fall into the trap that Islam could be replaced by some Christianity because it was an abrahamic religion. This thread has dispelled that notion, of course, but it's a very easy trap to fall into.
 
@Isfendil, proselytism was a goal for most SEAn Islamic states. The bigger difference is probably in that SEAn Islam was dominated by indigenous leadership, especially in population centers like Java where a thin layer of Islam was just added over the Javanese core.
I thought most of the populace had converted by the time the rulers caught on. I did a paper on this, on how indian Muslims settled in SEA and then spread the faith peacefully via missionary work and raising their children (born to indigenous mothers) as muslim. I never found evidence of the Jizyah their, or any other such impositions.
 
Another reason I tend to think is that a fair number of people see no-Islam timelines as an easy way to preserve the Eastern half of the Roman Empire and keep the Near East in a state roughly similar to the way it was at the beginning of the "dark ages". Maybe I'm arguing against a strawman here, but I think those people tend to underestimate the potential for the world to be turned upside-down in this era.

No Christianity, by contrast, doesn't immediately change the political arena at all. Initially, eliminating the Christian religion means undoing the conversion of a select few, not a large population. Even if its numbers were larger by the third century, it's tougher to see the immediate impact because Christianity in its youth didn't overthrow empires and remake the map of the Near East and Africa. All it did at first was slowly effect massive changes on culture and society. I can see that being potentially more boring to some people. Islam, quite simply, has a more dramatic origin story and youth compared to Christianity's slow but steady rise to prominence.

All that said, no Christianity timelines and what if's do occur, although at a slightly slower rate.[1] What I've never seen in my time here is a good "no Buddhism" thread. :D

[1] And in my experience they've mostly tended to follow a somewhat similar pattern.
 
I doubt that this is insidious and more because people here have studied in the western tradition of history and thus have a lot more difficulty imagining a world without Christianity to move it around, whereas they fall into the trap that Islam could be replaced by some Christianity because it was an abrahamic religion. This thread has dispelled that notion, of course, but it's a very easy trap to fall into.

It is.

Mind you, one other reason for this is likely that without Christianity, you might not have Islam. Given the active interest that Mohammed had in the Christian faith, Christ's status as a profit, and Christianity's status as a religion of The Book, remove Christianity and it's highly unlikely that Islam, or at least Islam as it appears in OTL, would exist.
 
It is.

Mind you, one other reason for this is likely that without Christianity, you might not have Islam. Given the active interest that Mohammed had in the Christian faith, Christ's status as a profit, and Christianity's status as a religion of The Book, remove Christianity and it's highly unlikely that Islam, or at least Islam as it appears in OTL, would exist.

Butterflies alone ensure that nothing recognizable as Islam would arise. And even if there was a monotheistic Arabian religious movement coincidentally around the time period of OTL's Muhammad, who can predict what sort of environment it would emerge into?
 
Fine, Islam is an absolutely barbarous religion that has no place in the world. Is that the point you're trying to get across?
Regardless, religion is open to many interpretations and I could construe all those except the one about crucifixion as capable in a nonviolent manner.
To purify means to make onself ready for God. To purify others would be to convert them. Butchering them doesn't help them because you've taken away any chance they may have to save themselves. As such, you could launch a greater Jihad without waging a physical war if you concentrated on missionary work.
This is all getting off topic, though, as my original point was that Islam isn't any more likely to go off on a killing spree than any other religion.

So you interpret the Quran differently than the Ulema's Tafsir and differently than what Muhammad (SAW) narrated in reference to these Quranic passages in the Hadith? I find it interesting that with all the proof placed before you, you still resist to concede.

Of course Islam isn't particularly barbaric, but it has qualities different from other religions. Further, to construe these Surahs as Jihad al-Nafs, is to deny a thousand years of Islamic jurisprudence, I believe that the great Ulema, from which I derive my opinion, knows better than you, who does not even read Arabic to know the terms I use.


You started this discussion by forcing the bill of the whole "all religions are equal or all religions are this or that", it is the most tiresome thing on this entire site. Instead of keeping the discussion going, we have moralists come in and try to defend everything without knowledge in the slightest, and I almost exclusively post in Islamic/Mid East threads.
 
Top