What if Islam never caught on?

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.

My original point was that Islam isn't any more likely to go off on a killing spree than any other religion. No more no less. Everything I've said has been to that point. It is perfectly possible for somebody to interpret Jihad as a war for souls and somebody else to interpret it as a war for controlling people. Neither is wrong, that's how philosophy, and religion is a philosophy, works because there is no wrong answer. To say that there is only one way to interpret something is tying a blindfold over your eyes and not very helpful.
 
My original point was that Islam isn't any more likely to go off on a killing spree than any other religion. No more no less. Everything I've said has been to that point. It is perfectly possible for somebody to interpret Jihad as a war for souls and somebody else to interpret it as a war for controlling people. Neither is wrong, that's how philosophy, and religion is a philosophy, works because there is no wrong answer. To say that there is only one way to interpret something is tying a blindfold over your eyes and not very helpful.

See, but the argument you are missing is that the war for souls is the same as what you term as wars to control. The removal of all other forms of rule and power structures other than Allah's is require for to at least reject them, which then entails the Surah I have mentioned.

In Islam, there are certain things which can only be interpreted one way, as in it is a matter of clear cut proof. Such as Allah specifically says he is One. In the same Allah explicitly says both through his word and the actions of Muhammad (SAW) that Jihad al-Akbar is physical.
 
See, but the argument you are missing is that the war for souls is the same as what you term as wars to control. The removal of all other forms of rule and power structures other than Allah's is require for to at least reject them, which then entails the Surah I have mentioned.

In Islam, there are certain things which can only be interpreted one way, as in it is a matter of clear cut proof. Such as Allah specifically says he is One. In the same Allah explicitly says both through his word and the actions of Muhammad (SAW) that Jihad al-Akbar is physical.

Well at least we know one thing about a world without Islam; these types of conversations won't happen.
 

scholar

Banned
Well at least we know one thing about a world without Islam; these types of conversations won't happen.
I was not unsympathetic to your argument, but this is a mindbogglingly odd thing to say. In a world without Islam, we would not be talking about Islam, but we would still be having a similar type of conversation about other religions that exist. What is iron clad and what is open to interpretation has been tearing apart fundamentalists and pragmatists since the dawn of religion, and this conversation only needs the verses exchanged and the overall point altered a bit to reflect a different religion. Religion is only ever the same thing when one takes a reductionary approach that intentionally minimizes differences in doctrine, and this has been growing in popularity since the 17th century, peaking with all those universalist movements in the 19th century, and whose spirit lives on till today. Nevertheless, religions have different rules of conduct and different immediate reactions to outside circumstances. A Catholic, an Assyrian Orthodox, an Anabaptist, a Sufi, an Ahmaddiya, an Ibadhi, a Baha'i, a Hellenist, a neo-Hellenist, a Daoist, a Yellow Hat Buddhist, a Zen monk, and a Delhi Brahman will all react differently to a situation. They may have a lot in common with one another, but they will respond with nuance. They have different triggers and thresholds for violence, for tolerance, for acceptance, for trade and commerce, for discussion, and for internal customs. Like what I mentioned earlier, the idea that religions all had underlying things in common was designed to humanize and create a framework for mutual understanding about the behaviors of religions. But if you go to far and dismiss differences, then you recreate a situation where true understanding of their behaviors becomes impossible.
 
Augustine was solidly upper class.

Most early Christians were part of an urban upper-middle class as well. In most cases it was the rural populations which converted last. Hence the name "pagan."

The same, incidentally, is true of the early expansion of Islam. Your "Manicheanism is a religion of the elite" argument still fails to take into account the whole nations in central asia which were Manichean.
 
This has been one of the more enlightening discussions on this board.

The problem with early PODs is that you really can't see much past the next century due to butterflies, if only due to different people being born. But I'm convinced by the above commentators that without Islam, the Arabs would have expanded due to overpopulation and the weakness of the Eastern Roman and the Sassanid empires. But the Arabs would not have been united and would have less motivation, so they would not have gotten that far.

In particular, while the Sassinids fell without much of a struggle, Heraclius put together an East Roman counter-attack and it was touch and go for awhile. Reinforcements had to be moved from the armies in Mesopotamia to Syria, that if the expansion was done by disunited Arab tribes would not have been possible. And even the Iranians retreated to the Iranian plateau at one point, and that might have worked with a less forceful Arab advance, the Arabs would never have broken into the Arab plateau.

Egypt fell to the Arabs with almost no fighting, though again here the East Romans managed a counter-attack, but if the East Romans can hang on to Palestine, that blocks any moves into Egypt. I can see the East Romans hanging on to a coastal strip similar to what the Crusaders had. This implies they would have eventually lost Damascus to the Arabs. The Arabs would have overrun Mesopotamia except the East Roman part.

That gives two Arab kingdoms, one in Mesopotamia and one around Damascus. The Ummayyads of OTL would likely wind up ruling the Damascus kingdom. I'm not sure which clan would have wound up in Mesopotamia. Both would have raided vigorously. Eventually the Syrian Arabs would have converted to Monophysite Christianity, and the Mesopotamians to Nestorian Christianity, as that was the faith of the majority of the population in those areas. This happens to be very analogous to the Vikings, lots of raids, some small states in the raided areas, followed by conversion to the religion of the region.

Past the 6th century its difficult to see, but you start getting changes in the situation with Justinian II.

This has major butterflies starting with no Arab expansion into the Maghreb, Iberia, Central Asia/ Afghanistan, or the Sind, though there is a chance the Arabs still reach the Sind by sea and found the IOTL kingdoms. Mediterranean trade continues as before. There is no or less of a sharply defined break between the civilization of Western Europe and the civilization of the Near East. Monophysitism remains a huge problem for the Emperors in Constantinople. However, the iconoclasm controversy is butterflied away.

The East Romans still have their hands full defending against the Arabs,they just get to do it farther forward, so this doesn't help them in the Balkans or Italy. They do get to keep Sicily and North Africa, at least for longer than they did IOTL.

I agree that keeping a Christian Near East, with a patriarchate in Alexandria as important as the ones in Constantinople and Rome (Antioch and Jerusalem were second string, and any Nestorian patriarchite would be on the fringes of the Christian world), would have effects on the internal development of Christianity. Assuming the Iranians didn't just convert to Nestorian Christianity themselves, which is unlikely, Zoroastrianism would have developed more into a popular religion and maybe would have spread to India as much as Islam later did, with Nestorian Christianity making more inroads in the south. Central Asia would have remained mostly Buddhist, and either Catholic or Orthodox missionaries would have converted the Berbers and the residents of the Sahel.
 
THere were poor Christians too, like slaves. Gnosticism was not a religion of the slave class.

And why is that relevant again, might I ask? :p

But seriously, your original assertion was that Manichaeism was not a religion for anyone but a small elite who apparently were concerned with stomach fluids. My assertion was that at least a few actual polities in history had that as the religion of the state and thus it could not possibly be as weak or exclusive as you claim. Accordingly, if Gnosticism had not been wiped out by persecutions by Roman times, it could have found adherents (initially among the elite) of Arabia. It didn't because there was no clear political incentive to convert to a widely persecuted religion.

@Galba Otho Vitelius:

You make good points, I think. I'd only disagree that the Arabs would probably just be trading communities in India rather than forming states, and the Umayyads probably wouldn't be so lucky as to achieve special prominence in this timeline.

Zoroastrianism becoming a more popular religion depends on the fall of the Sassanians, I think. Fortunately post Khosrow, that's probably at least somewhat likely.
 

scholar

Banned
Most early Christians were part of an urban upper-middle class as well. In most cases it was the rural populations which converted last. Hence the name "pagan."
They were the urban poor, women, and slaves. The few upper middle class people there were, often housed dozens of others in home-based churches and communities, while the educated elite derided them continually and accussed them of having incestuous orgies and feasting upon the flesh of infants. They were not attacking the wealthy and successful members of society, but the most helpless who damaged social norms by acting in a non-traditional manner. By the time of Augustine, Christianity had become popular among the upper classes in many areas, but that was not how it started out. Rural lands were the realm of the aristocracy, and it was this aristocracy that eventually would form feudal society depending on which model of economic development you follow. It was not until Constantine that wealth became drawn to it, because an accusation of Christianity would get you killed and all your property seized, or inherited by a familial informant.
 
They were the urban poor, women, and slaves. The few upper middle class people there were, often housed dozens of others in home-based churches and communities, while the educated elite derided them continually and accussed them of having incestuous orgies and feasting upon the flesh of infants. They were not attacking the wealthy and successful members of society, but the most helpless who damaged social norms by acting in a non-traditional manner. By the time of Augustine, Christianity had become popular among the upper classes in many areas, but that was not how it started out. Rural lands were the realm of the aristocracy, and it was this aristocracy that eventually would form feudal society depending on which model of economic development you follow. It was not until Constantine that wealth became drawn to it, because an accusation of Christianity would get you killed and all your property seized, or inherited by a familial informant.

I'd recommend Peter Brown's "The World of Late Antiquity" - which I think sheds light on the social dynamics of the time period. I will mention that persecution of Christians was not nearly so pervasive as you seem to be saying it was, or as common narratives would suggest. Christians commonly were a part of the educated elite, and the rift that their religion caused I believe informed most of the social tension that you describe. While there certainly were plenty of Christians among the urban poor, at the very least I'd argue it was the urban "middle class" that did the most to spread the religion.

The aristocracy obviously was not a part of Christianity until very late, you're correct.
 

UKFA

Banned
I don't like the idea that monotheism naturally replaces pantheistic religions, but I suspect the Arab conquests happen anyway with Paganism as their main religion, and then pick up Zoroastrianism in Persia.
 
Most early Christians were part of an urban upper-middle class as well. In most cases it was the rural populations which converted last. Hence the name "pagan."

The same, incidentally, is true of the early expansion of Islam. Your "Manicheanism is a religion of the elite" argument still fails to take into account the whole nations in central asia which were Manichean.

I was the one who originally made this claim...

And you are correct when speaking on Europe and post Constantine Rome. The pagan Europeans lived in the interior rural environments and remained traditional, where as elite and the state apparatus were Christian. However, that is not what is being discussed, we are discussing the Mid East and at farthest West, Greece. Christianity spread amongst slaves, Aramaen farmers, less educated Syriacs, etc... Whereas initially the educated and wealthy urban classes remained a sort of quasi philosophical hellenism. Most of the examples of early Roman Christianity were from among lower classes, slaves and educated women, in fact this was one accusation against Christianity by the Roman and Jewish authorities.

Manichaeism by contrast born from the same brood as Christianity, differed from it in many ways. It took the mysticism found in the New Testament (born from Hellenic influences) to an extreme, with the denial of the self and rejection of one's body as the ultimate virtue. To learn this, one required extensive training and education into the secrecy of the all knowing, thus the division of classes in the structure of the religion itself. Thus it created an extremely effective secrecy cult, outpacing earlier secrecy cults like Isis and Mithra. The result, was a religion extremely tied to religious intellectuals at an early stage (as opposed to Christianity which gained this trait later) and chained to conditions of the post Hellenic era.

It's expansion into Asia was simply the final stage of Manichaeism where it morphed into a religion attempting to imitating Buddhism. The religion in Iraq, held likely little resemblance to this shifted faith, it is reported as well that there were many Manichaens in Iraq during the Abbasid period, especially around the ruins of various Persian cities like Cteshipon or they resided in Baghdad, Kufa, Ninewah, Assur, etc... I personally theorize that much of the secrecy cult like beliefs and zealotry of the post Hellenic era was absorbed into Islam and seen in various types of Shi'i like Ghulat, Ismaili and Twelver.
 

scholar

Banned
I'd recommend Peter Brown's "The World of Late Antiquity" - which I think sheds light on the social dynamics of the time period. I will mention that persecution of Christians was not nearly so pervasive as you seem to be saying it was, or as common narratives would suggest. Christians commonly were a part of the educated elite, and the rift that their religion caused I believe informed most of the social tension that you describe. While there certainly were plenty of Christians among the urban poor, at the very least I'd argue it was the urban "middle class" that did the most to spread the religion.

The aristocracy obviously was not a part of Christianity until very late, you're correct.
I have my own sources, namely works by Luke Timothy Johnson, Bart Ehrman, and Kenneth Harl. This only works of you are discussing the era immediately preceding Constantine, and not the Imperial period in general before Constantine.

Just because persecutions were not as pervasive as they were considered by medieval theologians does not mean that they were not persecuted heavily, and at times quite severely. Anyone claiming that Christians were openly accepted members of Antique society is uninformed. Anyone who says that early Christian society was not made of the Urban poor, but of Urban wealth is likewise uninformed. If that's what's in Peter Brown's book, then I would advise you to stay away. I am going to assume that the direct notion of tolerance you are hinting at is Trajan's message to Pliny at a time when persecution of Christianity was in a lull, rather than at its height. Even at this moment Trajan ordered his provincial governor that if a Christian was reported for being Christian, and was found guilty, then they would be punished in the way I described earlier. This is often cited as an example of relative tolerance, but the only thing it did was not permit active persecution. It is a bit like remarking that homosexuality was fine in Victorian England because so long as no one outed you for it, you were accepted. Likewise, anyone referring to a middle class in Antique society is very much going counter to commonly accepted scholarly view. The Middle Class in an anachronism, and people using it use the term loosely, and carefully, only in allegory.

Christians became part of the relatively wealthy classes slowly, and over time. By the time of Constantine they were already part of the framework of society across all sections, but that is not where they started out, unless they were converted Jews of the diaspora in places like Anatolia, Greece, and elsewhere. While there were a number of Christians in the educated elite, they were few, and far between. Most of them died as a result of that faith, or recanted. Donatism was a reaction in Constantine Rome against clergy the massive numbers of Christians who had turned their back on the faith rather than be martyred for it.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of those sources you're referring to are by theologians, right? I'll take a look in any case, thank you for the recommendations.

Admittedly, Peter Brown is focusing on the late Empire (post-150 at the least), which might be part of the problem with my understanding. There are a fair number of gaps in my knowledge in any case on the subject. But for the record when I say middle class I'm referring to an urban worker employed in a trade or commercial activities - that small portion of the ancient population not employed in agricultural labor. People with sufficient mobility to spread a religious message. (I am also using the term loosely, and am aware that it's not particularly appropriate to the time period.)

(Edit: I suppose I should just stick to central asia from now on. :p)
 
Last edited:

scholar

Banned
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of those sources you're referring to are by theologians, right? I'll take a look in any case, thank you for the recommendations.
The closest you get to a theologian is Luke Timothy Johnson, who teaches at Emory University in the school of theology. Harl is a scholar of the Byzantine and Classical era who teaches at Tulane University. But the big one is Ehram. Bart Ehram is an agnostic, and is on almost every shortlist for scholarship on early Christianity.
 

scholar

Banned
Admittedly, Peter Brown is focusing on the late Empire (post-150 at the least), which might be part of the problem with my understanding. There are a fair number of gaps in my knowledge in any case on the subject. But for the record when I say middle class I'm referring to an urban worker employed in a trade or commercial activities - that small portion of the ancient population not employed in agricultural labor. People with sufficient mobility to spread a religious message. (I am also using the term loosely, and am aware that it's not particularly appropriate to the time period.)

(Edit: I suppose I should just stick to central asia from now on. :p)
You do not need to stick to your specialty. When I started talking about China and East Asia, I was wrong quite a few times, particularly in my discussions with Democracy101. My issue was never with you saying that there were middle class workers in early Christianity, they did show up in the late 2nd century, it was when you made it seem like they were the dominant body behind it. Those workers were a second wave of Christian conversion, the first were lower classes and women.

My main thing has been a general remark about being careful when adopting a moderating view. Moderating views are supposed to lessen extreme views. The Roman Empire was not a relentless institution that sought the total eradication of all Christian elements within its society, that only happened a couple of times. The rest tended to be local events that lasted for a generation or so. But those local events, and those few reigns of emperors did happen and had fundamental damages inflicted upon the local population. This is the same line with me stating earlier that religions shouldn't be seen as all the same, and that just because no cultures exist in a vacuum this does not mean everything is inherent to their own culture.

You know a lot about it, and I encourage you to continue to learn and explore your own ideas in the forum.

If you have money, I would recommend looking around the Teaching Company's website. Check your library first though, it will save you some money.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/category/religion.html?CFM=mega_menu
 
I think that this is my first post on the new Board!

Having contributed to similar topics on the Old Board though, I'll say what I always say...

I expect to see the Romans hold onto Syria and Egypt in the absence of a determined and united Arab advance. Even with minimal Roman soldiers on the ground, I suspect that the local aristocrats will be able to scrape together enough resources to either fight the Arabs or pay them off until the imperial military can intervene. I think you'll see heavy Arab raiding for a few years, which will gradually be brought to a close as Constantinople tightens its control in the years 635-645. This might be tricky, that said, if Heraclius' death is accompanied by similar shenanigans at court as went on IOTL 641-42.

The imperial authorities will continue to aggressively promote Monoenergism/Monothelitism or somesuch compromise doctrine, which here will not be anything like as tarnished by defeat as it became IOTL. Rather like the Iconoclasts in the OTL eighth century, the Monthelites will continue to have support for as long as they keep winning. A scenario where the imperial armies drive out Arab raiders, and Iran is collapsing into anarchy, in the 640s and 650s, will be a dream come true for the Monothelites, who will be able to claim clear divine support.

That said, I don't expect to see anything like a Romano-wank. For one thing, there'll be major issues dealing with the Latin churches, as IOTL: it's worth remembering that Constantinople was considerably more aggressive to stubborn Chalcedonian Orthodox "Catholics" than it was to Monophysites in the period. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see revolts in the Western provinces.

In the absence of a meaningful Iranian power, the Armenian princes are exceedingly unlikely to be happy to accept the sole suzerainty of the Roman Emperor alone. I'd expect they'll appeal to whoever's in power on the steppe to intervene, so you quite possibly see Turkic (in the form of the Khazars) attacks on Anatolia four centuries ahead of schedule.

Finally, even if we assume difficult generation in Iran, where various families fight it out for power, I'd expect some sort of authority to be back in place by the end of the seventh century- possibly a revived Parthian kingdom of a sort. This will severely curtail Roman freedom of action, and at this point I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Italy and Africa drifting out of Constantinople's orbit at about the same sort of time as OTL.
 
A good analogy to the position of a stronger Eastern Roman (or Byzantine, as it still would have switched its language to Greek and made many of the administrative changes) empire would be the various Turkish sultanate that were established in the Ganges basin in India. These were very powerful states and Indian civilization became focused on them, but unlike the Mauryas or the later Raj they were not one of Toynbee's "universal states". By the time they were established, Indian civilization had spread through Southeast Asia, and much of southern India usually was out of their control, plus at times Rajasthan. So they held the central half of Indian civilization. The Song were in a similar position in East Asia, even before the loss of Kaifeng. Unlike the Roman Empire whose limits literally defined the extent of Hellenic civilization, this expanded Byzantine empire would be in a strong central position. It would not hold Gaul, Spain, or most of Italy, and its position in the Levant and the Balkans would still be weaker than that of the Romans, though in the Levant it would be much stronger than IOTL.

This still brings a large number of butterflies into medieval Western history. First, no iconoclasm. Without Islam there is no need for it. Actually I suspect no Islam eventually butterflies away or really changes the Reformation, which was partly an iconoclastic movement. Second, no Gothic architecture, this was loosely based on the Arab architecture the Crusaders encountered. The trading and cultural links to Constantinople are not cut as in IOTL. There is not much of a "Dark Ages", the Germanic Kingdoms are more in the position of the Turkish and Manchu kingdoms that periodically wound up ruling northern China and who tended to adopt Chines culture. Classical learning is not really going to be lost -more of it is going to survive than IOTL and it is mainly going to come from the Byzantines. The collapse of the Western Roman empire is more like the end of a Chinese dynasty (though these were catastrophic to the people who had to live through them) and not the epochal event we tend to think it is.

As I brought up earlier, there are now three surviving power centers in Christianity, in Rome, Alexandria, and (in third place) Constantinople -the head guy in Alexandria even calls himself "Pope", so the religious controversies wind up being very different. Historically, the Roman papacy lost contact with the Byzantine empire (there were obvious problems with their relationship, but no definitive break until the eleventh century) and became a pawn of local Roman families, and then was rehabbed by the Saxon dynasty. Something like this is less likely to happen. Though the Franks will still wind up dominating Italy -there was a Frankish army operating there even during the campaigns of Belisaurius.

With Persia, a number of the Iranian emirates in the early Middle Ages harked back to the Sassinians, and I think one claimed descent from them, so its a fair bet that the either the Sassinians themselves or someone like them will control Iran.
 
Top