WI: If Islam never was founded

[Youdontwanttoknow]

What would happen if Islam never got founded. Would there be another relgion to take its place, or would Christianity and Judaism reign supreme through the Middle East and the Holy lands as well?

On the note would of Byzantium fall? Under what circumstances if it did? And finally what would the present day look like?

I await your thoughts.

 

[Sargon]

I recommend reading the AH novel Agent of Byzantium by Harry Turtledove. Muhammed becomes a Christian saint in that, the Persian Empire is still about, and Byzantium is considerably larger...


Sargon

 

[Ran Exilis]

What would happen if Islam never got founded.

We've had plenty of threads about this particular issue.

Apart from the fact that pretty much each and every one of those threads devolves into a gargantuan flamefest at some point, the general consensus (as far as one can be reached on this topic) is that no emergence of Islam always results in so many butterflies that it becomes *really* hard to predict what would, or even what could happen.

Would there be another relgion to take its place, or would Christianity and Judaism reign supreme through the Middle East and the Holy lands as well?

The possebility that another religion would emerge somewhere in the Middle East is there, but in the most likely scenario's, Christianity and Zoroastrianism remain the most important established religions in the region.

Judaism would be and remain nothing more than a minor religion.

On the note would of Byzantium fall? Under what circumstances if it did?

Propably not - even in OTL, the decline and fall of Byzantium required a rather extraordinary chain of events.

I reckon that a chain of events that leads to the destruction of the Byzantine Empire is possible in pretty much any TL in which the Byzantine Empire exists.

The decline and fall of Byzantium is/was not a very likely thing to happen, and the unlikely possebility happened in OTL.

And finally what would the present day look like?

There's really no telling what the world would look like in 2008 AD if Islam never existed - waaaaaaaayyy to many butterflies.

 

[Norman]

What if we see Islam not as causal to the expansion of the Arabic peoples, but as a function of it? In other words, even if there had been no Islam the Arabs were still functional equivilants to the Germanic tribes in North Europe and would have exploded out of Arabia any way.

 

[Midgard]

What if we see Islam not as causal to the expansion of the Arabic peoples, but as a function of it? In other words, even if there had been no Islam the Arabs were still functional equivilants to the Germanic tribes in North Europe and would have exploded out of Arabia any way.

I think without Islam, the Arab invasion would have not had the cohesion it had OTL, and would have been easily beaten back by the Byzantines or the Persians, whoever happened to be more powerful in the area at the time. Perhaps Arabian unification would not have happened, and with that, the Arabs would have never been a threat to the post-Roman world that they were OTL.

 

[Keenir]

What would happen if Islam never got founded. Would there be another relgion to take its place, or would Christianity and Judaism reign supreme through the Middle East and the Holy lands as well?

On the note would of Byzantium fall? Under what circumstances if it did? And finally what would the present day look like?

92% of the world would be Mandean. everyone would be concerned about the endangered religions of Catholic Christianity and Protestant Judaism.

 

[Youdontwanttoknow]

Mandean? Never heard of it! Can you explain.

Also what makes you think that a Christianity without the adversary that Islam represented for it, would not grow to the status that it holds today?

 

[Codae]

Mandean? Never heard of it! Can you explain.

Also what makes you think that a Christianity without the adversary that Islam represented for it, would not grow to the status that it holds today?

Look up Leo on the wiki.

 

[Empror Mike]

I remember someone saying that
"A Prophet comes out of the desert with God's new message on a daily basis, but uniting the Arab tribes was something different all together"
I agree 100%.
Without the relative peace that followed the Muslim conquest of the mid-east, and the Persio-Arab rennaiseance of Muslim scholarship, i'd say the mid-east would be in much poorer shape during the middle-ages.

 

[Keenir]

Mandean? Never heard of it! Can you explain.

John, not Jesus, is the Annointed One.

Also what makes you think that a Christianity without the adversary that Islam represented for it,

because before (and after) it had such an adversary that it was all best-buddies with, Christianity was its own worst enemy and greatest rival. (even when the Christians weren't persecuting Jews)

 

[Ran Exilis]

What if we see Islam not as causal to the expansion of the Arabic peoples, but as a function of it? In other words, even if there had been no Islam the Arabs were still functional equivilants to the Germanic tribes in North Europe and would have exploded out of Arabia any way.

Though the Arab tribes would indeed play an important role in the Middle East without Islam, I really have to disagree with the notion that they would have "exploded out of Arabia".

Like Midgard said, without Islam, they'd lack the cohesion they'd need in order to do some serious damage to the Byzantine and Persian Empires.

And if you take a closer look at what happened in the Middle East during the 800 years before the rise of Islam, then you'll see that various Arab tribes migrated into Syria and Mesopotamia during this period.

But as these Arab tribes weren't united by a religion/ideology like the early Muslims were, even the largest and most powerful tribes were at best never more than a local threat to the Romans or the Persians.

Without Islam, this steady migration northward would continue, but even during the period when both the Byzantines and Persians are crucially weakened by the great Byzantine-Persian war of (IIRC) 590-630, the odds are that the Arab tribes will not pose a serious threat to either the Byzantines or the Persians, simply because the old "divide and rule" tactic will continue to work just like it did during the previous 600 years or so.

One of the most likely political developments among the Arab tribes in Syria and Mesopotamia ITTL would be that the once powerful Ghassanids (who were seriously weakened during the Byzantine-Persian war I mentioned earlier) and the Lakhmids (whose kingdom was destroyed by the Persians a few years before the war) are replaced by other Arab clans or tribes.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I think most arabs would become Christians or Jews. Also I don't see the Byzantines being able to hold on to the Levant and Egypt for all eternity. The religous schism between Constantinople and the Eastern Churches had made most people very unsatisfied with Byzantine rule. The Arabs were IRL even seen as liberators, since they allowed much more religious freedom than the Emperor in Constantinople.

 

[Ran Exilis]

I think most arabs would become Christians or Jews.

That's one of the more likely possebilities, allthough Manicheism and several other religious movements also had quite a few adherants among the Arabs.

My guess is that, for at least the first three or four centuries, Arabia would remain religiously diverse, with significant numbers of pagans, Jews, and Nestorian and Syriac Orthodox Christians, while Manicheism and various Gnostic, Christian and other sects would also have smaller but still significant numbers of adherants.

The influence of the large Christian denominations would gradually become stronger as the Christian Arab tribes and kingdoms in the north and the Axumites in the south become stronger and expand their influence deeper into the Peninsula.

Also I don't see the Byzantines being able to hold on to the Levant and Egypt for all eternity. The religous schism between Constantinople and the Eastern Churches had made most people very unsatisfied with Byzantine rule.

Egypt could indeed be lost, especially during the period right after the war of 590-630.

However, I can see the Byzantines holding on to the Levant for quite a while; Syria was still not as heavily populated as Egypt was, and you have to keep in mind that there were a lot of Greeks and Melkites in the Levant as well.

And if Egypt is lost as a result of a major Coptic rebellion, then many Egyptian Melkites would end up fleeing to Byzantium, and odds are that many of them would end up in the Levant. In OTL, many Egyptian Melkites fled to the Exarchate of Africa after the Muslim invasion, but as long as Byzantium holds on to the Levant ITTL (which is a rather likely thing to happen), many of these refugees will end up in the Levant instead.

The Arabs were IRL even seen as liberators, since they allowed much more religious freedom than the Emperor in Constantinople.

The general attidute of the Miaphysite and Nestorian Christians towards the Muslims right after the conquest usually varied between indifference and mild enthusiasm.

Yes, I'm aware of the various Medieval Egyptian and Syrian Christian writers who graphically described the atrocities and repression that their people suffered under Byzantine rule, and how the Arabs liberated them.

And though I do not deny the fact that the Miaphysites and Nestorians indeed did suffer under Byzantine rule, I do hold some reservation towards such claims, as said writers could very well have had political reasons aside from purely historiographical reasons for portraying the Byzantines and the Muslims the way they did.

One has to keep in mind that these writers were living under Muslim rule, and as the Byzantines were still enemies of the Muslims and as some Muslim rulers indeed did suspect their Christian subjects of sympathizing with the Byzantines, one can imagine that those writers had several good reasons to portray the Muslims as liberators while denouncing the Byzantines and emphasise the oppression they suffered under them.

 

[htgriffin]

What if we see Islam not as causal to the expansion of the Arabic peoples, but as a function of it? In other words, even if there had been no Islam the Arabs were still functional equivilants to the Germanic tribes in North Europe and would have exploded out of Arabia any way.

Pretty much. Many argue that the Fertile Crescent had already been Arabized by that point

I think without Islam, the Arab invasion would have not had the cohesion it had OTL, and would have been easily beaten back by the Byzantines or the Persians, whoever happened to be more powerful in the area at the time. Perhaps Arabian unification would not have happened, and with that, the Arabs would have never been a threat to the post-Roman world that they were OTL.

I think you underestimate just how much damage the last round of Perso-Roman wars did, or how unpopular Roman/Chalcedonian rule was in Egypt and the Levant.

HTG

 

[Midgard]

I think you underestimate just how much damage the last round of Perso-Roman wars did, or how unpopular Roman/Chalcedonian rule was in Egypt and the Levant.

It is a good point, BUT...

Without Islam, Arabs may never develop into a cohesive enough force to seriously challenge the Romans. As a result, instead of a full-blown invasion, we may simply see a series of raids by much smaller parties, perhaps capturing some frontier cities, but never developing sufficient forces to actually take the war deep into the Roman territory.

One of the reasons the rise of Islam coincided with the rise of the Arabs was that prior to it, they spent much of their energy fighting each other. Islam was the unification the Arabs needed to be able to field a united army, and to create not just military conquest, but also political conquest. The fact that they created governors and provinces, brought their own code of laws, etc should not be underestimated, especially when you consider the role of Islamic law in creation of the Arab-dominated fiefdoms and states. Without it, they are just another group of barbarians spilling out of the desert, who are just as likely to fight other such groups as they are to attempt expansion.

Also, there is my opinion that Islam, even from day one, has had much more ideological bent than most other religions. It was founded as not only a religion that can exist in any state, but as the means for political unity, government, stratification of society, and such. While obviously Islamic law is not set in stone, it provided a framework as to how exactly different groups were going to be treated, and how the governments were going to be ran. The closest thing to it was pre-Hellenic Judaism, and even then, Islam has an advantage of another thousand years of development, which made it a very political movement from the get go. This in itself makes assimilation and government of conquered territories much easier. Remove that aspect of Arab invasion, and all of a sudden much of what gave its results such longevity is no longer there.

And no matter how badly off the Empire is after the Persian war, there is a big difference in an attack by well-organized, competently-led force of veterans full of religious fervor and bringing in their form of laws and government, and an attack by some scattered warbands who are lacking grander vision, and who are not bringing anything different from the Roman/Byzantine system. What Islam did was that it provided an alternative to the existing system, which is why it enjoyed some early support. Without it, there is no alternative, and I doubt there would be much popular support in the Roman provinces for what they see as another group of barbarians who have nothing new to bring with them.

 

[Leo Caesius]

Well, Semites speaking a language similar in many respects to Arabic and living a nomadic lifestyle not unlike that of the bedouin did burst forth from the Syrian desert at at least two or three points prior in recorded history - the Akkadians, the Amorites, and the Aramaeans. These groups could not be considered cohesive, really, yet they still managed to take over the Middle East repeatedly. The Arabs were just the latest in a long succession of folk movements out of the desert.

 

[Midgard]

Well, Semites speaking a language similar in many respects to Arabic and living a nomadic lifestyle not unlike that of the bedouin did burst forth from the Syrian desert at at least two or three points prior in recorded history - the Akkadians, the Amorites, and the Aramaeans. These groups could not be considered cohesive, really, yet they still managed to take over the Middle East repeatedly. The Arabs were just the latest in a long succession of folk movements out of the desert.

But then, who was there to resist them at the time? With higher overall level of development, even with the devastating Roman-Persian war, the Middle East would be harder to take for a less organized, and less numerous force. Not to mention that without Islam, any potential invasion may or may not proceed on schedule. Basically even if the Empire had ten more years in which to organize itself or rebuild some of the damage, even OTL Arab invasion would have had much harder time. Here, anything can happen.

 

[Leo Caesius]

But then, who was there to resist them at the time? With higher overall level of development, even with the devastating Roman-Persian war, the Middle East would be harder to take for a less organized, and less numerous force. Not to mention that without Islam, any potential invasion may or may not proceed on schedule. Basically even if the Empire had ten more years in which to organize itself or rebuild some of the damage, even OTL Arab invasion would have had much harder time. Here, anything can happen.

In each case, there was a large disparity between the sedentary cultures they invaded and their own - heck, arguably they were facing off against the most highly developed cultures on the planet at the time.

 

[Midgard]

In each case, there was a large disparity between the sedentary cultures they invaded and their own - heck, arguably they were facing off against the most highly developed cultures on the planet at the time.

But then, I would argue that at a certain point in their development, sedentary cultures are going to reach the "critical mass" where a simple invasion of the nomads is not going to do. Granted, one can point at Ghenghiz Khan and even Tamerlane as proof that such a point has not yet been reached, but one has to consider the disparity in question.

I think that the big reason the Arabs were able not only to conquer what they have, but ALSO to hold on to their conquest, was Islam and the political and the social structure it brought. Although this structure was often adapted to the local needs, it still created a framework that the later rulers could exploit. Another important factor was that the Arabs were more or less politically united at least during the early Caliphate - at least as much as the Roman Empire was most of the time (meaning that there was some dissent, and even open conflict, but it was considered a part of the same entity, more or less). Take that away, resulting instead in several smaller fiefdoms that basically attempt to replace the Roman rulers with the Arab ones instead of the intermediate period when there was a semblance of political unity, and even if the Arabs manage to conquer any of the Middle East, their conquests are not going to last.

Finally, add in the fact that without the legal system and the political system of Islam there is absolutely no reason for the locals to have ANY support fo what is essentially several groups of barbarians. This means that even if the Romans lose ground, they will have easier time regaining it. And without Islam, there is no thorough long-term Arabization (for the lack of better term) of Middle East and North Africa. Which means that even if by some miracle the Arabs managed to conquer North Africa/Middle East, and THEN managed to keep their conquests, they would have ended up much more like the Goths in Italy and Spain - forming the initial ruling class, but eventually assimilated by their subjects without leaving too much of the cultural impact. Of course, this would vary from place to place, but ultimately, and especially in North Africa, I doubt the impact of Arab invasion in a no-Islam scenario would have made too much of a difference in the long run.

At least, I would consider that given the specifics of this case, without Islam the Arab invasion is likely to have less impact - and even if it still managed to drive the Romans back, it could not have resulted in the superimposition of Arab culture and religion on the conquered territories.

 

[Leo Caesius]

I'd argue that the legal and the political system of Islam were just two of the many things that they absorbed from the populations they conquered - especially the political system, as the kept many of the political structures intact in the countries they conquered. The laws were not so different from other Near Eastern law codes.