WI Mohammed ascends from somewhere else?

Meshakhad

Let's say that the Isra and Mi'raj describe the Prophet Mohammed traveling to Mount Scopus, rather than the Temple Mount. It clearly describes him enjoying a nice view of the Holy City before ascending into heaven.

After the Muslims conquer Jerusalem, they build the Haram-esh-Sharif on Mount Scopus. Since this is outside the walls of the Old City, it essentially means building a second city. A later ruler might seek to unite the two cities, extending the walls of Jerusalem to incorporate Mount Scopus.

Locally, this will create all sorts of butterflies, which will in turn affect the rest of the world. However, assuming that the Zionist movement still comes into being, a major deviation becomes possible. With the Haram-esh-Sharif elsewhere, there may be no obstacle to the building of the Third Temple (or no essentially insurmountable obstacle). If we go with "OTL, except the Haram-esh-Sharif is on Mount Scopus", then rebuilding the Temple is likely an aim of the Zionist movement. It probably happens in the 1920s under the British Mandate.

Potential consequences:
- More support for Zionism from religious Jews. The "rebuild the Temple" fundraising campaign is going to be the easiest ever. Probably more immigration from Eastern Europe.
- The restoration of the office of the Kohen Gadol will have immense consequences for Judaism. Selecting him will be a highly contentious process, since the title was traditionally hereditary. He will become a renowned international religious leader akin to the Pope or the Dalai Lama. Some Jews will call for the Kohen Gadol to become the temporal leader of the Jewish community in Palestine. A compromise during Israel's formation may see the Kohen Gadol become the head of state, replacing the President.
- The resumption of sacrifices may be a contentious issue, particularly for Reform Judaism.
- There will be an uptick in Messianic fervor among Jews, particularly in the years immediately after the rebuilding of the Temple.
 

Achaemenid Rome

This is an interesting question, and I see the desire to cast a butterfly net and hold off on changing the timeline until 1920s. However, if there's a second city next to Jerusalem that's holy for Muslims, making Jerusalem comparatively less holy for Muslims compared to this new city, or Jerusalem is indeed still holy for Muslims but is a vastly larger consolidated city, then it will unavoidably change the Crusades in the Levant, the very region that convergence is expected. It would be very unlikely for a British mandate to form. There could very well be a Mongol, Byzantine, Ottoman, Crusader, Kurdish, Egyptian, Bedouin, French, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese... etc. control over the region instead. There would be no guarantee that the Russian Empire (if it existed at all) would create the Pale of Settlement, forming Eastern European Judaism into its OTL territorial extent. Everything after that would be different.
 

Meshakhad

Achaemenid Rome said:
This is an interesting question, and I see the desire to cast a butterfly net and hold off on changing the timeline until 1920s. However, if there's a second city next to Jerusalem that's holy for Muslims, making Jerusalem comparatively less holy for Muslims compared to this new city, or Jerusalem is indeed still holy for Muslims but is a vastly larger consolidated city, then it will unavoidably change the Crusades in the Levant, the very region that convergence is expected. It would be very unlikely for a British mandate to form. There could very well be a Mongol, Byzantine, Ottoman, Crusader, Kurdish, Egyptian, Bedouin, French, Dutch, Spanish, Chinese... etc. control over the region instead. There would be no guarantee that the Russian Empire (if it existed at all) would create the Pale of Settlement, forming Eastern European Judaism into its OTL territorial extent. Everything after that would be different.
Click to expand...

Oh, absolutely. However, those sorts of butterflies are next to impossible to predict. This isn't a major point of divergence that has immediate and massive ramifications. This is a POD that takes time to develop.

I do think that a Zionist movement of some sort is likely to appear in almost any timeline, and the lack of a nearly insurmountable barrier to rebuilding the Temple will only strengthen it. Although there is another possibility: a tolerant caliph allows the Jews to rebuild the Temple, in the vein of Cyrus a thousand years earlier. Muslim rulers of the time treated the exilarchs with great respect - perhaps our caliph allows the exilarch to become the King of Israel, although his authority is limited to other Jews. Old Jerusalem becomes a grand ghetto.

If so, this radically changes medieval Judaism. Jerusalem once again becomes the focal point for Jewish culture. Enough time has passed that a reversion to the Saducee-Pharisee dynamic is unlikely (the Kohen Gadol will be a rabbi, and possibly the King of Israel), but the divergence of Jewish religious customs is limited, as most Jews accept the rulings of the new Sanhedrin. Prominent rabbis are frequently invited to make aliyah and join the Sanhedrin.

Most likely, the Crusaders are no kinder to the Jews than IOTL. The Crusaders likely face Jewish troops on their way to the Holy Land. Assuming they succeed, their sack of Jerusalem becomes one of the great atrocities of Jewish history. The leaders might order the sparing of the Temple, but more likely things get out of control, and the Temple is desecrated. Jews come from across the world to fight for Jerusalem. It's possible that if/when the Muslims retake Jerusalem, the Jews exact vengeance upon the Christians by desecrating their holy sites (although the alt-Saladin no doubt condemns it).

Beyond that, things get murkier. It's entirely possible that a later, less tolerant caliph cracks down on Jewish rights in the Holy Land. There may even be a Fourth Temple at some point, should the Third Temple be destroyed. The King of Israel would be vulnerable to the same issues as other dynasties, although any King of Israel will claim to be of the House of David. We might see an independent Kingdom of Israel in the 20th century, should a power vacuum emerge in the Middle East.
 

cmakk1012

It’s not guaranteed that the Crusades will ever even happen, to be fair—the Byzantines might take back the Levant with a PoD in the 600s, or if not the Seljuks are almost certainly butterflied and the series of events leading to the call for Crusade doesn’t happen.

Tolerant caliphs would likely let the Jews do what they want with Jerusalem provided it didn’t interfere with *al-Quds. A millet-like system of self-rule could eventually develop for Jews in Palestine, headed from the Jerusalem ghetto—I agree that the two cities would likely combine into one with old Jerusalem as a ghetto.
 

Meshakhad

cmakk1012 said:
It’s not guaranteed that the Crusades will ever even happen, to be fair—the Byzantines might take back the Levant with a PoD in the 600s, or if not the Seljuks are almost certainly butterflied and the series of events leading to the call for Crusade doesn’t happen.

Tolerant caliphs would likely let the Jews do what they want with Jerusalem provided it didn’t interfere with *al-Quds. A millet-like system of self-rule could eventually develop for Jews in Palestine, headed from the Jerusalem ghetto—I agree that the two cities would likely combine into one with old Jerusalem as a ghetto.
Click to expand...

I think a crusade is quite likely at some point if the Muslims hold Jerusalem. The Jewish factor might make it more likely - if Old Jerusalem is a Jewish ghetto, then that would include certain Christian holy sites.
 

Alexander the Average

Meshakhad said:
I think a crusade is quite likely at some point if the Muslims hold Jerusalem. The Jewish factor might make it more likely - if Old Jerusalem is a Jewish ghetto, then that would include certain Christian holy sites.
Click to expand...
Depends on the politics of Europe and the Levant. Remember that Muslims had held the holy land for centuries before the Crusades. The main factors and motivations behind them included :

Building goodwill between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the hope of mending the Great Schism.

Reopening trade routes to the East that passed through the Levant.

Giving the perpetually warring kingdoms of Europe a common enemy to focus on.

Securing the safety of Christian pilgrims.

Helping the Byzantines reclaim territory in Anatolia which they had recently lost.

Presenting an opportunity for some lucrative land-grabbing.
 

Ravenclaw

Meshakhad said:
If so, this radically changes medieval Judaism. Jerusalem once again becomes the focal point for Jewish culture. Enough time has passed that a reversion to the Saducee-Pharisee dynamic is unlikely (the Kohen Gadol will be a rabbi, and possibly the King of Israel), but the divergence of Jewish religious customs is limited, as most Jews accept the rulings of the new Sanhedrin. Prominent rabbis are frequently invited to make aliyah and join the Sanhedrin.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the tradition for Kings of Israel to be from the tribe of Judah? IIRC, part of the opposition (both contemporary and later) to the Hasmoneans was that they combined the office of Kohen and King.
 

Fabius Maximus

Alexander the Average said:
Depends on the politics of Europe and the Levant. Remember that Muslims had held the holy land for centuries before the Crusades. The main factors and motivations behind them included :

Building goodwill between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the hope of mending the Great Schism.

Reopening trade routes to the East that passed through the Levant.

Giving the perpetually warring kingdoms of Europe a common enemy to focus on.

Securing the safety of Christian pilgrims.

Helping the Byzantines reclaim territory in Anatolia which they had recently lost.

Presenting an opportunity for some lucrative land-grabbing.
Click to expand...

Financial incentives such as land-grabbing were pretty unimportant, actually: going on crusade was both extremely dangerous and ruinously expensive, and somebody looking to get rich quick would almost certainly be better off staying at home and tending to his estates there. (Those who didn't have estates to tend wouldn't have had enough money to go on crusade anyway.)
 
The Professor

The Professor

Wouldn't building on Temple Mount also be a deliberate attempt to assimilate Jews into Islam? Especially since a new Temple would invigorate Jewish nationalism and thus more rebels?
Building on the Mount could be considered as saying "this is the 3rd Temple and it's Muslim, join us."
 

Ravenclaw

The Professor said:
Wouldn't building on Temple Mount also be a deliberate attempt to assimilate Jews into Islam? Especially since a new Temple would invigorate Jewish nationalism and thus more rebels?
Building on the Mount could be considered as saying "this is the 3rd Temple and it's Muslim, join us."
Click to expand...
That was pretty much the point of the story and the building of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock IOTL. Appropriating the holiest place for Jews to show that Islam was the "true successor religion". Also preventing any resurgence of Jewish nationalism (they also blocked up the Golden Gate to prevent the Messiah from entering Jerusalem).
 

Masked Grizzly

The Professor said:
Wouldn't building on Temple Mount also be a deliberate attempt to assimilate Jews into Islam? Especially since a new Temple would invigorate Jewish nationalism and thus more rebels?
Building on the Mount could be considered as saying "this is the 3rd Temple and it's Muslim, join us."
Click to expand...

Agreed. In this scenario there would still probably be another structure built on the Temple Mount along with maybe another story to justify the religious triumphalism of the early Arab empires, since a church was also apparently built there previously as well unless the church still remains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top