WI: Mohammed converts to Christianity

I'm not sure it would be that certain : Ethiopia practiced a clearly heretical Christianism in the eyes of Orthodoxy, and still managed to ties alliances and gain support from Byzantium.
 
I'm not sure it would be that certain : Ethiopia practiced a clearly heretical Christianism in the eyes of Orthodoxy, and still managed to ties alliances and gain support from Byzantium.

Point taken. I suppose it might depend on whether Mohammadean Christianity became a competitor with the Western and Eastern churches for converts...or if it raided establised Christian flocks for converts.
 

Mookie

Banned
I just point out that asking for litterary evidences in a period where they are scarces is a loaded question.
I could turn the question to you and point out there's no evidence of absence of Christians or Jews ruling over pagan tribes (we actually have some).

Only in cases of foreign ocupation or instatement.

I'm sorry, but you confused them, or at least negating clan existance by talking only about individuals in a tribe, putting aside the role of the clan in religious matters.

I was talking about individuals in the clan, not individuals in the tribe.

Giving he stand in power after Sassanian withdrawal, he probably enjoyed local power and support enough to do that.
I would point, furthermore, that Pre-Islamic tribes weren't democracies where leadership was the result of a choice.

Or was simply friendly enough to Sassanids so they put him in that position? It wouldnt be the first time that great powers apoint friendly figureheads, especialy not to Persia


And? It's actually going in the sense of my point : different religion could co-exist in a same tribe, and because of the ruler was from one religion, it didn't meant that adopting another was a treason.
I don't know what you seek to proove at this point.

Your leader was coming from a mixed pagan/christian tribe. Not a purely christian tribe as you are trying to show. A purely christian tribe wouldnt tolerate burning of 400 nuns by their pagan leader.

Problem is that the Banu Haifa were far from the only ones involved in Ridda Wars at this side : Yamamah was under his direction before Muhammad even went to Yathrib, and the other tribes dwelling there were not known to be Christian.

Far from the only ones but that stil proves my point. He shared his religion with his tribesmen and gained power.

I again wonder which point you're trying to make there : you asked me to give you exemples, and now you're dismissing them because "But it wasn't a real conversion, he didn't sincerely meant it so it doesn't count"?

No I am not talking about sincere conversions. You are confusing it. You said that a man who wasnt the same religion as his tribe could lead the tribe. I asked for proofs. And you gave me inadequate examples.
One was apointed by foreign power, another one was from mixed tribe and one was a founder of a religion.


I fail to see the relation : wealth was a known decisive factor in Pre-Islamic Arabia, and the first expeditions of Muhammad against Mecca wasn't about proselyting but "freeing themselves from pauverty".
I'll repeat myself, but Arabic tribes weren't democracies. Wealth, critically in a merchant-dominated society as Meccan one, was really important.


But the wealth is irrelevant factor to the point you are making. You are saying that he was powerful because he was wealthy, when he wasnt. No position of authority was held by him.

Assuming you could seriously compare both situations (merely separated by 1400 years, and by being two vastly different societies, I think modern society is quite a bit distinct from early Medieval Pre-Islamic Arabia), no it doesn't.



Someone making jokes about Holocaust can be insensitive, giving the context, but it doesn't mean he celebrates it, or that it doesn't. I made myself some ones and learnt some from Jews and I would think it's not supporting it.

You want me to show an example of similar situations in ancient history?
We obviously have different understanding of same situations. I have never met someone who gloats about Srebrenica genocide without suporting Srebrenica genocide. I guess different cultures

And giving we don't have any other source than Muslims about the late Pre-Islamic Arabia, your statement is, pardon me, baseless and overgeneralizing.

You tried making a statement about Arab pagans celebrating Byzantine defeat.
But what you source doesn't support the existance of celebrations and a deep hostility on Byzantium.

Again, different cultural understanding of the same situation. I guess we will never see the same thing the same way.

My bad, I mixed things up.
That said, my point still stand on the essential : it was less the expression of an hostility of all Pagan Arabs against Byzantium, than a taunt made by Meccan on Muhammad.

Meccans not a Meccan. Otherwise it wouldnt be recorded. Nor would his predictions matter if they are directed at one man.


Ethiopians were far more present in Hejaz memory than Byzantines, would it be because they intervened and warred without proxy.
Ethiopians were seen as protectors of Christians, one of the reasons of their intervention in Arabia, and it's why some early Muslims sheltered in Ethiopia (Christianism and Muhammad's monotheism not being that differencied at this point).
With Muhammad turning Christians and gathering enough followers, they would be associated even more with Ethiopia, maybe more than Byzantium.
His opposers could see them more as "Agents of the Negus" than "Byzantium", remembering the not that far "Year of the Elephant".

Basically, Byzantium would be a far foreign threat, Ethiopia a closer one
.

That would depend on what type of Christian he would become.
But still dont see him doing the same stuff he did as a prophet.

Giving that other members of his tribe and of his clan were of various religion, what made him expelled was probably more his radical preaching of a totally new religion. Would have be only converted to Christianism and not trying to preach it (giving OTL, it would require some change of personality, but let's assume it), he probably have been let quiet.

Agreed. But then if he doesnt preach it he becomes what I said, just another Christian Arab whom no one remembers.

That's the active opposition to tribal policies and features that made him a pariah despite his position inside the clan and Quraysh tribe.

But also allowed him to grow a large following of people outside of those tribal policies and features. The weak and unprotected.

Yes, it's my point. People not beneficing from enough wealth, importance or protection were forced to shelter under a protector.
That Muhammad and important Early Muslims didn't indicated that they had at least one of these in Pre-Islamic society.

Poor muslims from a clan were also protected. Only the clanless had to leave in order to avoid torture and murder. He would be protected by his uncle even if he was piss-poor.

It's not enough, I'm afraid. An honest weirdo is still a weirdo, critically if he's considered going against social traditions.

A weirdo who sleeps in a cave instead of using his wealth is not the same type of weirdo as someone yelling profanities at people or walking naked in the desert.

Seeing that matter of justice or at least legal matters were about who said the law, who knew the traditions ; his reputation was build before thanks to his social position, enough to go against his radical preaching.

You dont need to know the law to be just. Especialy since he was no trained in the law. He was an orphan who lived with the beduins and away from his family for the first decade of his life. And was extremely poor prior to marrying Hatija.


Interestingly, you disregard a position in a trade city. Being a rich trader, possessing enough wealth to consitue a clientele or, at very last, to make his "excentricities" (such as buying slaves to free them after their conversions) being acceptable at least for a time.

To stop the same argument going around over and over, tell me what position of power did Muhammad hold in his tribe?



You still don't understand me : that he used the wealth for his personal gain or not is irrelevant. The facts (at least if we follow Islamic tradition, but if we don't, we're going to lack litterary sources quickly) that he launched several raids for wealth rather than for conversion, and that he maintained these practices up to his death shows a need for wealth in the functionement of Early Islamic society.

Raids were the basis of warfare in desert warfare, the same way naval blockades are in Europe or caribbean.
As for others I agree. Society made of poor people needs money for everything.

Separating outright him from the confederacy he created is, in my opinion, quite artificial.

Then either speak about Muslims (A confederacy he created and belonged to) or speak about Muhammad. Muhammad isnt a society, he is a person.

Basically, gain of wealth implies a role of redistribution among a group of people. Not only for the sake of the social role of the trade/raid/etc. leader (in order to maintain him in this role), but as well to tie up to him the said group.
Roughly : We raid, I command, I gain enough wealth to be able to give a good part of it, you maintain your relationship with me past the end of the ponctual raid.

Which would last only so long as raid money keeps coming in. But there were several bad raids and military defeat and people stuck with him indicating the need for more than wealth. Remember that a man who gives him up would get a 100 camels. No one did.

But again, separating the state from the person that not only built it, but was at the very center of this confederation seems awfully artificial.

And again you are talking about Muhammad the Christian. His state doesnt exist. You have to look at him outside of that. His society would die the moment he says "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."


I agree, and it was quite my point : after loosing his fortune, that was one of the main features of his important before this point, he had to search new sources of wealth to maintain his position.

Not taking that wealth for himself makes that moot and void.
Thinking that his position depended on wealth is silly at best. How much money would you ask for, in order to give up your life?

It wasn't the first one : Al Is was. A failed raid, granted, but with clear objectives : plundering the caravan.
The first successful raid was Nakhla, which resulted in a large loot and also a theological point to arise.
Eventually, the first successful raid with Muhammad's presence was indeed Badr.
The recovering of Muslims goods wasn't what motivated Muslims raids.

In the spring of 624,prophet Muhammad received word from his intelligence sources that one of the richest trade caravans of the year, commanded by Abu Sufyan and guarded by thirty to forty men, was travelling from Syria to Mecca[citation needed]. Because of the caravan's size, or perhaps because of the previous failures to intercept a caravan, Muhammad gathered an army of over 313 men, the largest army the Muslims had ever put in the field. The goods contained in the caravan were the belongings of the Muslims which were taken by the Meccans following the migration to Medina.[13]

I am a muslim, I should know the reason why the battle of Badr ocured, we study that in elementary during religious education
 
Only in cases of foreign ocupation or instatement.
I beg to differ, two of the exemples I gave weren't in this case.

I was talking about individuals in the clan, not individuals in the tribe.
Then how you put it was unclear.
I said that they were regarded as someone having his loyalty split, instead of having it to the tribe.


Or was simply friendly enough to Sassanids so they put him in that position? It wouldnt be the first time that great powers apoint friendly figureheads, especialy not to Persia
That's a possibility of course, but that he was maintained after switching alligeance could be a good point that he wasn't a mere figurehead.
(Admittedly not supported by everyone, hence his murder).


Your leader was coming from a mixed pagan/christian tribe. Not a purely christian tribe as you are trying to show. A purely christian tribe wouldnt tolerate burning of 400 nuns by their pagan leader.
I think you really lost my point there :
1) I'm not trying to show anything there, but answer your question about a Christian ruler over pagan Arabs.
2) If something, we agree there : my point was originally that religion, while an important factor, wasn't always decisive regarding who'd have a position of power in the tribe.

Far from the only ones but that stil proves my point. He shared his religion with his tribesmen and gained power.
There as well, you're missing the point : I didn't said it wasn't an important factor, but that despite being Christian (or at least, during Ridda Wars, preaching some rivaling religion) he managed to take the lead of other tribes in Central Arabia that aren't known to have share these beliefs.

No I am not talking about sincere conversions. You are confusing it. You said that a man who wasnt the same religion as his tribe could lead the tribe. I asked for proofs. And you gave me inadequate examples.
Here's as well you're misreading me, and you're searching proofs for things I didn't advanced.

My exacts words were
While dominant religion was usually an important tribal tool, it doesn't make Pre-Islamic tribes an equivalent to "cujus regio ejus religio". It's more probable that clans could have distinct religion from the tribe, or even individuals.

Nowhere I said anything about individuals of a precise religion able to lead a tribe entierly from another. That's what you assumed : can I ask you to read more attentivly my posts?

One was apointed by foreign power, another one was from mixed tribe and one was a founder of a religion.

But the wealth is irrelevant factor to the point you are making. You are saying that he was powerful because he was wealthy, when he wasnt. No position of authority was held by him.

You want me to show an example of similar situations in ancient history?
If it's relevant, and point out how taunting a prophet about a really unlikely prophecy equals to celebrate Byzantine defeat in all Arabia, sure.

Again, different cultural understanding of the same situation. I guess we will never see the same thing the same way.
I don't see how : you made a precise claim, that Arabs hated Byzantine at the point their defeat was celebrated.
Unless you argue that, not being Muslim, I wouldn't be able how taunting a prophet about his predictions is the same than that, of course.

Meccans not a Meccan. Otherwise it wouldnt be recorded. Nor would his predictions matter if they are directed at one man.
At this point, I honestly wonder if you're traying to create a strawman argument, woiuld it be from a typo, clearly when I never said it was one individual concerned only that far.

That would depend on what type of Christian he would become.
But still dont see him doing the same stuff he did as a prophet.
Of course not, it was never the point of the discussion, at least for me.
But giving how we think he reacted after his revelation, it can be safe to assume that having a different sort of revelation, he would still react along similar lines.

As for which kind of Christianity, I think we can safely rule out Orthodoxy. Maybe Nestorianism, some sort of Judeo-Messianism if not a new kind of Eastern Church proper to his preaching.

Due to the differences, I already stated that I didn't think he would be able to create a confederacy at the size of the peninsula. One of the strength of Islam was to not only considerate but intagrate tribal features; Christianism, as a more or less achieved religion (at least in its great lines) would pose more problems.

If you read my posts on this thread, you'd have seen this

would rather see, if he's sucssesful enough, a tribal confederacy in Hejaz based on tribal and Christian features

I'm afraid I see nowhere where I pretended he would do the same stuff than IOTL, or even said it would be automatically successful. That's maybe what you tought I was saying, but not that I posted there.

Agreed. But then if he doesnt preach it he becomes what I said, just another Christian Arab whom no one remembers.
I agree on that as well. But giving what we know of his character (granted, it's mostly trough Islamic tradition, so not that safe historically speaking, but it's all we have), I would think he would have tried.
Would have been he successful? That's the question.

But also allowed him to grow a large following of people outside of those tribal policies and features. The weak and unprotected.
Giving he didn't flee, despite a fledging protection, it must implies some form of position in Meccan society. As we agree it wasn't a formal position, neither leader, general, religious (at least before his preaching, of course), there's no much choices left.

A weirdo who sleeps in a cave instead of using his wealth is not the same type of weirdo as someone yelling profanities at people or walking naked in the desert. QUOTE]
Thing is, his preaching (for exemple, when it comes to the pagan practices) was the equivalent of yelling profanities.

You dont need to know the law to be just. Especialy since he was no trained in the law. He was an orphan who lived with the beduins and away from his family for the first decade of his life. And was extremely poor prior to marrying Hatija.
1) Indeed. But you need more than being virtuous for being called to resolve disputes in different communauties.
Furthermore, his legal prescriptions points out that he was probably not trained in legal matters, but knew enough of it would it be only to make reforms.

2) We agree for the first part of his life, but with his union with Katdija he acquired wealth and social acknowledgement. Without these, I doubt he would have the initial success he had IOTL, and that's what would make him more than just an anonymous converter if he preached for another religion.
It doesn't guarantee success, but it gives a good enough base.

To stop the same argument going around over and over, tell me what position of power did Muhammad hold in his tribe?
Wealth, and as you said, a reputation of justice. He was called for resolving issues before his revelation. Both certainly helped a lot.

Raids were the basis of warfare in desert warfare, the same way naval blockades are in Europe or caribbean.
As for others I agree. Society made of poor people needs money for everything.
I don't see the point for the first part, but if we agree on this, I'll pass.

Then either speak about Muslims (A confederacy he created and belonged to) or speak about Muhammad. Muhammad isnt a society, he is a person.
But separating as two different bodies is artificial : the confederacy he created was tied up by his persona as well than religion (you can see how the links quickly broke with the Ridda Wars). I don't think separating the prophet of a religion, the state he created, and his followers would be much sensible on these matters.
Living poorly doesn't meant he didn't have access to much wealth, but that as a tribal and religious leader, he had to redistribute it to maintain the existing links.

Which would last only so long as raid money keeps coming in.
Hence the need of regular raids, yes.

But there were several bad raids and military defeat and people stuck with him indicating the need for more than wealth.
You're making again a speculation about what I think.
I never said people remained with him only for wealth, that would be idiotic. What I said was a tribal leader needed wealth to redistribute and maintain ties with his clientele as much as possible. Period.

Please don't try to read more than I wrote.

And again you are talking about Muhammad the Christian. His state doesnt exist. You have to look at him outside of that. His society would die the moment he says "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
1) I'm not. I'm not even sure to see what you're saying there. We obviously talked about the role of wealth and its importance in the first years of Islam establishment. Basically making an observation about IOTL to make suppositions for ATL.
What you raise there is quite non-sequitur.

2) It never prevented Christianism to impose itself to quite violent societies : Roman, Romano-German, Feudal, would it be only to talk about Europe.
I could mention Ghassanids and Lakhmids as exemple of Christians (or partially Christian) tribes that didn't had much of an issue with Biblical preaching and real world issues.

Not taking that wealth for himself makes that moot and void.
Or, it makes sense and you still doesn't see my point.
Wealth in a tribal society gives power not because of thesaurisation, but because it's being redistributed.
I don't think what's hard to get there, would it be only to disagree : wealth gave him power as he was able to give it away. Think of a gift-based microeconomy, if it helps.

Thinking that his position depended on wealth is silly at best. How much money would you ask for, in order to give up your life?
This is ridiculous : the thread isn't about me or you; but about how a wealthy merchant in Pre-Islamic Arabia, whom OTL behaviour would point a tendency to religious illumination would react.
I could pretend as well that John Booth never shoot Lincoln because would I would never shoot a man in the back.

I am a muslim, I should know the reason why the battle of Badr ocured, we study that in elementary during religious education
Not to be rude, I know many Christians that don't know shit about their own religion. It doesn't mean you don't understand the subject, but that's not really an argument per se.

And you're again making a strawman argument : I never said Battle of Badr wasn't about recovering these goods, but that it was hardly the first planned raid or even the first successful raid.

The goal of raids, mere months after Hija, was to gain wealth, without mention of recovering confiscated goods : that only appear at this battle that, again, is not the first raid mentioned. Period.
 
Last edited:

Mookie

Banned
I beg to differ, two of the exemples I gave weren't in this case.
And I explained what case they are. I see no need to discuss that anymore.

Then how you put it was unclear.
I said that they were regarded as someone having his loyalty split, instead of having it to the tribe.

Yes and I say it again, to the TRIBE. Not to the clan. Your clan would regard you as loyal and would protect you regardless of religion.
But the tribal leaders wouldnt tolerate a leader who doesnt share their religion taking power in the tribe (not the clan, they dont care about other clans)

That's a possibility of course, but that he was maintained after switching alligeance could be a good point that he wasn't a mere figurehead.
(Admittedly not supported by everyone, hence his murder).

Or that no one was willing to fight him to depose him could also cause the tolerance after switch of alegiance.

I think you really lost my point there :
1) I'm not trying to show anything there, but answer your question about a Christian ruler over pagan Arabs.
2) If something, we agree there : my point was originally that religion, while an important factor, wasn't always decisive regarding who'd have a position of power in the tribe.


There as well, you're missing the point : I didn't said it wasn't an important factor, but that despite being Christian (or at least, during Ridda Wars, preaching some rivaling religion) he managed to take the lead of other tribes in Central Arabia that aren't known to have share these beliefs.


Here's as well you're misreading me, and you're searching proofs for things I didn't advanced.

My exacts words were


Nowhere I said anything about individuals of a precise religion able to lead a tribe entierly from another. That's what you assumed : can I ask you to read more attentivly my posts?

One was apointed by foreign power, another one was from mixed tribe and one was a founder of a religion.


Then what are we discussing here as well?


If it's relevant, and point out how taunting a prophet about a really unlikely prophecy equals to celebrate Byzantine defeat in all Arabia, sure.

Again you are planting something completely different. He wasnt ridiculed for a prediction he made. The prediction didnt exist at the time he was ridiculed. And not just him but all the muslims at the time. I dont understand why is that hard to understand. The prediction was a response to the taunt, not the reason of the taunt.

I don't see how : you made a precise claim, that Arabs hated Byzantine at the point their defeat was celebrated.
Unless you argue that, not being Muslim, I wouldn't be able how taunting a prophet about his predictions is the same than that, of course.

When I go back home I will be able to respond to you with a book quotes. I cant find it on google now. Basicaly the Byzantines tried instating a king of Mecca some time before. The king ended up not accepted and chased out, since he was apointed by the Byzantines. I will give you the author and exact quote when I get home.


At this point, I honestly wonder if you're traying to create a strawman argument, woiuld it be from a typo, clearly when I never said it was one individual concerned only that far.


Of course not, it was never the point of the discussion, at least for me.
But giving how we think he reacted after his revelation, it can be safe to assume that having a different sort of revelation, he would still react along similar lines.

I doubt it would cause similar results. The byzantines and Abyssinians tried converting Arabs for past 300 years? Not much inroad taken.

As for which kind of Christianity, I think we can safely rule out Orthodoxy. Maybe Nestorianism, some sort of Judeo-Messianism if not a new kind of Eastern Church proper to his preaching.

The only time he could have converted to it was under influence of Hatija's father/uncle (I cant remember who he was exactly) who was a christian with weird beliefs that dont belong to Byzantine or Nestorian beliefs.

Due to the differences, I already stated that I didn't think he would be able to create a confederacy at the size of the peninsula. One of the strength of Islam was to not only considerate but intagrate tribal features; Christianism, as a more or less achieved religion (at least in its great lines) would pose more problems.

Then why are we arguing? I was responding about impossibility of Muhammad the Christian to lead a confederacy or to result in the same ending as in Muhammad the prophet. Since you responded I asumed that you are arguing the oposite.


If you read my posts on this thread, you'd have seen this



I'm afraid I see nowhere where I pretended he would do the same stuff than IOTL, or even said it would be automatically successful. That's maybe what you tought I was saying, but not that I posted there.

Same as above

I agree on that as well. But giving what we know of his character (granted, it's mostly trough Islamic tradition, so not that safe historically speaking, but it's all we have), I would think he would have tried.
Would have been he successful? That's the question.

What incentive can he offer to them? If they die in battle for their beliefs - none. If they fight they comit a sin actualy. The prospect of starvation and torture without the possibility of ending that, or resulting in victory will attract followers?


Giving he didn't flee, despite a fledging protection, it must implies some form of position in Meccan society. As we agree it wasn't a formal position, neither leader, general, religious (at least before his preaching, of course), there's no much choices left.

Which is the position of his uncles. His uncle Hamza was the best fighter in all of the tribe. His grandfather was custodian of the Kabba and his uncle who protected him most was the leader of his clan.

Thing is, his preaching (for exemple, when it comes to the pagan practices) was the equivalent of yelling profanities.

But that hapened only after Islam. Before Islam he simply didnt attend the ceremonies.


1) Indeed. But you need more than being virtuous for being called to resolve disputes in different communauties.
Furthermore, his legal prescriptions points out that he was probably not trained in legal matters, but knew enough of it would it be only to make reforms.

Not in a tribal society where neutrality is hard to come by and everyone is loyal to someone else.

2) We agree for the first part of his life, but with his union with Katdija he acquired wealth and social acknowledgement. Without these, I doubt he would have the initial success he had IOTL, and that's what would make him more than just an anonymous converter if he preached for another religion.
It doesn't guarantee success, but it gives a good enough base.

There were christians much richer, powerful and greater than Muhammad and they didnt manage to spread christianity. The year of the Elephant not to be mentioned was still fresh in the minds of the people

Wealth, and as you said, a reputation of justice. He was called for resolving issues before his revelation. Both certainly helped a lot.

None were an official position like general, treasurer, judge, diplomat

I don't see the point for the first part, but if we agree on this, I'll pass.

ok

But separating as two different bodies is artificial : the confederacy he created was tied up by his persona as well than religion (you can see how the links quickly broke with the Ridda Wars). I don't think separating the prophet of a religion, the state he created, and his followers would be much sensible on these matters.

But not when we are talking about Muhammad the Christian. Which we are talking about since this thread is about that. Otherwise it makes no sense to argue write anymore if we are just talking about the person of the prophet and not the topic of the thread.

Living poorly doesn't meant he didn't have access to much wealth, but that as a tribal and religious leader, he had to redistribute it to maintain the existing links.

Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, Abu Leheb, Umayya, were all leaders of Mecca and none of them were generous or sharing wealth, Quite the opposite for most of them.
Abu Leheb, Muhammads uncle even said:
(Once Abū Lahab asked Muḥammad: "If I were to accept your religion, what would I get?" Muḥammad replied: "You would get what the other believers would get." Abū Lahab responded: "Is there no preference or distinction for me?" In which Muḥammad replied, "What else do you want?" Abū Lahab replied back: "May this religion perish in which I and all other people should be equal and alike!),

So the argument that the wealth was needed for leadership is invalid. Wealth was needed to keep the Islamic state armed, not to keep the followers happy.

Hence the need of regular raids, yes.
Above


You're making again a speculation about what I think.
I never said people remained with him only for wealth, that would be idiotic. What I said was a tribal leader needed wealth to redistribute and maintain ties with his clientele as much as possible. Period.

He needed wealth to equip armies not to keep people bought.

Please don't try to read more than I wrote.


1) I'm not. I'm not even sure to see what you're saying there. We obviously talked about the role of wealth and its importance in the first years of Islam establishment. Basically making an observation about IOTL to make suppositions for ATL.
What you raise there is quite non-sequitur.

I am talking about the topic of Muhammad the Christian not Muhammad the prophet. Thats where most of our misunderstanding is coming from

2) It never prevented Christianism to impose itself to quite violent societies : Roman, Romano-German, Feudal, would it be only to talk about Europe.
I could mention Ghassanids and Lakhmids as exemple of Christians (or partially Christian) tribes that didn't had much of an issue with Biblical preaching and real world issues.

All of them already existing countries, none of them were created by stateless and powerless christians.

Or, it makes sense and you still doesn't see my point.
Wealth in a tribal society gives power not because of thesaurisation, but because it's being redistributed.
I don't think what's hard to get there, would it be only to disagree : wealth gave him power as he was able to give it away. Think of a gift-based microeconomy, if it helps.

But the leaders of Mecca werent known of giving money to anyone as charity. Thats the problem I have with that statement.

This is ridiculous : the thread isn't about me or you; but about how a wealthy merchant in Pre-Islamic Arabia, whom OTL behaviour would point a tendency to religious illumination would react.
I could pretend as well that John Booth never shoot Lincoln because would I would never shoot a man in the back.

But it is about people and you saying that they were with him due to the money. So the question is normal. If money influenced them to join him, they also risked life and persecution for him. So how much money is needed?

Not to be rude, I know many Christians that don't know shit about their own religion.

You are insulted when I asume something about you, yet asume about me :D
On average, muslims know more about their religion than christians.


And you're again making a strawman argument : I never said Battle of Badr wasn't about recovering these goods, but that it was hardly the first planned raid or even the first successful raid.

Do I need to quote you for that? Actualy I will
The recovering of Muslims goods wasn't what motivated Muslims raids.



The goal of raids, mere months after Hija, was to gain wealth, without mention of recovering confiscated goods : that only appear at this battle that, again, is not the first raid mentioned. Period.

And deny it to his enemies. Which is the reason for rading everywhere in the world.
 
Personally, I think the most likely possibility is one of the strains of monophysitism that was popular in the region. Which would give the Arabs under Mohammed plenty of co-religionists in Syria, Egypt, and Ethiopia. Which could be a headache for the Romans, possibly equal to that of history (imagine if the heretics in the Empire not only didn't mind being ruled by someone other than Constantinople, but were actively supporting the invaders).
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=0

Whereas muslims need to know Islamic and Imanic sharts, few surahs from Quran to be able to pray, the prayer ceremony, the ritual purification ceremony, the prayers needed during prayer, the time of prayers etc..
Not to mention things that are asked in the questionaire, who founded their religion, who was the first convert etc..

That just says that Mormons, Jews and Agnostics know more than Christians. There was no evidence that Muslims did.

Most people don't know anything about their religion, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews or Flying Spaghetti Monsters...

Anyway, this is for Chat, not this thread.
 
And I explained what case they are. I see no need to discuss that anymore.
You asked me exemples of Christians ruling over pagans, I gave you some. You're the one nipticking about their purity.

Yes and I say it again, to the TRIBE. Not to the clan. Your clan would regard you as loyal and would protect you regardless of religion.
Your point was that having a different religion than the tribal leaders wouldn't be accepted, and being percieved as treachery. We have exemples of the contrary.

But the tribal leaders wouldnt tolerate a leader who doesnt share their religion taking power in the tribe (not the clan, they dont care about other clans)
That they tolerate it or not is irrelevant, if it exist within the tribe (or an ambitious clan willing to takeover either power, or to form its own entity). A coup de force or war wadged against them could be as much efficient than waiting for their approbation.

Or that no one was willing to fight him to depose him could also cause the tolerance after switch of alegiance.
Well, at least someone was willing to fight him, giving he was murdered.

Then what are we discussing here as well?
At this point, I'm merely answering you. Honestly, I'm not responsible of your misinterpretation of my posts.

Again you are planting something completely different. He wasnt ridiculed for a prediction he made. The prediction didnt exist at the time he was ridiculed. And not just him but all the muslims at the time. I dont understand why is that hard to understand. The prediction was a response to the taunt, not the reason of the taunt.

It's what I see there. Again, my bad.

In those days the Sassanid victories against Byzantium were the talk of the town, and the pagans of Makkah were delighted and were taunting the Muslims to the effect: "Look the fire worshipers of Iran are winning victories and the Christian believers in Revelation and Prophethood are being routed everywhere. Likewise, we, the idol worshipers of Arabia, will exterminate you and your religion."

These were the conditions when this Surah of the Quran was sent down, and in it a prediction was made, saying:"The Romans have been vanquished in the neighboring land and within a few years after their defeat, they shall be victorious. And it will be the day when the believers will rejoice in the victory granted by Allah."

But it was less directed against Byzantines, than making a comparison with Muslims and them : as in "Monothesists were defeated there, and you shall be as well". Without Muslims, I'm not sure you'd have this taunting at all.

When I go back home I will be able to respond to you with a book quotes. I cant find it on google now. Basicaly the Byzantines tried instating a king of Mecca some time before. The king ended up not accepted and chased out, since he was apointed by the Byzantines. I will give you the author and exact quote when I get home.
Please do, I'm really interested on this.

I doubt it would cause similar results. The byzantines and Abyssinians tried converting Arabs for past 300 years? Not much inroad taken.
Are you even reading me?
I litteraly said in my previous post that it wouldn't be similar. I don't mind disagreeing on this topic, but please let discuss on what I wrote and not what you think I meant.

Anyway.

An inner dynamic of conversion, critically if it's a Christianity distinct from both Orthodoxy and Ethiopian church (more "national" if you prefer), would have better chances than foreign tentatives.

The only time he could have converted to it was under influence of Hatija's father/uncle (I cant remember who he was exactly) who was a christian with weird beliefs that dont belong to Byzantine or Nestorian beliefs.
That we wasn't a melkite is quite certain, that he wasn't Nestorian is less sure (while, personally, I would tend to think of a member of Judeo-Messianic communauties that still existed at this time in Arabia)

That he would join a distinct Christianity from Roman and Ethiopian would be, IMHO, an advantage rather than an inconvenient (and wouldn't really go against a possible Byzantine support in the future, as they did for Ethiopia or Ghassanids).

Then why are we arguing? I was responding about impossibility of Muhammad the Christian to lead a confederacy or to result in the same ending as in Muhammad the prophet. Since you responded I asumed that you are arguing the oposite.
I'm responding because we're disagreeing about one thing : that Muhammad without Islam wouldn't be anything than a poor sod, that only Islam could have gave him enough strength to become a leader.

For all the rest, that he wouldn't become leader of most of Arabia, that his history would be quite different, and that he could indeed fail, we're agreeing but I really suspect you misunderstood or didn't cared enough about reading my posts, attributing me statements (as "it would be the same") that I never did.

What incentive can he offer to them? If they die in battle for their beliefs - none. If they fight they comit a sin actualy. The prospect of starvation and torture without the possibility of ending that, or resulting in victory will attract followers?
1) As we seem to agree, it would be a quite distinct Christianity to begin with
2) At this point, if Christian societies were totally unable of violence, from which strange timeline came warring Byzantine Empire or Ethiopia, to mention only the entities that intervened in this region at this time?

Which is the position of his uncles. His uncle Hamza was the best fighter in all of the tribe. His grandfather was custodian of the Kabba and his uncle who protected him most was the leader of his clan.


But that hapened only after Islam. Before Islam he simply didnt attend the ceremonies.
There's a LOT of differences between not going to ceremonies, and basically yelling them "Your Gods sucks!". From their viewpoint, what he did wasn't much different from a weirdo telling profanities.


Not in a tribal society where neutrality is hard to come by and everyone is loyal to someone else.

There were christians much richer, powerful and greater than Muhammad and they didnt manage to spread christianity. The year of the Elephant not to be mentioned was still fresh in the minds of the people
1) But you're not taking in consideration Muhammad's psychology. We're talking about someone having prooven he would be motivated for preaching and trying to expand his religion. Unless we argue that everything that made Muhammad Muhammad as a person didn't existed before the OTL Revelation, you can't discard someone's behaviour (critically when this person is at the center of the PoD, and even from OTL events)
2) If you read me, you'd quickly see that I already mentioned this as one the main obstacle, with Muhammad being possible taken as an Ethiopian-backed guy.

None were an official position like general, treasurer, judge, diplomat
I do not need to say you that unofficial positions can be as well important than official ones; critically for someone that his preaching is mostly touching lower classes at first.

But not when we are talking about Muhammad the Christian. Which we are talking about since this thread is about that. Otherwise it makes no sense to argue write anymore if we are just talking about the person of the prophet and not the topic of the thread.
Giving the PoD is about the person of the prophet, I think that discussing about him is making sense.
It's not like discussing about someone else behavior IOTL is going to help us a lot about "WI: Muhammad converts to Christianity".

Again, unless you're arguing that Muhammad knew a totally change of persona during his revelation, making Islam the only "trigger" possible for this change of personnality that he wouldn't have known otherwise, I think the only sensible way to guesstimate how he could have reacted given the PoD is to see how he reacted IOTL.


Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, Abu Leheb, Umayya, were all leaders of Mecca and none of them were generous or sharing wealth, Quite the opposite for most of them.
You're confusing charity/generosity/share wealth.
A gift-based exchange is quite different, as the name implies. Basically, A gives B a part of his wealth, and in exchange B owes alligeance or service to A.

(Not that charity can't be understood as a one-way exchange, but that's out the discussion)

I am talking about the topic of Muhammad the Christian not Muhammad the prophet. Thats where most of our misunderstanding is coming from
Then I don't understand you : Muhammad was Muhammad, with a specific personality, social role, social position, set of ideas, etc. before his revelation.
Either arguing his revelation made him a totally different man, and that a different revelation would have make him another different man; either considering that he remained the same while eventually evolving from this change in life (evolving, meaning no radical rupture of psyche, ) critically considering this revelation happened when he was already quite aged and with a formed personality.

Separating both as if they were living on two different planets doesn't makes sense to me.


All of them already existing countries, none of them were created by stateless and powerless christians.
It's why I think it would be restricted to Hejaz if Muhammad is successful enough, part of it or completly; with Muhammad and his followers either taking over a city or place, or either being invited by one.
If I had to make a guesstimate (but I wouldn't really go into probabilities there), I would bet on a tribal Christian states between Ghassanids and Mecca (a region that was known to have been under Ghassanid influence, during the IV/V/VIth centuries)


But the leaders of Mecca werent known of giving money to anyone as charity. Thats the problem I have with that statement.
See above.

But it is about people and you saying that they were with him due to the money. So the question is normal. If money influenced them to join him, they also risked life and persecution for him. So how much money is needed?
You're again making either a bad interpretation of what I wrote (as I said above, stick it to what I wrote, thanks) or actually trying to n


You are insulted when I asume something about you, yet asume about me :D
I apologize if you took that this way, it wasn't my intent. It looked (but there I could have misunderstood) as because you were Muslim, you were automatically right on this discussion.
Being assured now it's not the case, you'd understand that it would have been hard to discuss it at all in these conditions.

Do I need to quote you for that? Actualy I will
You misquote me.

I can't make it clearer :
Battle of Badr was about recovering goods? Yes.
But Battle of Badr wasn't the first raid. The first raids (succssful or not) were about plundering Meccan caravans.

Giving Battle of Badr wasn't the first raid, the motivations for Muslims io this battle can't be retroactivaly attributed to the actual first expeditions.

Basically : the motivations for a raid in March 624 can't logically be used to explain raids in early 623.

And deny it to his enemies. Which is the reason for rading everywhere in the world.
Of course, but I was talking about use of wealth by Muhammad rather than going into general observations.
 
Last edited:
Why are we assuming Muhammed would start a heterodox sect? This just reeks of the longstanding and probably wrong claim that Arabian christianities were dominated by various heresies that died out elsewhere; but it was really mostly (in Yemen and the Hejaz) probably a mix of Syriac Orthodox and some Assyrian Church of the East. A Christian Muhammed(who, as Sidney Griffith pointed out, under any other circumstances could have been a typical 'holy man') would almost certainly have been Syriac Orthodox/West Syriac, and to my mind quite probably more or less orthodox. Depending on what happens down the line to Iran or if another novel monotheistic prophet emerges in Arabia(a very real possibility), the likely regional outcome is that Arabia remains a mixture of Jews, Assyrians, Syriac Orthodox, Zoroastrians, and a few remaining pagans(and possibly smaller groups as well, like Manicheans or Mandeans). Likewise, claiming that pagans or quote-unquote pagans(Zoroastrians aren't really "pagan" but they sure as hell get called it) can't rule over Christians is a absurdly eurocentric claim; we need only point to Armenia or Iran as examples to the contrary. I don't think Arabia would fully Christianize but I could see a Hejaz dominated by Syriac Orthodox(with some Jews mixed in), a mixed Jewish and Syriac or Ethiopian Yeman, Nestorians and Zoroastrians in the Persian Gulf as well as various other places, and so on. We would also expect this to by and large reflect power dynamics of the Arabian penninsula, with Oriental Orthodoxy more dominant in the Red Sea basin, Nestorians and Zoroastrians more dominant in the Persian Gulf, Mandeans and Manicheans in the upper Gulf, and Jews dominant wherever no one group is powerful enough to dominate, until something dramatically upsets the balance of power between Persia and Rome. A large and powerful region where a lot of monotheistic groups have succeeded in edging out paganism but no one group is fully dominant is bound to be interesting at any rate.
 
Top