WI : Mohammed knelt to Heraclius?

GdwnsnHo

Banned
With Islam (supposedly) originally seen as the last Branch of Christianity, what if he instead promoted a Mohemmedic Christianity - or Bedouin Christianity, but with Mohammed kneeling to the Emperor of Rome as a Christian Leader, and setting himself up as the "Patriarch of Mecca", but still leading the Caliphate (or I suppose the Patriarchate ITTL) as an independent Christian state that was pro-Roman.

What would be the consequences?

So we have 6 Patriarchs, (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and now the contentious Mecca).

A united Arabian polity, that is steadily converting itself, but refuses to invade fellow Christians, even if they are Misguided.

My first obvious instinct would be a Persia-Screw, but I was curious as to what would happen.
 
Wouldn't Mohammed's version of Christianity be seen as a form of heresy? Also,does Mohammed in this timeline recognize Jesus as the son of God?A major difference between Islam and Christianity is that the Muslims believed that Jesus was a prophet,not the son of God.What are the other differences of this religion from mainstream Christianity?Surely,I can't imagine Patriarchs of the five cities would accept a religion that bans the consumption of alcohol,pork and tolerates polygamy.
 
Last edited:
Problem is really the Trinity. Trinitarian views of Jesus are seen by Muslims as violating tawhid, absolute monotheism; Orthodox Christians aren't huge fans of non-Trinitarians, judging by their treatment of Arians. I really just don't see how you could get either side to compromise on this.
 
Well, there were theories that early Islam was influenced by either Ebionitism or Arianism, which were both Unitarian Christian sects; both the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodoxy regarded Unitarians as mere heretics.
 
If he knelt to Heraclius, he would probably be toppled off by Arabs clans and never arise in a position of power in first place.
 
banning the comsumption of Pork is the least of the problems, since this was something Islam grabbed from the Old testament, and they'll likely find argeement with the Ethiopian coptic church as they've also banned consumption of pork, and it can easily boil down to a theological debate as of what Acts 10:15-16 means, in terms of if the argument bought in acts 10:28 is suggesting that it is allegorical or if can be used more literal
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Wouldn't Mohammed's version of Christianity be seen as a form of heresy? Also,does Mohammed in this timeline recognize Jesus as the son of God?A major difference between Islam and Christianity is that the Muslims believed that Jesus was a prophet,not the son of God.What are the other differences of this religion from mainstream Christianity?Surely,I can't imagine Patriarchs of the five cities would accept a religion that bans the consumption of alcohol,pork and tolerates polygamy.

I fully intend it to be a heresy, but hopefully one that will be accepted sooner or later as a Noble Heresy by the Romans.

Well the first requirement would yes be that Jesus was the Son of God - otherwise it isn't really Christianity. Mohammed would be probably a Prophet, or perhaps an Arab Messiah in the conquering sense, uniting the people under God.

I don't intend for the Patriarchs to accept the 6th immediately, if ever - perhaps the Nestorians, and maaaybe the Copts would back them in some sort of theological politics. Nestorians to have their own Patriarch, and if there are enough left, an Arian Patriarch. Not that any of these would be accepted by the core 5, but they may accept each other. In terms of kneeling, I mean that he acknowledges the Emperor as Vice Gerent of God, in a titular manner, but not in terms of any true temporal power. Just in an attempt to realpolitik the Romans into protecting the Arabs as fellow Christians, or at the very least not to persecute them if they travel within the Empire.

Problem is really the Trinity. Trinitarian views of Jesus are seen by Muslims as violating tawhid, absolute monotheism; Orthodox Christians aren't huge fans of non-Trinitarians, judging by their treatment of Arians. I really just don't see how you could get either side to compromise on this.

Let them have doctrinal differences, I don't really insist that the other 5 recognize the "Patriarch of Mecca", just that Mohammed has the balls to proclaim it, and to try and have it recognized. Hence "Contentious sixth".

Well, there were theories that early Islam was influenced by either Ebionitism or Arianism, which were both Unitarian Christian sects; both the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodoxy regarded Unitarians as mere heretics.

Huzzah, there is hope! A fools hope. But hope nonetheless!

If he knelt to Heraclius, he would probably be toppled off by Arabs clans and never arise in a position of power in first place.

Non-Temporal, explicitly Non-Temporal. I'll have to update my first post to make this clear. I also intend to have him achieve power and dominance before he kneels, I'd only expect it to be triggered in advance if the Romans invade.
 
Non-Temporal, explicitly Non-Temporal. I'll have to update my first post to make this clear. I also intend to have him achieve power and dominance before he kneels, I'd only expect it to be triggered in advance if the Romans invade.

Arbitrarily separating temporal and spiritual powers makes, I'm afraid, little sense in the context of an organized religion; especially when we're talking of a monotheist religion that would be at odds with traditional Arabic rites.

Resistance to Muhammad's preaching wasn't against Islam specifically, but because Islam preched the traditional social-religious structure. Unless we're talking of a Christianism in-name only that would accept and harbour it (and that would be most definitely not accepted by any Christian entity), you'd end up with a power that couldn't be divided between temporal and spiritual.

And using this power to kneel over Romans would be so much of a political heel turn and breaching tribal solidarities, that it would backfire spectacularly for Muhammad.
 
If this is going to happen, you're going to have to count seven patriarchs, not 6-Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, plus the non-Roman patriarchates of Mecca and Selucia-Ctesiphon. Remember that the non-Chalcedonians within the empire weren't really within the patriarchates but at least in Syria essentially set up a parallel hierarchy.
 
Top