WIF Muslim Kievan Rus

In OTL official Christianization of Rus started in the late X century. What if, instead of Christianity, Islam had been chosen?

From a contemporary perspective this would mean:

1st, a greater orientation toward the rising Islamic powers and it usually pays to be on victor's side. The existing trade relations with Byzantines and Italians would not suffer too much: the Muslim traders had been actively operating all the way to the Baltic coast and slave trade was a business too profitable to be destroyed by the doctrinal differences.

2nd, a lesser religious dependency from a foreign power. For quite a while Russian Church was a junior metropolitanate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Ecumenical patriarch appointed the metropolitan, who usually was a Greek, who governed the Church of Rus. The 1st Russian bishop was installed by the Council of Russian bishops in Moscow as Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia only in 1448 and Patriarchate of Moscow was created only in 1589. OTOH, a rather abstract dependency from a Caliph (with, more than once, an option to chose which one) meant a much greater freedom for the local princes.

3rd, polygamy would not have to be abolished.

4th, there would be a problem with drinking prohibition but, realistically, it never disappeared in the Islamic world and could be safely ignored. The important personages (if they cared), could get special permissions from the local spiritual authorities and the rest would just keep drinking.

A long term perspective.... could be interesting.
 
@alexmilman Do you mean to say that the consumption of khamr/intoxicatig beverages or substances, were not affected by the Islamic exchange? The aspect of drinking alcohol is not the only area with which the change occurred, but forcing the sale of alcohol to the status of a black market (if you will) activity. It is not so simple to wave away, especially when one considers that Kiev does not benefit too greatly by conversion in trade links and must submit in terms of prestige to the Caliph of the Abbasid, assuming the conversion is toward the advocated Islam of the Abbasid and not the various opposing sects.

Despite this, I do enjoy the concept of Shi’i or Shurha (Khawarij) spreading toward the region. Both reserve the rulers from submission to the Caliph and in fact, allows a certain level of political leverage against both Byzantium and the Islamic powers. However, it is difficult for myself to imagine a scenario wherein they find any ears within Kiev-Rus. Though, it is an attractive option for me.
 
@alexmilman Do you mean to say that the consumption of khamr/intoxicatig beverages or substances, were not affected by the Islamic exchange? The aspect of drinking alcohol is not the only area with which the change occurred, but forcing the sale of alcohol to the status of a black market (if you will) activity.

With at least one of the Ottoman Sultans being nicknamed "Drunkard" (and quite a few more actively working in the same direction) and with Shah of Iran explicitly asking Tsar of Moscow to send him equipment for the distillation plant and few hundreds gallons of a final product I don't think that it was always just the "black market" thingy. BTW, in Rus circa X century, most of the beverages had been home made and domestically consumed without going to any market. The expensive imported wines had been consumed by the upper crust and these people (everywhere) tend to arrange things to their satisfaction.


Surely, it is. Just tell the local religious figure to give you a document saying that you are permitted to drink by the health reasons. Or simply ignore the whole thing. Who is going to punish you? Caliph? Where is he and where are you and why exactly should you pay any attention? In the worst case scenario, just send him some expensive furs.

[QUOTE="John7755 يوحنا, post: 17120045, member: 84504"][USER=112942]
especially when one considers that Kiev does not benefit too greatly by conversion in trade links and must submit in terms of prestige to the Caliph of the Abbasid, assuming the conversion is toward the advocated Islam of the Abbasid and not the various opposing sects.
[/QUOTE]

Caliph is far away and he is not in a business of appointing your local church figures while in OTL these appointments had been done by Constantinople until XV century. And you don't have that multi-level Christian religious hierarchy to start with.


[QUOTE="John7755 يوحنا, post: 17120045, member: 84504"][USER=112942]
Despite this, I do enjoy the concept of Shi’i or Shurha (Khawarij) spreading toward the region. Both reserve the rulers from submission to the Caliph and in fact, allows a certain level of political leverage against both Byzantium and the Islamic powers. However, it is difficult for myself to imagine a scenario wherein they find any ears within Kiev-Rus. Though, it is an attractive option for me.
[/QUOTE]

Various sects may or may not appear, just as various deviations/sects appeared in the Russian Orthodox Church. Their chance for gaining a wider popularity will be greatly increasing if they demonstrate a relaxed attitude toward drinking. This would be definitely a winner.
[/user][/user]
 
With at least one of the Ottoman Sultans being nicknamed "Drunkard" (and quite a few more actively working in the same direction) and with Shah of Iran explicitly asking Tsar of Moscow to send him equipment for the distillation plant and few hundreds gallons of a final product I don't think that it was always just the "black market" thingy. BTW, in Rus circa X century, most of the beverages had been home made and domestically consumed without going to any market. The expensive imported wines had been consumed by the upper crust and these people (everywhere) tend to arrange things to their satisfaction.


Surely, it is. Just tell the local religious figure to give you a document saying that you are permitted to drink by the health reasons. Or simply ignore the whole thing. Who is going to punish you? Caliph? Where is he and where are you and why exactly should you pay any attention? In the worst case scenario, just send him some expensive furs.

[USER=112942]

Caliph is far away and he is not in a business of appointing your local church figures while in OTL these appointments had been done by Constantinople until XV century. And you don't have that multi-level Christian religious hierarchy to start with.


[USER=112942]

Various sects may or may not appear, just as various deviations/sects appeared in the Russian Orthodox Church. Their chance for gaining a wider popularity will be greatly increasing if they demonstrate a relaxed attitude toward drinking. This would be definitely a winner.
[/user][/user]
What kind of sorcery is this?

BTW I don't think the Rus can just chose Islam, you need to have good Islamic success during the 9th century in Anatolia think, maybe Constantinople is seized by either them or the Bulgarians even.
 
@alexmilman I do not know of your Ottoman example, however those days are different from the times of the Abbasiyya. Further, the Ottoman Caliph did not say khamr is halal, he may drink, this if kufr asghar, minor sin. It does not take one out of the fold of Islam, however it lowers your imaam and taqwa (faith and piety). However, if one is to say, khamr is completely halal, do not listen to Allah; this is kufr Akbar and the Muslim have baraa (enmity) from this person.

Which Shah and of what period? The rulings are likely different for the Shi’i regarding some of these issues and certainly a ruler of these can make exceptions. Is’mail I al-Safaviyya was a self styled diety and was declared taghoot by the scholars of the day. So, this example does not exhibit credit for the discussion at hand.

The rest of your post can be credited as an insult upon Islam, frankly. Assuming Muslims have no faith or opinions and are so base that they can give up commands from Allah, for a chest of fur. Any ruler of Kiev that sends a letter regarding making khamr an accepted product, will be declared a kafr regardless of politics. Further, no Ulema would do business with such a ruler and the Kiev-Rus will not benefit from such conversion.

The Caliph is not a bishop, his position is not that of spiritual leader. He is a temporal ruler to whom all Muslim must submit. Abbasid period politics revolves around this concept and divorce from it, within your tl, renders your Abbasid realm to the category of asb.

Why would a Muslim Ulema from the Abbasid Caliph sent to serve you, agree to forge an Hadith? He can simply leave, or he can advise against this. Further, the conversion should come with accepting certain practices if the Abbasid state and submission to it, thus a changing cultural outlook. If he breaks the trust of his new patrons by claiming khamr is halal for you, then he gains nothing from conversion.
 
Chosen by whom? Religious conversion, whatever the popular narrative, is rarely a (purely) top-down thing. Nor is it frequently inevitable. Two often, I think, based on myth and strategy games and just pure convenience we have this idea that ruler choice drives religious convictions on a societal level - a sort of Cuius regio, eius religio taken out of context and applied to parts of history where it's just not applicable.

The question is which elements of Rus society stand to benefit from adopting some form of Islam?
 
@alexmilman I do not know of your Ottoman example,

Wow! Then probably it would make some sense for you to start looking at some practice instead of a theory. It was Selim II the Sot.

however those days are different from the times of the Abbasiyya. [/USER]

Yes, but not for Prince Vladimir and his likes. For them Caliph's claim to overall supremacy would be an empty sound. Baghdad was far away from Kiev what and its ruler could do if he is unhappy?


Further, the Ottoman Caliph did not say khamr is halal, he may drink, this if kufr asghar, minor sin. It does not take one out of the fold of Islam, however it lowers your imaam and taqwa (faith and piety). However, if one is to say, khamr is completely halal, do not listen to Allah; this is kufr Akbar and the Muslim have baraa (enmity) from this person.

This is all (probably) fine and correct but a Prince of Rus circa X century would understand that mumbo-jumbo approximately as much as I do and care even less. "Piety" (just as in its Christian version) would mean for him formally following the rituals without getting into any theological depths.[/user][/user]
 
Last edited:
number 4 is pretty interesting. its actually a well researched idea called something like the Vodka hashish line. i don't know how credible it is taken, but it pops up all the time when reading about the steppes conversion to islam or Christianity. a very simple explanation is above a certain latitude its too bloody cold to live without alcohol, so they never would have adopted Islam.
 
What kind of sorcery is this?
No sorcery whatsoever, just an official legend about Vladimir's choice of a state religion (contenders: Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy);)

BTW I don't think the Rus can just chose Islam, you need to have good Islamic success during the 9th century in Anatolia think, maybe Constantinople is seized by either them or the Bulgarians even.

Why in Anatolia? They were already a "regional power" which contributed to the destruction of Khazar Kahanate and was present in Caucasus. Existing trade connections between them and Kievan Rus are well-known and actually their traders had been much more active on Rus territory (all the way to the Baltic coast) than the Byzantines.
 
No sorcery whatsoever, just an official legend about Vladimir's choice of a state religion (contenders: Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Orthodoxy);)



Why in Anatolia? They were already a "regional power" which contributed to the destruction of Khazar Kahanate and was present in Caucasus. Existing trade connections between them and Kievan Rus are well-known and actually their traders had been much more active on Rus territory (all the way to the Baltic coast) than the Byzantines.
No I meant the weird thing with the reply and hyperlink.

Because it was the Viking participation in the Byzantine armies that influenced Rus into the Christian sphere, plus the economical influence and location pushed Vladimir to seek diplomatic ties, IOTL through marriages.
 
number 4 is pretty interesting. its actually a well researched idea called something like the Vodka hashish line. i don't know how credible it is taken, but it pops up all the time when reading about the steppes conversion to islam or Christianity. a very simple explanation is above a certain latitude its too bloody cold to live without alcohol, so they never would have adopted Islam.

Except alchohol actually lowers body heat generation, as it's a depressant rather than stimulant. I've always heard it had more to do with prohibition of pork and blood consumption in terms of dissuading people in cold forest and bog climates from adopting Islam. Pigs were big scavenger livestock in marginal lands, and the northern diet was a lot more meat-heavy in general. But I may be misremembering.

As for appealing to the Rus, a good POD might be Vlad taking ambassadors from Baghdad rather than the Volga Bulgars as his main sample of Islamic culture. Considering you're competing against the splendor of Byzantium Islam would need to put its best foot forward.
 
Chosen by whom? Religious conversion, whatever the popular narrative, is rarely a (purely) top-down thing.

Except for the cases when it is. Vladimir was able to enforce Christianization of Novgorod by a purely military force, Khan Uzbek enforced conversion of the Golden Horde to Islam, again, by force. In both cases it was an issue of just being stronger than the potential opposition. Of course, in both cases there would be a need for some support but why do you think that the Muslims had been completely absent in the Kievan Rus?

And, BTW, as far as I can tell, religious reform conducted by Henry VIII was pretty much a top down thing triggered by the personal reasons.

Nor is it frequently inevitable.

Who said anything about something being inevitable? It was all just a matter of probability, the interests, as seen at the specific moment, and the existing connections. Each of these factors could change comparing to OTL.

Two often, I think, based on myth and strategy games and just pure convenience we have this idea that ruler choice drives religious convictions on a societal level - a sort of Cuius regio, eius religio taken out of context and applied to parts of history where it's just not applicable.

The question is which elements of Rus society stand to benefit from adopting some form of Islam?

Conversion of Rus involved very little in the terms of "convictions" and the same goes, for example, in the later conversion of Lithuania (Vitold had been "converted" 3 times, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism, as a matter of a political convenience). The simple folks had been ordered to pass through certain rituals with nobody unnecessarily caring about their proper indoctrination. The higher ranks mostly had to follow ruler's example to remain on his good side, again, without a proper indoctrination.

Which elements of Rus society were supposed to benefit from adopting Orthodoxy? Most probably only the ruling class because religion preached, among other things, that the subjects must be obedient. Is Islam preaching anything different?

BTW, in case of Vladimir and his entourage polygamy was an important bonus: nobody could tell for sure how many "wives" Vladimir had.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Chosen by whom? Religious conversion, whatever the popular narrative, is rarely a (purely) top-down thing. Nor is it frequently inevitable. Two often, I think, based on myth and strategy games and just pure convenience we have this idea that ruler choice drives religious convictions on a societal level - a sort of Cuius regio, eius religio taken out of context and applied to parts of history where it's just not applicable.

The question is which elements of Rus society stand to benefit from adopting some form of Islam?

This is a great point, and would be interesting to see developed.

The rest of your post can be credited as an insult upon Islam, frankly. Assuming Muslims have no faith or opinions and are so base that they can give up commands from Allah, for a chest of fur.

Sorry if Alex offended you, but some background may give some context. He was born in an officially atheist country and then moved to the west. That background may lend itself to cynicism about religion, and cynicism about any ideology.
 
Which elements of Rus society were supposed to benefit from adopting Orthodoxy? Most probably only the ruling class because religion preached, among other things, that the subjects must be obedient. Is Islam preaching anything different?

To be frank, I think the conversion of the Rus had more to do with the massive cultural prestige and presence of the Roman Empire to the south, and cultural exchanges that were already ongoing. Christianity was already heavily present in what would become Russia the time of their ruler's official conversion. That Christianity was almost certainly already more aligned with the eastern rites of the Romans. Plus, the Romans themselves are much more likely to align with a ruler of their same religious background, so you gain mutual support through conversion. There was a strong, well attested political element to the decision. If the pagan religion had been sufficiently strong in Russia, I expect you'd see Vladimir executed and dumped in a river for his choice of religion. There must necessarily already have been a good bit of support for the religion. The early Rus were not stupid or uninterested or happy to just "go through the motions" although I'm sure that in the face of persecution many did simply "go through the motions."

I see Vladimir more along the lines of a Constantine - beginning the process of formalizing the existence of something that's already well underway.

I doubt this has anything to do with a religion preaching obedience to kings - which isn't exactly a primary tenant of Christianity or paganism or any other obvious religious choice. Besides the later anachronisms, I think the real choice for the Rus was between their traditional religion and the religion of the most prominent southern nation. Best way to get a Muslim Rus is to see Constantinople in Arab hands early on, in my opinion.



But I digress - I realize this thread is about the "what if" element - and I think that you'd necessarily need some degree of Arab/Muslim presence in the Pontic region already for it to be plausible. I'm inclined to agree with both you and John that such an Islam would be rather divergent. Consider perhaps the divergences of Islam in Spain.

Otherwise, a lot of Russia's history is bound by geography and circumstance. Much would remain the same, but much would also differ - expect to see, at a minimum, Russia not considered part of "Europe" but rather as something fundamentally alien - which would be very interesting as the Germans and others start pushing eastward.
 
prohibition of pork

This is one of those things that makes a hell of a lot of sense in a hot desert climate and absolutely no sense in deep woodlands. A pig is a pretty dang unclean and destructive animal in a good many contexts. They're also a great source of meat and in climates where food is not always abundant and the growing season is short could probably save your life.

Which makes you wonder - would a missionary religion that came out of Germania ban a different arbitrary, less useful animal? Dunno if that's ever been touched on.
 
To be frank, I think the conversion of the Rus had more to do with the massive cultural prestige and presence of the Roman Empire to the south, and cultural exchanges that were already ongoing.

Of course. This was exactly the case in OTL.

Christianity was already heavily present in what would become Russia the time of their ruler's official conversion.

It was present. How heavily was it present in each specific place is a different issue. Novgorod was baptized by force but in Kiev things went (AFAIK) reasonably smoothly.




But I digress - I realize this thread is about the "what if" element - and I think that you'd necessarily need some degree of Arab/Muslim presence in the Pontic region already for it to be plausible.

You are forgetting presence on Caucasus/Caspian area - an important trade route by Volga.

I'm inclined to agree with both you and John that such an Islam would be rather divergent. Consider perhaps the divergences of Islam in Spain.

No argument there.

Otherwise, a lot of Russia's history is bound by geography and circumstance. Much would remain the same, but much would also differ - expect to see, at a minimum, Russia not considered part of "Europe" but rather as something fundamentally alien - which would be very interesting as the Germans and others start pushing eastward.

Keep in mind that "Drang Nach Osten" is invention of the Polish journalist of (IIRC) the late XIX. :)

German Eastward expansion was limited by a number of the objective reasons and, as far as the image is involved, Russian had been described as the "hordes" even by the German generals of WWII.

And, as for the self-image, "we are the Scythians, we are the Asiates" (Alexander Block) ;)
 
Of course. This was exactly the case in OTL.

Yeah, I think that's what I was trying to say - the big problem with the alt history you're proposing is how do we stop the spread of Christianity and the prestige of Rome - both need to be mitigated or weakened until Islam has time to come on the scene in a big enough way.

This will in turn determine the answers to a lot of the questions about what the future looks like from there.
 
Sorry if Alex offended you, but some background may give some context. He was born in an officially atheist country and then moved to the west. That background may lend itself to cynicism about religion, and cynicism about any ideology.

Sure, however, to assume all humans of the past are of his opinion that religion and fealty to a deity are meaningless, is a flawed ’skill’. Then to say, I should practice, instead of theorize...
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Despite this, I do enjoy the concept of Shi’i or Shurha (Khawarij) spreading toward the region. Both reserve the rulers from submission to the Caliph and in fact, allows a certain level of political leverage against both Byzantium and the Islamic powers. However, it is difficult for myself to imagine a scenario wherein they find any ears within Kiev-Rus. Though, it is an attractive option for me.

I found this an interesting concept as well. Would those schools have any less reason to be adopted than Sunnism?
 
If you ask me it is highly unlikely. Christianization was happening and Yaroslav the Wise just decided not to fight the inevitable. The great pressure towards Christianization of the Kyivan Rus' as present during Svyatoslav's reign too, with his mother asking him to convert. He only didn't convery because he was worried about his druzhina (or household guard) no longer respecting him for abandoning paganism. Obviously, it worked fine for Yaroslav since Christianity was always well entrenched in Kyivan culture. Islam on the other hand just doesn't make logical sense. Disregarding religious arguments, there just isn't a good secular reason for the Rus' to convert to Islam. Trade was better with the Byzantines and the internal conflicts that would result from adopting Islam, as opposed to Christianity, would not make it worth it.
 
Top