With a POD after 1600, cause as much conversion away from Islam as possible

Stop right there. This isn't about any religion - it's not like christianity or europeans were in any way superior and so they embraced the scientific revolution and humanism. In fact in the pre-black death it was Islam that embraced a form of proto-Rennaissance while Europe was a religious fanatic cesspool. It is the underlying socio-economic basis that has changed. Thus regardless of what religion you give to those people, virtually nothing would happen apart from changing the symbol on top of the churches.

Due to the black death, the profitability of direct land ownership disappeared in Europe on which the church's power was based on, while the plague collapsed global trade by literally erasing every single long-term trade routes. Later on these trade routes were rebuilt by the Portuguese, then by the other European states, while the Americas were added into global trade, to which everybody was connected to through Europe. This means that the basis of power became land tenements and commerce, making the gentry and the bourgeoisie the ruling class instead of the clergy and haute aristocracy who prefer naturally prefer social flexibility and pragmatism, while all of humanity's commercial wealth got concentrated in Europe, while the Islam world was tossed into poverty.

It is suffice to say that while the plague reduced Egypt's population from 8 to 5 million from 1345 to 1516, the Mameluk state nevertheless remained powerful. But after da Gama sailed to India in 1498, Egypt went bankrupt and the Ottoman Empire swallowed the entire Mameluk Empire by 1516. Afterwards Egypt's population shrank from 5 to only million from 1516 to 1798, the date of the quasi-census by the French. This means that percentage-wise, the loss of the Indian trade was more devastating to Egypt than the Black Death both demographically and economically. Just imagine the stories of the black death in Europe, and considering that this was worth than that.

If you wish to know a scenario about secularising Islam, then think about a scenario that keeps or moves the muslim world on top in some way. I could think of a massive reorganisation of the Ottoman Empire in the 15th century, and then the rebuilding of Pharaoh Necho's Suez Canal after 1516, and thus the monopolisation of the Asian trade by an enlightened Ottoman Empire.

I would advise away from the type of reading of history that you are seemingly using. The notion that Islam had this bountiful liberal Renaissance is myth and fantasy and in fact Islamic scholars in the 1300s and onwards never saw such period as enlightened nor golden except the Rashidun. What you are spreading and what mainstream Arab history advocates is a modern concoction of pan Arabic idealism and anti western leftist revisionism. It has no place in legitimate study of Arab history.


However, I will leave it there unless challenged further, still I advise away from this mode of thought and study of Islamic history, as you will eventually in this view run into a situation likely at a higher university or such where you are hit with the hard facts and completely at a loss with what you had missed. This is mainly due to the fact that often the modern golden age theory is based on second hand accounts, modern revisionism and a tiny amount of sources. The theory that I propose and advocate, which is the continual golden age theory or the non golden age theory is based on a widespread outlook on Arabic sources only from the period and a firm reading of Islamic Fiqh and the military history of the region.


Further, I can expand, however I will not unless pushed.


EDIT: also this is not any general history readers fault. These ideas are usually peddled by European historians who specialize in European subjects and are ignorant of the Arab history and the complexity of it and simply rely on revisionist modern musings and compare it to Europe for the purpose of showing the backwardness of Europe. This view however is extremely weak as it lacks firm support by sources.

Also the view that the Arab world was less religiously fanatical than Middle Ages Europe or dark ages Europe is laughable at best.
 
Last edited:
I.e. You need a POD before 1600 to get the socioeconomic conditions in place for philosophical liberalism. I never said Europeans were innarely superior. I just think European secularism came from a particular set of historical circumstances, not least a long-existing theoretical division between religious authority and secular authority, that is hard to replicate elsewhere.

Your entire point is about converting muslims into something else, while my point is that it is irrelevant what you convert them into, it wouldn't change anything. I mean compare Bosnian muslims to Ugandan christians - it's all about socio-economic circumstances and not about religion.
 
I would advise away from the type of reading of history that you are seemingly using. The notion that Islam had this bountiful liberal Renaissance is myth and fantasy and in fact Islamic scholars in the 1300s and onwards never saw such period as enlightened nor golden except the Rashidun. What you are spreading and what mainstream Arab history advocates is a modern concoction of pan Arabic idealism and anti western leftist revisionism. It has no place in legitimate study of Arab history.

If only i even mentioned such a thing, but i was merely talking about relatives, not absolutes. The fact that in the 700-1300 period Arab traders were everywhere and that the Middle East was a "pinnacle of science" (i know, strong word, evil, revisionism) of sorts are undeniable, and that was my point.

also this is not any general history readers fault. These ideas are usually peddled by European historians who specialize in European subjects and are ignorant of the Arab history and the complexity of it and simply rely on revisionist modern musings and compare it to Europe for the purpose of showing the backwardness of Europe. This view however is extremely weak as it lacks firm support by sources.

I had Janet Abu-Lughod and Sevket Pamuk in my mind, the former being an American-Palestinian, the latter a contemporary Turk, but as you wish, ebil euro-centrist muslims ruining everything.

Also the view that the Arab world was less religiously fanatical than Middle Ages Europe or dark ages Europe is laughable at best.

Not religiously fanatic and less religiously fanatic are worlds apart, and i am going to stand by the latter, especially considering how i described it, which you haven't even mentioned in your tirade. Before the black death the church in Europe was dependent on its massive land holdings that it directly administered, while since it had strong connections all over Europe, it means that also filled in the position of bankers, the two of which led to immense wealth. In the same period, the muslim traders, bankers and capitalists of sorts (or "moneyers and wealthy families" if this figure of speech is less revisionist for you) were a powerful group with connections everywhere from London to Guandong (the golden dirhams of King Offa to the muslim outposts in Southern China that persisted for a century, both in the 8th - 9th centuries). This means that the relative power of the clergy dominated in Europe, but the relative power of this proto-bourgeoisie could dominate in the muslim world, or at least its centres in Egypt and Iraq, which means that society as a whole and its outlook were less religiously fanatical. Eventually the mongols, the plague and the East Indies companies crushed the muslim commercial empire and raised the european one, while the black death and reformation significantly weakened the clergy in Europe, while the bourgeoisie rose, leading to the opposite effect.

Seriously, your entire response seemed more of a simple argument for the sake of argument than anything else.
 
If only i even mentioned such a thing, but i was merely talking about relatives, not absolutes. The fact that in the 700-1300 period Arab traders were everywhere and that the Middle East was a "pinnacle of science" (i know, strong word, evil, revisionism) of sorts are undeniable, and that was my point.



I had Janet Abu-Lughod and Sevket Pamuk in my mind, the former being an American-Palestinian, the latter a contemporary Turk, but as you wish, ebil euro-centrist muslims ruining everything.



Not religiously fanatic and less religiously fanatic are worlds apart, and i am going to stand by the latter, especially considering how i described it, which you haven't even mentioned in your tirade. Before the black death the church in Europe was dependent on its massive land holdings that it directly administered, while since it had strong connections all over Europe, it means that also filled in the position of bankers, the two of which led to immense wealth. In the same period, the muslim traders, bankers and capitalists of sorts (or "moneyers and wealthy families" if this figure of speech is less revisionist for you) were a powerful group with connections everywhere from London to Guandong (the golden dirhams of King Offa to the muslim outposts in Southern China that persisted for a century, both in the 8th - 9th centuries). This means that the relative power of the clergy dominated in Europe, but the relative power of this proto-bourgeoisie could dominate in the muslim world, or at least its centres in Egypt and Iraq, which means that society as a whole and its outlook were less religiously fanatical. Eventually the mongols, the plague and the East Indies companies crushed the muslim commercial empire and raised the european one, while the black death and reformation significantly weakened the clergy in Europe, while the bourgeoisie rose, leading to the opposite effect.

Seriously, your entire response seemed more of a simple argument for the sake of argument than anything else.

Janet Lughob's studies is partly correct in the world systems theory, however it is somewhat idealistic. It rarely builds from contemporary accounts and usually shuns those histories. Further I disagree that there ever was a collapse of world systems in the Islamic world until the decline of the Mughals, which was brought about by the Maratha and Afsharid. I certainly do not feel that the Safavid period which oddly surpassed the previous Muslim cultures in terms of cultural etiquette and art was simply a collapse brought about by the intrusive colonial voyages of Portugal. She also denies the relevance of the Timurids in its artistic achievements and the following Mughal achievements which frankly surpass in relevance most of what the Abbasid period created in terms of culture.


Sevket writes on economics.....

Also them being Muslim means nothing, I never said that the golden age theory was Eurocentric. Quite the opposite, it is either one of a few things

- PanArabic idealism
-Lazy history, by this I mean who often cover a specific area like "Abbasid science" but neglect to read either the contemporary sources and the overarching Abbasid period.
- or the vast and wide European echo chamber of baseless compliments to the Islamic community.

Further are any of these authors operating primarily on the historians of those time periods and in Arabic? I know Sevket isn't, he is operating within the Turkosphere.

700-1300, I work within specifics, give me a period of Islamic history and I will explain it. However I will give my most favored Islamic state, the Abbasid period.

In the period of Islamic conquests, as a result of the momentum of the Riddah wars and the various wars led by Muhammad (SAW), the Muslim state absorbed great amounts of land. This vast land was then expanded by the Umayyads with continual war on its neighbors through Baqqiyyah wa-Tattamadad, remaining and expanding, a constant wave of invasion upon Dar al-Harb (the same as Dar al-Kufr). The call was to war until all Fitnah out of the works as was instructed them by Allah and by Muhammad (SAW). This however, required the use of Arab tribes to their greatest extent, separating them from their traditional lives as Arabs spread far and wide to wage war against the kingdoms of Europe, Central Asia, Africa, India, etc...


This Umayyad period, was the pinnacle of the Arab warrior and the concept of Arab primacy over everyone, as the embodiment of the spirits of honor and strength and the pillar of Islam. A reliance the Umayyads followed well. However the rise of the Abbasid powers saw the end to this system, which essentially was the extension of the final pieces of Jahil, the concepts of the Arab before Islam.

As a result, the Abbasids rose to power on the alliance of minority groups. This led to the rise of science as vast numbers of works began to be created by scientists and books of the past translated from Persian and Syriac to Arabic. The translation of the classics, which was made under the auspices that these Greeks were Muslim, after all the Quran claimed (according to Tafsir of the time) that Dhul-Qurnayn was Akexander the Great and that he was Muslim (even ibn Taymiyyah believed this).

However this growth in science was paired with a serious rise in backwards thought that was even more oppressive than the previous Umayyad Baqqiyyah wa Tattamadad. By this, I refer to the creation of the Mu'Tazila and their various views.

Originally an Islamic sect that believed reason was Allah or that through reason one could understand Allah, more so than his actual words. However it also believed in extreme absolutes such as; Allah's names and attributes (Asma wa Sifat) cannot be pronounced nor can one have any semblance to them, Allah punishes eternally (like the Khawarij and Ibadi), Allah does not punish certain acts like gluttony. Then the absolute main position of Wasit ibn Ata, that the Quran was created at an unknown time as opposed to the Islamic view that it is uncreated, this is covered in detail by Ibn Taymiyyah.

This sect, began to dominate the Abbasid courts in the 200s AH. This period led to several things:

- the disenfranchisement of the Arab under the foot of minorities of ethnicity. This included most importantly military positions which were quickly filled by Mamluk slaves. The Mu'Tazila based upon an odd scientific reasoning mixed with Arab folklore, created a certain racial hierarchy (see al-Jahiz). With Zanj fulfilling the roles of hard labor and Turks in the positions of military power (which starved the Arabs of their previous sustenance, which was booty in war) and Arabs as rulers (which is laughable as almost always, the Turks ruled the court). The result of all this is the complete disenfranchisement of the Arab in every way, this led directly to the fall of the Abbasid period and removed any serious Arab rule for hundreds of years, not exactly a golden era, huh?


- the brutal repression of Shi'i under the new law codes of the Abbasid, which denied Shi'i access to Najaf-Karbala and stopped all pilgrimages for them to Qufa. Further, the Abbasid state brutally attacked Shi'i who were not within Taqiyyah. This led as a result to major Shi'i revolts against Abbasid power and the further militarization of the villages and towns of Iraq.

- the Mihna or the inquisition. A plan by the Abbasid state to enforce the Mu'Tazila view that the Quran was created. This led to the repression of many Arab scholars who held to the Sunni position of the Quran. Look to the examples of scholars of extreme merit who were murdered by this policy or the example of Ibn Hanbal (father of Hanbali Fiqh) who was tortured for his faith and led to rebellions in Baghdad in outrage of the barbarism of the Abbasid rule.

The signs of this, is in the extremely vicious rebellions which followed which drained Iraq of every bit of wealth it had inherited from the Sassanids as the Zanj burned their way across al-Sawad and then in the short time after led to the rise of the Qarmatians and the dismantling of the Kabba, the Khawarij revolt of Ninewah which depopulated complete areas. The Abbasids despite scientific growth was in a constant state of crisis and military defeat or woes in general, looking like a golden age?

Also economically it was already moving towards backwardness, relying heavily on the Shar'i model, it lacked the rudiments of capitalism and even into the Ottoman period relied on slavery for economic growth, far more so than the average European or Chinese. Not to mention the exact same restrictions on banking and lending as in Catholic Europe.


King Offa, is this an Islamic ruler of the Arab world? His name certainly isn't nor the title.

The Arab bourgeoisie class? If bourgeois only refers to merchants far from home then perhaps, however the Abbasid period relied upon strictly controlling economics of the land in terms of enforcing Shar'i and Hadood in relation to the sell of goods.

For instance some restrictions included:

- sale of alcohol
- sale of pork & for brevity any other haram substances
-giving of Ribbah or interest
-mixing of meats
- restrictions on land tenor
- prohibition of Maysir, or situations in which the result was unknown
- prohibition pf Gharar, speculative transactions
-etc

For more information look up Fiqh al-Muamalat


You mention the clergy owning the banking system and such in Europe, of course but the state owned the banking system in the Islamic states, not particularly liberal, huh?

Also in what way is clergy ownership of the banks evidence of religious fanaticism? Especially when you have in the Arab world you have rebellions at massive scales over religion or the like, with cities completely depopulated and entire areas burned or turned into backwater land. You are speaking about a society in which every 50 years there is some religious man in a village giving rousing speechs for war against the Dawlah, where we have religious sects come about of extreme fanaticism, such as;

Khawarij
Mu'Tazila (after their Ascension to power they looked very similar to the Catholic Church)
Qarmatians and other extreme Ghulat
Khurramiyyah
Nizari like the Hashashin
Safaviyya, etc...

I guarantee you that you have read nothing on these subjects. You likely only focus on economic history, as opposed to Fiqh.

The Mongols were inconsequential. They simply destroyed a dying beast who had survived far past its age. The Abbasid state should've been done in for centuries by the Buyyids or Saffarids. Their entire land was ruined in rebellions for an entire century with both extreme corruption and decadence and religious persecution, further it is laughable to be the Amir al-Mu'minin when you are an Opium addict.

Again, the view of Mongol destructionism is based upon mythical iterations by pan Arabists and idealists. For instance, the Ilkhanid state saw a second growth of science, more so than the late Abbasid period. However, let me list to you accomplished Islamic states following the Mongol conquest:

Ottomans, most obvious. This was the greatest of all Islamic states, conquering al-Rum and being the last caliph. It also surpassed every Islamic state in terms of longevity.

The various iterations of Mamluk rule of Egypt. This saw the pinnacle of Futuwwa and other etiquettes of Islamic society that still exist today, it refined the old Arab concepts to a fine point. This period in terms of actual books produced surpasses the supposed golden age as well. Further look to Ibn Taymiyyah, he wrote more than any other Faqih before him and surpassed them verily.

Safavids, the state which essentially created and standardized modern Iranian culture. Further if you know anything about Islamic art then you know of the Safavid miniature. As well, this period surpassed any other Islamic state situated in Iran in terms of every possible measurement.

Timurids, what more is developing the majority of the Central Asian cities with scientists, architects, Faqih, etc...? Samarqand is an obvious example of the Timurids.

Mughals, must I say more?

All were defeated either by internal contradictions like the Mamluk succession crises, the decadence of the Safavid, military failure and overextension of the Mughal, age and decay of the Ottomans, weak succession laws of the Timurids, ethnic strife of the Ilkhans, etc.... None of these except arguably the Mamluk have anything to do with Europe or the Black Death.

Also when was the Islamic commercial empire destroyed? Muslim merchants still resided in Ming China, Muslim merchants from Oman flourished into the 20th century, etc... They just were out competed, possibly due to the fact in Europe we had true intellectual growth, one not of practicality as observed in China and the Arab world but one of abstract thought (e.g enlightenment).

Further, my argument was not for head taking, my argument is for the reading of Islamic history as its own, rather than the mirrored Europe history spread by hate filled Pan Arabists and anti colonialists or the mystical views of the idealist echo chamber.
 
Where is my popcorn! @John7755 يوحنا - holy wall of text!

My recommendation for a post-1600s POD, - the ASB option is a massive earthquake that levels Mecca - that would probably cause consternation, but alternatively, the rise and defeat of the Mahdi in Sudan, rather than the Mahdi dying of disease. Better yet - a very successful Mahdi that rises and brings the Ottomans to a limp, then the Persians (or vice versa), before turning on British Egypt. The near-prophetic success of this Mahdi, followed my a successful counter campaign that ends with the bombardment of Mecca could certainly throw the muslim world into disarray.

I hypothesise (admittedly based on very little), that the demoralisation of a crushed Mahdi, and a wrecked Mecca would mean little unity through the faith, and in fact many alternative visions of Islam being presented with varying levels of success. I'm not sure if the British could control the region effectively, without a local group to do the legwork.

Without Mecca and the Hajj to centre around, and the most hardcore faithful defeated in battle - if a British, or British-Aligned (or alternative power aligned) faction creates an economic success (i.e. The Arabian Republic), which would be easy if there is an oil boom, we could see the Arab world be less "Muslim" and more "Arab" - and more built around the central philosophy of the successful faction, which could be communist, liberal, etc. In fact, Britain could support a Mega-Jordan, a Parliamentary Arab Republic, as a protectorate, which considering the war that just took place, I doubt the British would support if it is was particularly faithful.

Part of the fallout is "What happens to a weakened Ottoman State", and "What happens to the Persians", but IOTL one became a secular republic, and the other a manipulated Shahdom-into-Theocracy, so it all depends on who intervenes. Pro-France Turkey? Pro-Italian Persia? Who knows.
 
A POD after 1600 is very difficult. The later you wait, the harder it gets. You probably need an event that severely damages the prestige of Islam, puts lots of Muslims under the rule of a different religion, and have that religion be able to appeal to its Muslim subjects, perhaps because their own identity is very fluid in the pre-modern age before mass education and communication.

The best case scenario is some kind of Eastern Orthodox revival that destroys the Ottoman Empire and reconquers much of the Middle East. Anatolia reverts back to Christian Orthodoxy, Eastern Christianity revives and spreads as Georgians, Armenians, Maronites, etc. expand. In the West, this allows Spain to take the entire Maghreb, and the population there slowly converts to Roman Catholicism. Arabia itself and Persia remains Muslim, as Egypt likely does as well. This is difficult because 1600 is near the height of Ottoman power.

Let's pick a POD right before 1600, so it is a cheat. IOTL, the Ottomans won the Battle of Keresztes in 1596. However, it was almost a Hapsburg victory. Furthermore, the sultan himself, Mehmed III was at the battle. Let's say the Hapsburgs not only win the battle, but capture Mehmed III plunging the Ottomans into chaos. Mehmed was not a very good ruler. There were power intrigues in Constantinople while he lived, and in Anatolia there were the Jelali Revolts.

First, the Hapsburgs use their victory to consolidate control over Hungary. Michael the Brave of Wallachia uses the opportunity to overthrow Ottoman suzerainty and unites with Moldavia. He then join forces with the Bulgarians (who participated in the First Tarnovo Uprising in 1598 IOTL) who rebel. With the Ottoman army defeated, the sultan in Hapsburg's hands, and Constantinople divided politically, the Bulgarian revolt achieves ridiculous success. Not only does are the Bulgarians liberated, but they establish a new Bulgarian Empire under Tsar Near-ASB I, one of those thunderbolt figures from history that can never be successfully predicted like Genghis Khan, Napoleon, or Alexander. His wife is Mary Sue I. The Serbians and Greeks likewise take opportunity to free themselves. The Ottomans have now lost all of Europe outside Constantinople. Let's say the Bulgarians live up to their former imperial fancies and rule a common Orthodox empire with their religious compatriots.

Unfortunately for them, the Jerali Revolts occupy the Ottomans in Anatolia so they can't deal with the rebellion. At this time the Hapsburgs decide to release Mehmed III for substantial cash. The payment weakens the Ottomans at the worst time, and in exchange they get an incompetent leader who can't deal with the problems now facing the empire. The Ottomans might have survived and even reconquered Europe, but at this moment Safavid Persia decides to invade. It concentrates all Ottoman attention and efforts against them, but the Ottomans lose (IOTL, the Ottomans and Safavids fought from 1603-1618 which ended in a decisive Ottoman defeat). After a severe defeat at Persian hands, the new Bulgarian Empire strikes. It conquers Constantinople and invades western Anatolia. The Bulgarian Emperor is crowned in Constantinople as new the Emperor of Rome leading to a new Orthodox revival.

With the Ottomans in shambles, the rest of their Empire revolts and establishes their own sultanates. Over the coming decades, a succession of strong leaders makes the Bulgar-neoByzantine Empire a force in the Middle East. Armenia and Georgia are liberated, and they even move south taking back the old Crusader state coast. The native Christian populations revive. Much of Anataolia reconverts over time. Spain takes advantage of the situation in the Mediterranean and conquers the whole of the Maghreb. Jews and Muslims gradually move to Egypt allowing Spain to change the demography of North Africa through Christian settlement and conversion. By 1700, Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and the Maghreb are now under Christian control.

Further bad news happens as particularly bad leadership in Egypt allows the Bulgar-Byzantines to invade and conquer Egypt. With Bulgarian resources stretched thin, the Tsar in Constantinople allows the Coptic Christians to control Egypt which revives the Church there. Meanwhile, the collapse of Muslim Power in the Mediterranean leads to all sorts of butterflies. The Portuguese, Spanish, and Dutch take advantage in the East Indies and turn back the spread of Islam there as local potentates convert to Christianity or throw out Muslim traders and revive the local religion. It also affects the development of the Mughal Empire whose Shahs in the early 17th century were particularly open minded and tolerant. Instead of Akbar's reforms being reverse by Shah Jahan, they continue. This, for the Mughals, is unfortunate as it leads to division. A radical Muslim rebellion to restore traditional sharia fails to return the Mughals to its past. Instead it destroys the unity of the empire and enables local Hindu potentates to reclaim lands formerly ruled by Muslim.

So by 1800, Dar-al-Islam is much shrunken from OTL. Orthodox and Eastern Christianity has revived in the Middle East, and many Muslims have converted. A significant Muslim minority still exists. In the Maghreb, Spanish Catholicism has spread mainly from immigrants and some local conversions. The other demographic change comes from Muslim emigration. The Egyptian Protectorate is legally part of the neo-Byzantine Empire, but actually independent. Coptic Christianity has revived with some local conversions, but the main gains from OTL is the lack of conversion to Islam. Muslims still around half of population, but that percentage is slowly decreasing every year. Much of the East Indies is lost but significant minority populations still exist. Muslim population in India is more fragmented without a dominant polity like the Mughals.

Throughout the 19th century, European populations and their offshoots increase demographically and alter the balance of population even more. As more secular ideologies and practices come in the 20th century, North Africa and the Middle East are mainly Christian in population. As those areas have been heavily ruled by non-Muslims for centuries now, they have more European like attitudes and there is not a Muslim baby boom in those areas as improvements in health far outraces any decline in fertility rates.

Not so much amazing mass conversion, but changing demographics so that the population figures today would be very different.

Not very realistic as you can't just will people like Napoleon or Temujin into being at the right time and right place. But I think it's the only way it could be done that is plausible enough for literature.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
700-1300, I work within specifics, give me a period of Islamic history and I will explain it. However I will give my most favored Islamic state, the Abbasid period.

As a result, the Abbasids rose to power on the alliance of minority groups. This led to the rise of science as vast numbers of works began to be created by scientists and books of the past translated from Persian and Syriac to Arabic. The translation of the classics, which was made under the auspices that these Greeks were Muslim, after all the Quran claimed (according to Tafsir of the time) that Dhul-Qurnayn was Akexander the Great and that he was Muslim (even ibn Taymiyyah believed this).

However this growth in science was paired with a serious rise in backwards thought that was even more oppressive than the previous Umayyad Baqqiyyah wa Tattamadad. By this, I refer to the creation of the Mu'Tazila and their various views.

...

The Abbasids despite scientific growth was in a constant state of crisis and military defeat or woes in general, looking like a golden age?

Isn't this overly harsh treatment of Abbasid ?

even Wikipedia put Islamic Golden Age on Abbasid. and Abbasid were fairly successful until 850AD, crisis and rebellion only come later.

Beside, many of decline Abbasid could be blamed on 'Medieval Warm Period' which trigger arid-ization, with lack of rain, tax decline, nomad become more widespread, and since Abbasid could no longer pay its soldier, they started to grant land to military leader, causing decentralization of government.

And its not clear that Abbasid religious policy is a mistake. ulema still newly formed, there are still no maddrassah, so no standarization of what make people ulema, many hadith still been collected. And there are theory that Caliph as religious leader should decide on 'orthodoxy'. There are chance that Mutazila and Mihna could succeed and become accepted standard. Constantine and Roman Empire after all managed to enforce standard on Christian Orthodoxy.

and Abbasid was first creation of Islamic 'state model', Medina and Umayyad still uses Arab tribal army as basis, only in Abbasid professional salaried soldier paid by collected tax become regular feature. many other later Islamic state uses Abbasid as model.

and uses of non-Arab slave soldier was not Abbasid only phenomenon. Fatimid, Ayyubid, even Ottoman janissaries use same model. why slave soldier become feature in Islamic civilization is one of most debated topic in Islamic history. Abbasid certainly cannot be blamed if other also use same system and failed to replace them, they might be only choice for professional army.
 
My recommendation for a post-1600s POD, - the ASB option is a massive earthquake that levels Mecca.

Not sure that would be as effective as needed, just look at the fall of Rome and Jerusalem. St Augustin just came up with the concept of "celestial Rome" (whatever the correct translation may be).

Jerusalem, the holy of holy was actually captured by the Muslims, and yet people didn't convert?

I would go with hardcore missionary policies with massive repression in the east Indies but the backlash wouldn't be pretty
 
Not sure that would be as effective as needed, just look at the fall of Rome and Jerusalem. St Augustin just came up with the concept of "celestial Rome" (whatever the correct translation may be).

Jerusalem, the holy of holy was actually captured by the Muslims, and yet people didn't convert?

I would go with hardcore missionary policies with massive repression in the east Indies but the backlash wouldn't be pretty

The difference was that Jerusalem wasn't purged/reduced to ruin, it was made into another holy site, and still allowed pilgrims. Rome wasn't the beating heart of Christianity, and had a counterpart in Constantinople which still stood.

Whereas complete and utter destruction of the centre of the faith and the major pilgrimage is quite different. The ASB approach only really works on its own as it is an ASB - or the Divine destroying the Faith, or Shaitan overwhelming the Holy City.

The Non-ASB version would require the other elements to work though.
 
Isn't this overly harsh treatment of Abbasid ?

even Wikipedia put Islamic Golden Age on Abbasid. and Abbasid were fairly successful until 850AD, crisis and rebellion only come later.

Beside, many of decline Abbasid could be blamed on 'Medieval Warm Period' which trigger arid-ization, with lack of rain, tax decline, nomad become more widespread, and since Abbasid could no longer pay its soldier, they started to grant land to military leader, causing decentralization of government.

And its not clear that Abbasid religious policy is a mistake. ulema still newly formed, there are still no maddrassah, so no standarization of what make people ulema, many hadith still been collected. And there are theory that Caliph as religious leader should decide on 'orthodoxy'. There are chance that Mutazila and Mihna could succeed and become accepted standard. Constantine and Roman Empire after all managed to enforce standard on Christian Orthodoxy.

and Abbasid was first creation of Islamic 'state model', Medina and Umayyad still uses Arab tribal army as basis, only in Abbasid professional salaried soldier paid by collected tax become regular feature. many other later Islamic state uses Abbasid as model.

and uses of non-Arab slave soldier was not Abbasid only phenomenon. Fatimid, Ayyubid, even Ottoman janissaries use same model. why slave soldier become feature in Islamic civilization is one of most debated topic in Islamic history. Abbasid certainly cannot be blamed if other also use same system and failed to replace them, they might be only choice for professional army.

I disagree, I feel my interpretation is the more correct opinion than the golden age model.

Wikipedia is not a full proof source, also it does not matter what scholar you bring unless they back their evidence up with a wealth of Islamic writings from the time and the breadth of what they are saying.

Climate change only pertained to Ifriqiya and Egypt. It had no effect that I can read, on Iraq. Iraq was already a tired and exhausted area after being fought over for thousands of years and several of its ruling states being brutally put to the sword (Assyria, Babylon, Abbasid, Sassanid, etc), it seems to be a theme (Saddam). Further this is likely a flawed estimate wholly, it assumes that the production of the land was higher in the cold period.

I prefer a state to have no Mihna, however the Mu'Tazila used the Mihna to murder their political opponents typically. It is not so simple.

Ulema was steady set in stone, look to Hasan al-Basri for example.


Yes and those states where very corrupt and all ended in take overs by their slave castes which were given privilege over Arab warriors. The Mamluk system of the Abbasid was simply an even more corrupt version of these, with massive succession crises and near every Abbasid ruler after the Mihna was controlled by Mamluk Turks.
 
A lot of the talk of secularism in this thread reminds me of a very good TL here, Malê Rising. Not sure how plausible it is, but its a solid read. Ironically, Islam makes up even more people in that world, but I'm guessing a far larger percent of those Muslims in that TL are as Muslim as much of Western Europe is Christian. So that's one example. But I do think secularism is the way to go if you want conversions away from Islam.

Speaking of the East Indies, if the Dutch were more focused on missionary effort there (probably semi-ASB since that would disrupt trade efforts i.e. why they were there to begin with), how far could they get in a place like Java? And if the 19th century-style missionary work engaged in by Protestant missionaries in Africa and India had originated earlier and been more widespread, how many Muslims could they convert?

Throughout the 19th century, European populations and their offshoots increase demographically and alter the balance of population even more. As more secular ideologies and practices come in the 20th century, North Africa and the Middle East are mainly Christian in population. As those areas have been heavily ruled by non-Muslims for centuries now, they have more European like attitudes and there is not a Muslim baby boom in those areas as improvements in health far outraces any decline in fertility rates.

Instead that baby boom would come largely in the mid to late 19th century though, correct? Assuming they've been "reintegrated" into the Western world, or even to the degree Russia was. I guess emigration to the New World might offset that, since wasn't North African emigration rather recent and most of the original Arab World emigration was from Lebanon/Syria (and was disproportionately Christian?). I'm not sure how many of the Muslim emigrants to the New World converted in the 19th/early 20th--probably at least some, and in any case they'd be very secular compared to their Middle East relatives and potentially agnostic/atheist.
 

jahenders

Banned
Not doing this as an Islamophobe, but I am very interested in the possibility of widescale religious conversion after 1600. With Christianity, the world's biggest faith, it is largely our timeline, with the Enlightenment eventually causing widespread secularism and agnosticism by the 21st Century.

But what about with Islam? Secularism seems to have far less impact on the Muslim world, so conversion to other religions seems to be more hopeful. Bonus points if you get any of the following areas to majority convert to other religions:

- Indonesia
- Muslim parts of Indian subcontinent
- Egypt
- Iran
- Turkey

Hard to do by 1600, but I think there are 4 main angles:
1) Loss of contact with the "Muslim World." With Indonesia and/or Muslim India, they could lose all significant contacts with the outside Muslim World, but have lots of contact with non-Muslim influences (Christianity and/or Hindu). Coupled with strong guarantees of 'freedom of religion' (i.e. your family doesn't kill you, or people don't refuse to do business with you, if you convert away from Islam), over time, this could lead to some significant conversion away from Islam.

2) Secularism. While not conversion, per se, you could have a strong, authoritarian, stable government basically enforce secularism -- barring active practitioners from office, heavily taxing mosques, etc. Had Turkey under Ataturk gone farther and lasted longer, they might qualify. A communistic takeover could work as well.

3) Conversion progress. You could have well-funded, concentrated efforts to 'modernize' one or more of these countries where the European 'modernizers' are unabashedly Christian and basically make Christianity a requirement to participate. For example, if you want to go to any of these schools or universities, you must be Christian. If you want one of these great jobs, you must be Christian. This was, obviously, done in various times and places, but on a relatively small scale. If done on a larger scale over a longer period of time, you could get to the point where many people saw that conversion was the only way to escape poverty, etc.

4) Conversion by the sword / genocide /expulsion. You could have a Christian, Muslim, or other power in charge of one of those countries basically make that religion the law of the land, forbid other religions, and basically force everyone to convert, be jailed, or leave.
 
What about a greater neoclassicism in the eighteenth and nineteenth century sparking somehow a Zoroastrian revival in the Iranian cultural sphere?
 
What about a greater neoclassicism in the eighteenth and nineteenth century sparking somehow a Zoroastrian revival in the Iranian cultural sphere?

Makes as much sense as mass conversions to Germanic paganism. A movement could exist, the population as a whole could strongly respect Zoroastrianism, but a true embrace of Zoroastrianism isn't likely. Something only people on the fringe would do, although it might be tolerated as Germanic paganism was in some nationalist circles.

A lot of Persians nowadays do respect and think highly of Zoroastrianism, they'd just never dream of converting to it. An additional issue might be that unlike Germanic or other European paganism that inspired nationalists, Zoroastrianism is a living religion in the Persian world now (well, mainly Iran nowadays, granted), and was even moreso then.
 
Your entire point is about converting muslims into something else, while my point is that it is irrelevant what you convert them into, it wouldn't change anything. I mean compare Bosnian muslims to Ugandan christians - it's all about socio-economic circumstances and not about religion.

You seem to be picking a fight about something I'm not saying. Ugandans being Hindu rather than Christians isn't irrelevant as it would create all sorts of butterflies and new cultures. I don't see why that's any different for Arabs and Islam.
 
With regards to the Indian sub continent, having the Maratha and Sikh empires not fall and continue to rule would effect the Islamic populations. If these two empire remain till strong, it would not be difficult to convert Muslims, most of whom were the descendants of the Hindus, Buddhists etc. who had converted to Islam. Of course that would mean that the British do not control the Indian subcontinent.
 
Top