World Religions without Islam

ALL PRIASE DIYANAT THE SON OF TENGRI! MAY HIS ETERNAL BLUE SKY SHINE ACROSS THE STARS WITH HARMONY AND GLORY FOR HIS TRUE FAITHFUL!
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=205900&highlight=diyanat

Know HIS Tenents and heed them well!
I Tengri stand at the head of the Pantheon of Gods, for none are higher and mightier than him. [/FONT][/COLOR]

II El Kishi dwells at the lowest order of beings deep beneath the world and is jealous of the light and fortune of Tengri and the entire world.

III Between Tengri and El Kishi is the world and universe which is held together by a balance, which is peace among the forces of the universe, most importantly between mankind and the world and man amongst man.

IV This balance is actively changed not by the gods but by the humans-their most important creations and worshippers throughout all that is and was. As they alone are able to create besides the Gods.

V Maintaining the world Harmony is important to a good life for oneself and one’s family and people. The more who seek Universal Harmony the more good fortune will be bestowed upon them and one’s family, tribe, and nation.

VI A lifestyle that cultivates one’s connection with people and the life bearing earth is the best way to live.

VII Those who seek to maintain the Balance of Harmony will be rewarded in life and in death with several hundred years of divine embrace with Tengri.

VIII Those who seek to disrupt the Balance of Harmony will be punished with several hundred years of embrace in the cold, suffocating depths of El Kishi.

XI It is the duty of the people to maintain the worldly harmony and to take whatever measures deemed necessary to bring about the Balance of Harmony.
 
Manicheism would certainly have flourished, but it has been realised recently that they saw themselves as Christians. They called Mani "Seal of the Prophets" as later Islam would call Mohammed, but unlike Moslems Manicheans did not include Jesus as a prophet. Mani was seen as the last of the Old Testament-style prophets but Jesus was accepted as the Son of God.

Mani is regarded, though, as the "Buddha of Light" in Tibetan Buddhism, so the possibility exists of a syncretic religion.
 
Basically, without Islam, we would see many more surviving forms of Christianity, to the point where they may not even really be considered a single religion. There were a lot more schisms than simply the Great Schism, and given the vast geographical reach of Early Christianity, it will be impossible for the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church to snuff them out.

I don't know about this. I think it could easily be the opposite - that without the geographical isolation of certain areas, we'd have seen more standardization of Christian belief, owing to stronger communication and sharing of ideas. There'd still be schisms but I don't think you'd see really unusual offshoots of Christianity become dominant anywhere. I think the Nicene Creed is likely to be accepted by just about all Christian denominations.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about this. I think it could easily be the opposite - that without the geographical isolation of certain areas, we'd have seen more standardization of Christian belief, owing to stronger communication and sharing of ideas. There'd still be schisms but I don't think you'd see really unusual offshoots of Christianity become dominant anywhere. I think the Nicene Creed is likely to be accepted by just about all Christian denominations.



I believe he is referring to the Gnostics, who survived persecution by the traditional Christians, due to the distance issue. Yet when Islam rose these Gnostic religions mysteriously disappeared, or resurfaced in Europe (Bogomils/Cathars). So, I agree with the notion that without Islam there would be much more forms of Chrisrianity, primarily Gnostics.
 
On the subject of Persia becoming Christian. The whole Iran region is extremely difficult to control. You can conquer Persia but you will need serious military power to hold it. The Abbasids could do this because they had enough power close enough to Iran to make it stick. Later conquerors became Islamic (if they weren't already) and adopted Persian styles and language. (Even the Abbasid governors did this, and even the Abbasids had to make special accomadation for Zoroastrianism).
 
To be blunt, yes. As long as one of them does not completely conquer Iran with a a codified set of laws on how to deal with infidels(Sharia), a powerbase very close or in Iran, and the abillity to hold the area. I do not think that outside of Islam there is an immediate force that can pull it off. As I have said before the Turks will have little engagement with Persia as they rush into India.

It's not just the Turks. As noted, the Nestorians and Manis by this point had their religious center in the Middle East; to the south, you still have the Arabs (depending on how their religion develops). Sure, if Rome or Ethiopia try to hold Iran, they won't succeed, but that doesn't mean the local Christian churches can't be your nearby powerbase. And there's no reason a Nestorian or Manichean Church couldn't adopt Persian characteristics (assuming they haven't already by this point; this gets outside my area).
 
Sure, if Rome or Ethiopia try to hold Iran, they won't succeed, but that doesn't mean the local Christian churches can't be your nearby powerbase

With what vigor? Christianity wasn't exactly new to Mesopotamia by the time Muhammad came about. Why would Christian communities there suddenly rise up and feel a need to impose themselves on Persia where they didn't before? That's unless you're suggesting some new proselytizing belief system emerge from the Abrahamic-influenced Middle East, in which case you might just as well reinvent Islam.

As for the suggestion that an organized form of Tengri worship become dominant in Central Asia, it's a little too late for that, I'd think. The Silk Road is already full of Buddhists, Manichaeans, and Nestorians by the time the Turkic peoples get there, and they readily adopted those beliefs.
 
It's not just the Turks. As noted, the Nestorians and Manis by this point had their religious center in the Middle East; to the south, you still have the Arabs (depending on how their religion develops). Sure, if Rome or Ethiopia try to hold Iran, they won't succeed, but that doesn't mean the local Christian churches can't be your nearby powerbase. And there's no reason a Nestorian or Manichean Church couldn't adopt Persian characteristics (assuming they haven't already by this point; this gets outside my area).


I don't, from my knowledge, know of any christian group in Iraq with the millitary capabilities to do so. The Assyrians are practically dead, Babylonia is non existant, and the Lahkmids lack the firepower to take much more than southern Iraq (if that). So explain what Christian group in the Middle East would be able to conquer Persia and hold it for the same amount of time as Islam. The only way would be some sort of ASB Assyrian awakening or going way back and changing things to were Babylonia is more or less a an autonomous vassal.
 
I can see the Turks becoming Nestorian Christians (Tengrism just limits your empire building and FP ability), in which case Persia will fall in the next century or two to one form of Christianity or another.

I find it more likely that the Turks would adopt either Buddhism or some form of Zoroastrianism due to the Indian and Persian influences in the region. Nestorianism was only really important in Mesopotamia, and I doubt it could penetrate into the heavily Zoroastrian populations of Iran without some sort of military conquest and prolonged occupation. In fact, the proximity of several Christian regions to Persia might reinforce the development of Zoroastrianism as a unique religion linked with the prestigious Persian culture; serving to "otherize" all the nearby Christians.
 
The really interesting part of this scenario is that North Africa will likely continue to be seen as part of the same region as South Europe. The Maghreb will be much more similar to the Iberian peninsula than to the Arabian peninsula, and Rome will identify more with the Mediterranean sea than the European continent. The idea of Europe as a separate continent might not even exist in this alternate world.
 
I don't, from my knowledge, know of any christian group in Iraq with the millitary capabilities to do so. The Assyrians are practically dead, Babylonia is non existant, and the Lahkmids lack the firepower to take much more than southern Iraq (if that). So explain what Christian group in the Middle East would be able to conquer Persia and hold it for the same amount of time as Islam. The only way would be some sort of ASB Assyrian awakening or going way back and changing things to were Babylonia is more or less a an autonomous vassal.

And yet the Arabs did just that OTL. Supposing Nestorian or Manichean Christianity became prevalent enough in Arabia -- would that make Christian Persia plausible?

I find it more likely that the Turks would adopt either Buddhism or some form of Zoroastrianism due to the Indian and Persian influences in the region. Nestorianism was only really important in Mesopotamia, and I doubt it could penetrate into the heavily Zoroastrian populations of Iran without some sort of military conquest and prolonged occupation.

Actually, both Nestorianism and Manicheanism were popular among the Turks OTL, much more so than Zoroastrianism.
 
:cool:
And yet the Arabs did just that OTL. Supposing Nestorian or Manichean Christianity became prevalent enough in Arabia -- would that make Christian Persia plausible?



Did what otl? The Lahkmids (the only Arab polity in Iraq and with close proximity to Persia) did not conquer Persia, and for the most part were pro-Sassanid. The Assyrians had no part in the conquest of Persia, and had not had any political ambition since threaten Achaemenids, so I don't know what you are referring to.

If Arabia is united under a single country like otl caliphate, and they invade at an opportune time then it is possible for them to conquer Persia. Once they do they would have to enforce strict rulings against Zoroastrians and assimilate Persian culture to their administration, possibly removing Pahlavi script and writing Persian in the Syriac script, kind of like otl Abbasids. However if the Christian rulers behave like the Umayyads, it is not for sure that the Persians won't rise up and remove their Arab rulers.

With that said, I feel like it is unlikely that this happens as Arabia remains politically fractured and is plagued by tribal warfare. What is more likely is a constant decline and rebirth of the Persian empires at least in the foreseable future, all building on the nostalgia of the Achaemenids.
 
The really interesting part of this scenario is that North Africa will likely continue to be seen as part of the same region as South Europe. The Maghreb will be much more similar to the Iberian peninsula than to the Arabian peninsula, and Rome will identify more with the Mediterranean sea than the European continent. The idea of Europe as a separate continent might not even exist in this alternate world.

Where would be the boundary be between the Mediterranean region and "Africa"? I mean, for the most part it will be vague lines in the desert, but as time goes on where? I honestly don't know how far into Africa Christianity extended before Islam.
 
Possibly a Christian/Hindu syncretic religion will become popular in the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia and/or the Middle East (perhaps something like Sikhism).
 
Where would be the boundary be between the Mediterranean region and "Africa"? I mean, for the most part it will be vague lines in the desert, but as time goes on where? I honestly don't know how far into Africa Christianity extended before Islam.

The Sahara desert is a much greater barrier than the Mediterranean. I expect like the IOT Europe Asia border it will be arbitrary and regularly change. Perhaps the Sahara will be similiar to OTL Siberia in that it will be so sparsely populated that adjacent more powerful and populous states will be able to take it over at will. If that's the case then people may think of the southern borders of coastal north african states as being the border between what we might consider "greater europe" by which I mean christian and former roman empire.
 
I believe he is referring to the Gnostics, who survived persecution by the traditional Christians, due to the distance issue. Yet when Islam rose these Gnostic religions mysteriously disappeared, or resurfaced in Europe (Bogomils/Cathars).

Not quite, the Mandaeans are still with us, but they are not Christian Gnostics.
 
Top