World Religions without Islam

[John7755 يوحنا]

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

Survived yes, but let me ask you, how much political power do the Mandaens posses and how quickly is their religion expanding? Obviously this primarily is due to the same pressure that put Zoroastrianisn down. Also, even though Mandaeism has enormous influence from ancient middle eastern paganism, it is essentially a Abrahamic religion revering John the Baptist (part of the Abrahamic succession of prophets).

 

[steve_wilson]

This discussion is about what might have happened without Islam. How Mandaeanism might have evolved is obviously not going to be the same, since the Moslems forbade Mandaens from getting new converts.

Also, there is no sign of a pagan influence in the Mandaean faith. It does not revere John the Baptist very much - though this aspect is emphasised by Christian commentators for obvious reasons. Instead the ordinary Mandaean relies on the priesthood to carry out the religious functions and is otherwise fairly secular. I had a great dinner (and dance) at a British function, meat and wine freely consumed.

The so-called "pagan" elements are in fact a particular version of the Sethian gnostic movement with a relation to the angelic faiths of the region. The particularity of it is that the angelic beings ruling the planets and zodiac are viewed as obstructions.

 

[Cryostorm]

Just wondering but weren't the Nestorians on their way becoming the Persian variety of Christianity. Another interesting aspect is what happens to the Saint Thomas Christians in India without Islam separating them, and the rest of India, from Christianity's core.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

This discussion is about what might have happened without Islam. How Mandaeanism might have evolved is obviously not going to be the same, since the Moslems forbade Mandaens from getting new converts.

Also, there is no sign of a pagan influence in the Mandaean faith. It does not revere John the Baptist very much - though this aspect is emphasised by Christian commentators for obvious reasons. Instead the ordinary Mandaean relies on the priesthood to carry out the religious functions and is otherwise fairly secular. I had a great dinner (and dance) at a British function, meat and wine freely consumed.

The so-called "pagan" elements are in fact a particular version of the Sethian gnostic movement with a relation to the angelic faiths of the region. The particularity of it is that the angelic beings ruling the planets and zodiac are viewed as obstructions.

I guess you misunderstood how I used "pagan". As in pagan I meant the indigenous belief systems of non Abrahamic, Semitic Middle East, which you have already said has found its way into Mandaeism. I highly disagree on what you said about the reverence of John the Baptist (lahia),as according to everything I have learned John the Baptist is the most important prophet in their religion, while not the founder (Adam).

I also doubt Islam is the sole reason for their lack of converts, as from previous knowledge I know they were a codified religion (Ginza Ribba) by the late Parthian Empire. If it was Islam that kept them from expanding then you would have expected to see them competing with Manchaeism and Christianity for converts in the years following and during the collapse of Parthia. All in all, I feel like it is the secretive nature of the religion that has kept it from converts, the same as other Gnostics (except Manichaeism), so I feel like Mandaeism only does a little better than otl.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Just wondering but weren't the Nestorians on their way becoming the Persian variety of Christianity. Another interesting aspect is what happens to the Saint Thomas Christians in India without Islam separating them, and the rest of India, from Christianity's core.

Not really, from what I know there were few ethnic Iranian Christians, most Nestorians were Assyrian or other Semitic speaking peoples in Iraq. I assume the St. Thomas Christians develope like otl, unless a Neatorian/Manichaen Turkish dynasty conquers large parts of Northern India. In that case they could be treated favourably and become a quite affluent class in parts of India.

 

[Roger II]

Christian Persia is unlikely yes(some kind of Mazdaysian religion is liable to remain important in Persia after the Sasanians fall and will probably be a state religion), but a much stronger Christian presence in the Indian Ocean is very plausible. In general, Zoroastrian Iran, Nestorian and Syriac Orthodox Mesopotamia, and Manichean/Buddhist/Zoroastrian/Tengriist central Asia seems pretty likely. Probably there are pockets of Manicheans in Iran and Mesopotamia; I'd actually be curious to see what happens if an Manichean or Nestorian state forms in Iraq if and when the Sassanians collapse.

 

[Anekcahdep]

Christian Persia is unlikely yes(some kind of Mazdaysian religion is liable to remain important in Persia after the Sasanians fall and will probably be a state religion), but a much stronger Christian presence in the Indian Ocean is very plausible. In general, Zoroastrian Iran, Nestorian and Syriac Orthodox Mesopotamia, and Manichean/Buddhist/Zoroastrian/Tengriist central Asia seems pretty likely. Probably there are pockets of Manicheans in Iran and Mesopotamia; I'd actually be curious to see what happens if an Manichean or Nestorian state forms in Iraq if and when the Sassanians collapse.

I agree, and I think also that Buddhism could spread into Indonesia, potentially.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

I've stumbled across this British Channel4 documentary (I was looking for a completely different documentary). According to this Islam was created by Caliphe Muawiyah thirty years after Muhammad's death. If that is true then in order to have a world without Islam you just have to prevent the rise of the Arab Empire.

Another way to remove Islam from history is making all of Arab a Roman province. Even if Islam emerges it would be very different (and much more like early Christianity), because Islam lacks that made Christianity appealing to the early Christians (like the equality of all human beings). No, Islam is appealing to a ruling class and thus Islam as a new religion would have no chance in an empire with no or little tolerance towards monotheists.

 

[Muwatalli']

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).

Why would a Christian/Hindu syncretic religion develop in a TL without Islam. Such a religion didnt develop in OTL, why would it develop in this TL?

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Why would a Christian/Hindu syncretic religion develop in a TL without Islam. Such a religion didnt develop in OTL, why would it develop in this TL?

I agree, the differences between monotheistic Christianity and polytheistic Hinduism are too great to allow such.

 

[Artillery Gnome]

I've stumbled across this British Channel4 documentary (I was looking for a completely different documentary). According to this Islam was created by Caliphe Muawiyah thirty years after Muhammad's death. If that is true then in order to have a world without Islam you just have to prevent the rise of the Arab Empire.

That theory is not accepted by most scholars.

Another way to remove Islam from history is making all of Arab a Roman province. Even if Islam emerges it would be very different

Islam arose from the specific social conditions in Arabia at that time, if the Romans controlled Arabia, it simply wouldn't exist.

(and much more like early Christianity), because Islam lacks that made Christianity appealing to the early Christians

Islam lacks things that appealed to early Christians and Christianity lacks things that appealed to early Muslims, this is only natural given that they arose at completely different times in completely different circumstances.

(like the equality of all human beings).

What?

No, Islam is appealing to a ruling class and thus Islam as a new religion would have no chance in an empire with no or little tolerance towards monotheists.

Early Islam wasn't appealing to the ruling class, Muhammad was driven out out Mecca by the economic elite for challenging their power.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Why would a Christian/Hindu syncretic religion develop in a TL without Islam. Such a religion didnt develop in OTL, why would it develop in this TL?

If Islam doesn't exist, then it will not be able to influence the religious identity of India nor block other faiths from contributing their own viewpoints. Since Christianity was, before Islam, fairly important in Arabia, Ethiopia, and Mesopotamia, and since the absence of Islam would probably allow Christianity to grow or at least survive in those areas more than it did in reality, and since those areas had extensive contact with India, it is not implausible that there would be more Christian influence on India than there was IOTL, especially if mostly Christian nomads conquered the north in an analogue to the Ghazvanid or Mughal Empires.

That being said, I don't see the development of a Christian/Hindu syncretic religion as being particularly likely. It is pretty clear that IOTL if any such syncretic faith was going to develop, though, it was going to be from Islam, which it was. The St. Thomas Christians were too marginal and the Catholics and Protestants of later eras too distant to spur syncretization. Only Muslims were in a position of influence and prominence long enough for something like Sikhism to emerge, though who knows what might happen in the future?

I agree, the differences between monotheistic Christianity and polytheistic Hinduism are too great to allow such.

Islam is much more monotheistic than Christianity, and yet Sikhism, which is a syncretic religion born out of Hinduism and Islam, still exists. There are similarly syncretic faiths, albeit more minor, combining Christianity and Christian influences with a wide range of local faiths. Why should Christianity and Hinduism be different?

 

[scholar]

I agree, the differences between monotheistic Christianity and polytheistic Hinduism are too great to allow such.

Not really. Hinduism consumes Christianity, many different sects in Hinduism are "Christian" or incorporate elements of Christianity into their faith. As a religion, Hinduism is more a framework: with monotheism, henotheism, polytheism, pantheism, and animism all having their allotted place within different cultures. To speak of Hinduism is a bit to speak of Abrahamic Faith, while making sure you are including all the spin-offs such as Manichean, Druze, Yezidi, Gnostic, Arian, Adoptionist, Baha'i, and Sikhism. Speaking of which, Sikhs follow Islam married to Hinduism - a syncretic faith of the two. No reason Christianity could not do so, since arguably it already has.

Many Hindus have absolutely no problem with the notion of the Trinity or Jesus being both human and divine, for the shared mythology that they deal with have very similar stories. The Virgin Mary is a very big figure to Hindus who have no real connection to Christianity. The main reason why such is not also found in the reverse, Christianity adopting parts of Hinduism, is that Hinduism is not a proselytizing faith. At best, it attempts to copy itself into the new social structure of a different region through intermarriage. People have castes, complex social stratification, and so forth.

 

[Muwatalli']

Islam is much more monotheistic than Christianity, and yet Sikhism, which is a syncretic religion born out of Hinduism and Islam, still exists. There are similarly syncretic faiths, albeit more minor, combining Christianity and Christian influences with a wide range of local faiths. Why should Christianity and Hinduism be different?

Sikhism is not a syncretic religion.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Sikhism is not a syncretic religion.

It pretty clearly is, as a matter of fact, a religion that merges many of the traditions of Hinduism and Islam. Or, in other words, a syncretic religion.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

That theory is not accepted by most scholars.

I am sceptical but many things said in this documentary make sense.
And BTW as long as an objective research on the origins of Islam is not possible not sane scholar can accept a theory which may anger the Muslim world. As long as the Quran (or the traditional interpretation of it) is seen as the undisputable truth objective research is not possible.

Islam arose from the specific social conditions in Arabia at that time, if the Romans controlled Arabia, it simply wouldn't exist.

Yes and no. OTL's Islam would never exist but it could be that an Arab monotheistic religion could come into existence. Remember that we are talking about an age in which a transition towards monotheism happened.

Islam lacks things that appealed to early Christians and Christianity lacks things that appealed to early Muslims, this is only natural given that they arose at completely different times in completely different circumstances.

There you misunderstood me. I've meant that Islam would never have survived if was forced into the same position as early Christianity. If all of the Arab empire had been conquered by non-Muslims in the years after Muhammad's death Islam would not have survived.

What?

Yes, you have read right. Equality. Islam was never about equality or slavery would have been outlawed from the beginning (which BTW never happened while Christianity was against slavery from the beginning) and women would have the same rights as men. (We know that the gender equality vanished from Christianity at the time it became religion of state but in the beginning it was there).

Early Islam wasn't appealing to the ruling class, Muhammad was driven out out Mecca by the economic elite for challenging their power.

Interesting, because these traditionally passed on events does not really fit into the later behavior. Islam was from the beginning (i.e. the first assured conquests) a religion which used some sort of force (taxes and laws) to encourage conversion, while Christianity was in the beginning a religion which spread through mouth-to-mouth propaganda. The forced conversion come much later (after it had become a religion of state). This tells me that Islam had a very hard time to attract converts, especially in the poorer classes. But in order to be able to enforce these laws and to collect these taxes the ruling class had to be Muslim. Thus it had to be appealing to them. And if I remember correctly Muhammad had to flee Mekka because the (already Muslim) ruling class feared that they will loose much of their revenues if the Kaaba was closed to the many other religions for which it was a holy site. His exile had no religious but economical and political reasons.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

It pretty clearly is, as a matter of fact, a religion that merges many of the traditions of Hinduism and Islam. Or, in other words, a syncretic religion.

No, Sikhism is not and never was a syncretic religion. It always was an independent religion of its own with no links to Islam, Hinduism or any other Indian religious movement. Sikhism as a syncretic religions in a invention of both western orientalists and Brahmanic scholars.

 

[Napoleon IV]

I am sceptical but many things said in this documentary make sense.
And BTW as long as an objective research on the origins of Islam is not possible not sane scholar can accept a theory which may anger the Muslim world. As long as the Quran (or the traditional interpretation of it) is seen as the undisputable truth objective research is not possible.

Scholars aren't exploring what that documentary proposed not because they're afraid of angry Muslims, but because evidence shows that the documentary is wrong.

Yes, you have read right. Equality. Islam was never about equality or slavery would have been outlawed from the beginning (which BTW never happened while Christianity was against slavery from the beginning) and women would have the same rights as men. (We know that the gender equality vanished from Christianity at the time it became religion of state but in the beginning it was there).

You're ignoring the fact that 7th century Arabia and 1st century Judea/Rome were completely different places. While Islam isn't pro-women's rights in the modern sense, it was a great improvement over what came before. Under Islam women could inherit property, testify in court, and some of Muhammad's wives were even preachers.

Interesting, because these traditionally passed on events does not really fit into the later behavior. Islam was from the beginning (i.e. the first assured conquests) a religion which used some sort of force (taxes and laws) to encourage conversion, while Christianity was in the beginning a religion which spread through mouth-to-mouth propaganda. The forced conversion come much later (after it had become a religion of state). This tells me that Islam had a very hard time to attract converts, especially in the poorer classes. But in order to be able to enforce these laws and to collect these taxes the ruling class had to be Muslim. Thus it had to be appealing to them. And if I remember correctly Muhammad had to flee Mekka because the (already Muslim) ruling class feared that they will loose much of their revenues if the Kaaba was closed to the many other religions for which it was a holy site. His exile had no religious but economical and political reasons.

But Islam also spread through areas without major enforcement. In fact in areas such as Indonesia, sub-Saharan Africa, etc. Islam was spread through trade and word of mouth. Furthermore many early converts to Islam were slaves or the poor. That is why the conversion of Abu-Bakr was such a big deal. He was the first semi-well off freeman to join Islam.

 

[scholar]

No, Sikhism is not and never was a syncretic religion. It always was an independent religion of its own with no links to Islam, Hinduism or any other Indian religious movement. Sikhism as a syncretic religions in a invention of both western orientalists and Brahmanic scholars.

Well, that's false. At best, one can call Sikhism another Buddhism or Jainism that borrowed elements of Islam in that it was born from the well of Hinduism and as a reaction to it and the dominant Islamic political and cultural climate.

And, to be clear, there are plenty of Buddhists and Jains who claim absolutely no connection to Hinduism. Why? Because most people tend to. Before near modern times, Jews viewed Christians as wholly different creatures, giving only lip service to God and his commandments. Christians in turn rejected Mohammad and his Islam as at best a terrible heresy that undermined the very tenants of their faith, and at worst a subtle undermining of the one way to enter into heaven by Satan. Most Islamic leaders refuse to recognize Baha'i as a religion. Morocco's Sultan stated that Morocco was religiously tolerant, but followers of Baha'i did not count. And many Hindus will tell you that it is not pantheistic, it is monotheistic. Or that it is not monotheistic, it is polytheistic. Or it is not polytheistic, it is henotheisic. Or, even, that Hinduism is purely secular and that the rituals reflect no real belief.

The idea that Sikhism is a syncretic faith comes from the core beliefs and the sayings of the Gurus, how well they aligned with previous ideals held by Hindus and the political superstructure provided by Islam. Many Sikhs had come over to the religion based on the belief that they would be worshiping God better, not that their original faiths had nothing to do with God. The first Gurus went to great length pointing out and dividing their beliefs from Islam and Hinduism not because they were so patently different, but because they shared so much of the same spiritual and religious core that they needed to make sure that their followers new they were entering a new faith. And it was a new faith, it was simply a faith that emerged from the two traditions of Hinduism and Islam.

 

[Artillery Gnome]

I am sceptical but many things said in this documentary make sense.
And BTW as long as an objective research on the origins of Islam is not possible not sane scholar can accept a theory which may anger the Muslim world. As long as the Quran (or the traditional interpretation of it) is seen as the undisputable truth objective research is not possible.

I'm pretty sure most scholars just think its a crap theory.

Yes and no. OTL's Islam would never exist but it could be that an Arab monotheistic religion could come into existence. Remember that we are talking about an age in which a transition towards monotheism happened.

I agree.

There you misunderstood me. I've meant that Islam would never have survived if was forced into the same position as early Christianity. If all of the Arab empire had been conquered by non-Muslims in the years after Muhammad's death Islam would not have survived.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

Yes, you have read right. Equality. Islam was never about equality or slavery would have been outlawed from the beginning (which BTW never happened while Christianity was against slavery from the beginning) and women would have the same rights as men. (We know that the gender equality vanished from Christianity at the time it became religion of state but in the beginning it was there).

When does Jesus start advocate abolitionism or feminism? Never.

Interesting, because these traditionally passed on events does not really fit into the later behavior. Islam was from the beginning (i.e. the first assured conquests) a religion which used some sort of force (taxes and laws) to encourage conversion, while Christianity was in the beginning a religion which spread through mouth-to-mouth propaganda. The forced conversion come much later (after it had become a religion of state). This tells me that Islam had a very hard time to attract converts, especially in the poorer classes. But in order to be able to enforce these laws and to collect these taxes the ruling class had to be Muslim. Thus it had to be appealing to them.

Islam also spread to many regions without conquest.

And if I remember correctly Muhammad had to flee Mekka because the (already Muslim) ruling class feared that they will loose much of their revenues if the Kaaba was closed to the many other religions for which it was a holy site. His exile had no religious but economical and political reasons.

The ruling class wasn't already Muslim.