World Religions without Islam

[CountPeter]

Potential query, but could a Zoroastrian based faith develop in its place? I do t see any inherent reason that a unifying religion from the Arabian peninsula had to necessarily be Abrahamic, and there was certainly some notable offshoots of Zoroastrianism.

I could be mistaken of course. My knowledge of pre-Islam Arabic society is admittedly limited.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

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.

Did you watch it?
And did not mean this documentary, I meant every sort of critical Islam studies which did not begin with the Islamic tradition is correct but tries to prove it and thus ask question which may be seen as blasphemous.

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.

That's right but it also meant that women could never get truly equal because in Islam a woman has still less rights than a man. In early Christianity a woman had the same rights as a man (that they were still not equal is based on the fact that Christianity did not maky any laws and the laws were made by the non-Christian ruling class).

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.

But that happened much later. After the conquest of the Christian world failed and in many cases in European colonila powers helped...

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

May be the theory is wrong but the questions asked are the correct ones.

And as i said above the questions are important even if the Islamic world does not want to hear them.

When does Jesus start advocate abolitionism or feminism? Never.

But he attracted the outsiders, those who were left out by the establishment (be it Roman or Jewish). Even if the Bible tries to hide it Jesus had many female followers.

Islam also spread to many regions without conquest.

But that happened after the era of Islamic conquest had ended.

The ruling class wasn't already Muslim.

I remember it differently. They were Muslims but they did not accept Muhammad, who did not come from a rich or important family, as a leader and they did not want to loose all those revenues from the many pagan pilgrims.

 

[CountPeter]

Did you watch it?
And did not mean this documentary, I meant every sort of critical Islam studies which did not begin with the Islamic tradition is correct but tries to prove it and thus ask question which may be seen as blasphemous.

That's right but it also meant that women could never get truly equal because in Islam a woman has still less rights than a man. In early Christianity a woman had the same rights as a man (that they were still not equal is based on the fact that Christianity did not maky any laws and the laws were made by the non-Christian ruling class).


But that happened much later. After the conquest of the Christian world failed and in many cases in European colonila powers helped...


May be the theory is wrong but the questions asked are the correct ones.

And as i said above the questions are important even if the Islamic world does not want to hear them.


But he attracted the outsiders, those who were left out by the establishment (be it Roman or Jewish). Even if the Bible tries to hide it Jesus had many female followers.

But that happened after the era of Islamic conquest had ended.
I remember it differently. They were Muslims but they did not accept Muhammad, who did not come from a rich or important family, as a leader and they did not want to loose all those revenues from the many pagan pilgrims.

The fact you think they were Muslims is problematic. It's a pretty important part of the story...

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

The fact you think they were Muslims is problematic. It's a pretty important part of the story...

Why is it problematic?

--------
Back to topic:
It would be interesting if in one TL Tom Holland's theory about the origin of Islam is correct. But in this TL several events that according to this controversal theory led to the rise of Islam never happened or happened differently.

 

[CountPeter]

Why is it problematic?

--------
Back to topic:
It would be interesting if in one TL Tom Holland's theory about the origin of Islam is correct. But in this TL several events that according to this controversal theory led to the rise of Islam never happened or happened differently.

It's problematic in that not much of the story makes sense if they were... I mean being a Muslim but not a follower of Muhammad is already off... I mean the revelations through the word of Muhammad practically IS Islam. The fact that you would think otherwise makes me A) wonder what your unusual standard of Islam could be and B) how familiar you are with the story?

Secondly, the conversions of the leaders of Mecca after their defeat by Muhammad to Islam makes 0 sense if they are already Muslims...

Thirdly, it ignores a long established polytheistic tradition amongst pre-Islamic Arabia. I'm presuming you must have heard this version of the story from a source rather than merely forgetting such an important detail, but if so wha on earth did someone have to gain by making a version of the story which makes 0 sense?

 

[pa_dutch]

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

Polytheism and Christianity have merged many times in history. Look at Voudon in Haiti and other African diasporic religions of the New World for good examples. Many pagans reacted to Christianity by adopting the Christian god into their pantheon, and many Christian converts absorbed their old gods into Christianity by adopting them as saints, or recognizing the creator god of their old belief system as being one and the same as the Christian god.

I wonder if we might see a prominent religious movement resembling Voudon or Santeria arise from West Africa in a world without Islam, akin to Sikhism in that it merges Abrahamic ideas and indigenous ones together into a new and distinctive religion. West African indigenous beliefs are certainly complex theologically and not easily pushed aside - Even after the arrival of Islam in the Sahel and the conversion of the upper class, paganism continued to dominate the rural population for a long time and pagan folk magic and rituals continue to be practicized in the region. As seen in the examples of the New World diasporic religions and also the rapid establishment of an organized Christian Church in Kongo, it's possible to see organized religions comparable to Christianity and Hinduism established from indigenous African belief systems.

If Christianity takes the place of Islam in West Africa, we might see stronger indigenous belief systems in the coastal region - There would be a longer history of direct interaction between the Christian world and African native religions, so there might not be such a strong impetus to convert sub-Saharan Africans to Christianity, or in reverse, Christianity's novelty would be lost on sub-Saharan Africans and they'd be more difficult to convert (OTL African Christianity is already quite synchretic as it is).

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

It's problematic in that not much of the story makes sense if they were... I mean being a Muslim but not a follower of Muhammad is already off... I mean the revelations through the word of Muhammad practically IS Islam. The fact that you would think otherwise makes me A) wonder what your unusual standard of Islam could be and B) how familiar you are with the story?

Couldn't it be that they accepted his teachings but not his absolute(?) leadership?

Secondly, the conversions of the leaders of Mecca after their defeat by Muhammad to Islam makes 0 sense if they are already Muslims...

I disagree. It would still be a conversion if he forced them to accept him as their leader.

Thirdly, it ignores a long established polytheistic tradition amongst pre-Islamic Arabia.

Why does it mean that it ignores the polytheistic tradition of Arabia?

And you should remember that the Quran is an unreliable source written down decades after the events. And if most historian have a problem with the traditional sources about the Islamic expansion when we should ask ourselves if the Quran is as reliable source or if it is pure propaganda like the Christian Gospels (which are unreliable because several events mentioned there never happened)?

What does that mean? It means that it must be possible to research the origins of Islam without fixed expectations even if the results may not be the ones you've hoped to find. It must be possible to ask certain questions. It must be possible to question the oral tradition of Islam. But this does not happen because of fear. Every scholar of Islam studies or the history of early Islam fears not only religious fundamentalists but also the Islamic scholars. And those fear that if such scientific research does not deliver the expected results it will harm Islam. It seems that the leaders (religious and political) do not have any faith in the Muslims and that they fear that unexpected results may be the end of Islam. It seems that they believe that any scientific research without fixed expectations will come to the conclusion that the Quran is one big lie (as if religion has anything to do with history)...

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Okay, so lets say that Muhammad isn't born. How would world religion look by the modern day without it. What would be the main worship in North Africa? Arabia? Central Asia? Indonesia? And how would the western world evolve without it?

Humans have an innate desire to break away and form their own society. The innumerable Christian sects are testament to this. If Muhammad hadn't been born, I suspect some other religion might well have emerged anyway.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Polytheism and Christianity have merged many times in history. Look at Voudon in Haiti and other African diasporic religions of the New World for good examples. Many pagans reacted to Christianity by adopting the Christian god into their pantheon, and many Christian converts absorbed their old gods into Christianity by adopting them as saints, or recognizing the creator god of their old belief system as being one and the same as the Christian god.

I wonder if we might see a prominent religious movement resembling Voudon or Santeria arise from West Africa in a world without Islam, akin to Sikhism in that it merges Abrahamic ideas and indigenous ones together into a new and distinctive religion. West African indigenous beliefs are certainly complex theologically and not easily pushed aside - Even after the arrival of Islam in the Sahel and the conversion of the upper class, paganism continued to dominate the rural population for a long time and pagan folk magic and rituals continue to be practicized in the region. As seen in the examples of the New World diasporic religions and also the rapid establishment of an organized Christian Church in Kongo, it's possible to see organized religions comparable to Christianity and Hinduism established from indigenous African belief systems.

If Christianity takes the place of Islam in West Africa, we might see stronger indigenous belief systems in the coastal region - There would be a longer history of direct interaction between the Christian world and African native religions, so there might not be such a strong impetus to convert sub-Saharan Africans to Christianity, or in reverse, Christianity's novelty would be lost on sub-Saharan Africans and they'd be more difficult to convert (OTL African Christianity is already quite synchretic as it is).

You are right. This happened not only in Africa but also in Southern America and even in Europe.

But do not forget that Christians are living in India since the first century. And I have never read about a syncretic religion based on Christianity and Hinduism despite the centuries of living together. I think that the cast system in Hinduism and the fact that Christianity abhors it did prevent the creation of a syncretic religion based on those religions. A syncretic religion based on Hinduism and Islam is possible because as far as I know the Islam in India adopted the caste system.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

...in Islam a woman has still less rights than a man. In early Christianity a woman had the same rights as a man

This is factually incorrect. The Bible makes it quite clear that women are to be subordinate to their husbands. Paul says in his letters that a woman should not speak, she should stay silent and be obedient to men. Even today, Christians teach that husbands must display 'headship' over their wives, and that women must obey.

A lot of women like Islam because it gives them the chance to be appreciated for their personal qualities, rather than be treated like a sex object as western women often are, whether it be through advertising, music videos or other forms of popular culture.

Personally, I think both cultures are imperfect in practice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is probably the best template we have for a fairer society. The right to be free of discrimination on the grounds of sex is specifically embodied in Article 2 of the declaration.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Humans have an innate desire to break away and form their own society. The innumerable Christian sects are testament to this. If Muhammad hadn't been born, I suspect some other religion might well have emerged anyway.

It could be possible that a different monotheistic religion emerges in Arabia, but it may also be possible that this new religion is polytheistic or that Christianity becomes dominant in Arabia or ...

 

[eschaton]

One of the most interesting possibilities of a world without Islam is the possibility that the Turks, spreading through Central Asia, convert to Buddhism, and some Oghuz-like branch continues its migration to the borders of Europe. Even if there was not mass conversion of any European peoples to Buddhism, the exposure of Europe to Buddhist philosophy would have interesting butterflies on an eventual enlightenment.

More broadly, it seems likely that "Christendom" ITTL would expand pretty far - not only taking in parts of the Middle East/North Africa, but ultimately probably some of Sub-Saharan Africa and some Asiatic steppe tribes as well. Because of this, I'm not sure if anything similar to the modernist European conception of race would develop.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

Because of this, I'm not sure if anything similar to the modernist European conception of race would develop.

Christians repeatedly used the Bible to justify slavery. The Dutch settlers in South Africa are a prime example, but the plantation owners in the US were also Christian to a man and yet they exploited black African slaves.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

This is factually incorrect. The Bible makes it quite clear that women are to be subordinate to their husbands. Paul says in his letters that a woman should not speak, she should stay silent and be obedient to men. Even today, Christians teach that husbands must display 'headship' over their wives, and that women must obey.

Remember that Paul was Roman and thus his views were heavily influence by the Roman culture. But at the same time women had been leaders in the early Christian congregations. The letters even mention women as deacons or even apostles.
And remember that many Christian traditions were created later after the Christianity was established as religion of state in the Roman empire and thus it adopted many Roman traditions.

A lot of women like Islam because it gives them the chance to be appreciated for their personal qualities, rather than be treated like a sex object as western women are.

That may have been the intent in the beginning but over the course of the centuries they have de facto lost all that freedom.

Remember that in early Christianity a woman could be the leader of a congregation but in Islam women were always second class people who could never gain any religious responsibilities.

 

[eschaton]

Christians repeatedly used the Bible to justify slavery. The Dutch settlers in South Africa are a prime example, but the plantation owners in the US were also Christian to a man and yet they exploited black African slaves.

I didn't say there might not be slavery, just that the modern conception of race might not develop.

FWIW, in the initial period slavery was getting up and running, the non-Christian nature of African slaves was used as a justification for why it was allowable.

As an example, IOTL the Kingdom of Kongo converted to Catholicism due to contact with the Portuguese. While Kongo provided slaves to the Portuguese it captured from other nations and tribes, baKongo themselves were not generally speaking enslaved until the mid 17th century, when racialist ideas about slavery were more firmly established.

 

[Barbarossa Rotbart]

Christians repeatedly used the Bible to justify slavery. The Dutch settlers in South Africa are a prime example, but the plantation owners in the US were also Christian to a man and yet they exploited black African slaves.

But that happened centuries later. Using the Bible as justification of slavery happened during the age of discovery. Before that time the church was strongly againts slavery.

 

[dean6294]

I'm not so sure that whatever occupies those parts of the world that will now never become Muslim will still take on some characteristics of that faith, because there is a significant cultural basis in some of the practices.

I remember is school we once encountered a classical writing describing inhabitants of the Levant; they described Roman disgust of encountering a people who frequently formed as mobs to stone, whip or cut off the hand of transgressors or criminals.

All of what we see now couldn't have simply overtaken the Caliphate in place of what cultural practices were there before.

 

[Byzantine fanatic]

I'm not so sure that whatever occupies those parts of the world that will now never become Muslim will still take on some characteristics of that faith, because there is a significant cultural basis in some of the practices.

I remember is school we once encountered a classical writing describing inhabitants of the Levant; they described Roman disgust of encountering a people who frequently formed as mobs to stone, whip or cut off the hand of transgressors or criminals.

All of what we see now couldn't have simply overtaken the Caliphate in place of what cultural practices were there before.

Excellent post.

I started to realise this too when I read about Pashtunwali, the tribal code of the Pashtun people in Afghanistan. Many of the practices of the Taliban owe their origin to Pashtunwali, which is thousands of years old and has nothing to do with Islam. Basically when you dig down into the Middle East, you find that a significant portion of what happens is down to cultural traditions that go back hundreds and even thousands of years. Not surprising, really, when you consider that Easter eggs and Christmas trees in western countries have nothing to do with Christianity.

 

[Napoleon IV]

Couldn't it be that they accepted his teachings but not his absolute(?) leadership?

Since his teachings were that he was the last prophet and was receiving revelations from God himself, no. If they were Muslims they wouldn't have driven a prophet out.

I disagree. It would still be a conversion if he forced them to accept him as their leader.

Except that they weren't Muslims beforehand.

Why does it mean that it ignores the polytheistic tradition of Arabia?

The Meccans weren't willing to accept Islam at first because it conflicted with longstanding beliefs they held. These beliefs were polytheistic. One of the first moves Muhammad made after reentering Mecca was smashing all of the idols in the Kaaba. Why, if the Meccans were Muslims, were there idols in the Kaaba? Islam prohibits both worship of any god but God, and the creation of graven images.

And you should remember that the Quran is an unreliable source written down decades after the events. And if most historian have a problem with the traditional sources about the Islamic expansion when we should ask ourselves if the Quran is as reliable source or if it is pure propaganda like the Christian Gospels (which are unreliable because several events mentioned there never happened)?

What does that mean? It means that it must be possible to research the origins of Islam without fixed expectations even if the results may not be the ones you've hoped to find. It must be possible to ask certain questions. It must be possible to question the oral tradition of Islam. But this does not happen because of fear. Every scholar of Islam studies or the history of early Islam fears not only religious fundamentalists but also the Islamic scholars. And those fear that if such scientific research does not deliver the expected results it will harm Islam. It seems that the leaders (religious and political) do not have any faith in the Muslims and that they fear that unexpected results may be the end of Islam. It seems that they believe that any scientific research without fixed expectations will come to the conclusion that the Quran is one big lie (as if religion has anything to do with history)...

The Quran may not be the most historical source, but it is generally agreed that it was only written 20 years after the fact, by Muhammad's Companions and other people who were alive during his time. Also, there is no real evidence that the general outline of the Quran is wrong about the life of Muhammad. It's not a case of fear, it's a case of "don't want to study a theory that has little to no evidence going for it."

 

[CountPeter]

Couldn't it be that they accepted his teachings but not his absolute(?) leadership?

Actually, it couldn't be that.
Muhammad had a progressive series of revelations rather than all at once, and many of them happened AFTER their later conversions. In short, you can't really have been a Muslim and at the time not have accepted his leadership.

Why does it mean that it ignores the polytheistic tradition of Arabia?

Because it ignores the cultural issues which led to the conflict with Islam. The Quraysh may often be depicted as money obsessed but at the very least they tend to still be shown as quite devout to their polytheistic ways. Islam leaving no room for the ideals of the Quraysh as well as its views regarding preisthood were radical enough to be a uniting factor for Arabs and do not make as much sense otherwise.

And you should remember that the Quran is an unreliable source written down decades after the events. And if most historian have a problem with the traditional sources about the Islamic expansion when we should ask ourselves if the Quran is as reliable source or if it is pure propaganda like the Christian Gospels (which are unreliable because several events mentioned there never happened)?

Firstly, this is further compounding the idea that you don't know much on the topic... I know that may sound rude, but the Quran isn't a documentation of the life of Muhammad or the conflict with the Quraysh. Now there are chapters which describe behaviour DURING those moments, but they are both A) minimal and B) few. To the extent that history is in the Quran it is largely "here is a battle that happened to us, here is what we can learn from it".

The history of Muhammad and his life largely comes through a collection of writings called the Hadith rather than the Quran. The Hadith and the examining of them for historical accuracy is actually a big theme in Islamic scholarship. One such often rejected one is where the 72 Virgins idea comes from. You are right in that there is real concern as to historical accuracy in Islam, but the matter of religion regarding the Quraysh really isn't one of them.

What does that mean? It means that it must be possible to research the origins of Islam without fixed expectations even if the results may not be the ones you've hoped to find. It must be possible to ask certain questions. It must be possible to question the oral tradition of Islam. But this does not happen because of fear. Every scholar of Islam studies or the history of early Islam fears not only religious fundamentalists but also the Islamic scholars. And those fear that if such scientific research does not deliver the expected results it will harm Islam. It seems that the leaders (religious and political) do not have any faith in the Muslims and that they fear that unexpected results may be the end of Islam. It seems that they believe that any scientific research without fixed expectations will come to the conclusion that the Quran is one big lie (as if religion has anything to do with history)...

I have got a feeling that you are on a bit of an anti-religious bent here... I am an atheist too (for I presume you are one based on the last section) but I am actually here for discussion. Blanket statements such as "It must be possible to question the oral tradition of Islam" and "Every scholar of Islam studies or the history of early Islam fears not only religious fundamentalists but also the Islamic Scholars" don't actually help convince people of your point regarding the Quraysh as it doesn't offer anything in turn. In case that sounds like I am being mean, perhaps this example will help you understand why such a tirade does not help the discussion with an example.

Al Qaeda is bad. In that statement, nothing is provided that actually tells you anything about early Islam. It is merely a disaproval of a group rather than an actual fruitful discussion of the history of early Islam.
I am more than happy to continue this discussion, but please keep it on topic.