Alternate history exercise - Middle East without Islam

[Imperialmajesty]

It's not a science, it's an intellectual exercise. And you can usually extrapolate a fair amount.

Why do you think so?

Don't assume the Mongol invasion will happen as OTL. :3

Look, in the short term, it isn't bad. The problem I have is when people think it is more then semi-educated guess to extrapolate two thousand years of history from one changed event, perhaps an example being the birth of Christ(what if it didn't happen). At that point it becomes entertainment with nuggets of history that might be educational from a certain point of view.

Well, Persian governments usually do not last beyond 300-400 years, and the Sassanids at the end of latest war with the Byzantines were quite weak in most conceivable ways. Of course, there are numerous different paths that Persia could have followed.


Of course, the Mongols didn't have to come

But you understand what I mean. The benefits of Alternative History is the process, not the resultant conclusion. In which case, you might as well dispense with the conclusion. Granted, as nothing more then an intellectual exercise, it is quite entertaining.

 

[Masada]

Of course it is. You refer to one constant aspect of Christianity and than you equal it with the entire Islam?

Yeah, and? Both represent a reoccurring strand of thought across both religions. In any case, recreating the umma is the terrestrial equivalent of heaven for Muslims before the ascension of the Mahdi et al. There's nothing Wahhabist about that, I can get the same story from Sufi's in Indonesia.

Allegations out of thin air will accomplish nothing.

You're not trying to appeal to my better nature or the heartstrings?

Again I am puzzled why you are making this point. I simply said what harms the fortune of the Arabian people. If not for the oil on the Arabian peninsula the people would suffer from famine and poverty. One day the oil is gone. If than radicals like the Wahabbi are in charge my point will be very much the peoples concern.

Because I am not talking about theology, you are. I have already admitted that your knowledge in that area is superior. No refute to be detected.

This is what I disagreed with:

This was possible because at first the Islam was very tolerant and had nothing to do with the fundamentalistic version experienced nowadays.

Which is a theological issue! You've since gone of on a tangent.

So picking up on your entire line of argumentation you are saying most Muslims desire is to have the Wahabbi version of the Islam as this resembles - as you have stated - most the umma.

Strawman! I'm saying that most Muslims want to recreate the umma, I didn't say what it would look like or what Muslims believe it to look like. In a totally separate area on a totally different strand of though I then noted that theologically Wahhabism is closet to the historical umma.

You know very well that this is not the truth.

Quran =/ Hadith

Now that is what I call avoiding to refute.

Because a non-nonsensical, non-related, response to a point I've made makes isn't worse?

Interesting, but how come that the practice of the Islam still varies a lot among the Islamic world? Do more and more people just don't give a damn about those untouchable interpretations?

Why don't you read a book on the subject? Or learn about the already referenced legal schools of Islam?

Because I didn’t intend to write an essay about Islamic theology?

Maybe you shouldn't have tried to talk about a matter of theological debate then?

Well the version I heard was that its builder was exiled and the building torn down by religious fanatics. Might be wrong thou. But you will have a hard time connecting all science of the Islamic empire with the Islam itself.

You could have just looked it up? In any case I've done nothing of the sort you just accused me off.

Feel free to inform yourself if you don't understand. But that trade triggers wealth and the lack of it triggers poverty is so simple and basic that a sceptical individual as you should comprehend it.

It's not my fault you've phrased your point in such a way that its ambiguous and utterly meaningless. Your also talking to an economist with a specialization in trade. Good job!

It is very simple. Where society stands still and science is virtually non-existing the economy will decline. Innovations don't come up, you can not participate in trade anymore as you have nothing special to offer, the cities lose their wealth, the powerful snatch whatever is left.

... except when you know it doesn't work like that?

The problem is you judge based on some very old arbitrary, religious rules. Like they would be the measure of all things.

That's fine. You can be all post-modernist and stuff. The majority of the Muslim world couldn't care in the least because those are the rules they follow and use.

This is absolutely not irrevocably. Prove? As you seem to know a lot about the Islam you should also know how different the Koran actually is followed. Of course many things are similar or the same, but many are also very different. Like the aspect of the veil. Or how the Koran is enforced. Or how women in general are treated and so on.

The example you provided is a result of different Hadith interpretations and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran. This is probably the single most representative post of the whole debate. You don't know what your talking about.

A secular perspective on the Islam. It happend, I proved it. A huge amount of religious tolerance (construction of churches). It happened, I proved it. Freethinker which made innovations possible (medicine, sewer system). It happened, I proved it.

How is that a secular perspective? The Quran specifically endorses religious tolerance, cleanliness (washing after sex, washing before prayer etc.) and the intellectual pursuits.

Citation needed

Heh. Some cursory examinations of the Quran might be worth some time on your part:

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.

Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.

ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

We also (sent) Lut: He said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you?
For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women : ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds."
And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"
But we saved him and his family, except his wife: she was of those who legged behind.
And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): Then see what was the end of those who indulged in sin and crime!

Etc.

EDIT: I actually don't believe that you are a nutty Islamic fundamentalist ;-) I am not even sure that you are Muslem. When I attack you with my as you claim emotional arguments I do only so to show the gab between theology and the actual consequence for the whole society. Because my point remains that caused by the changing role of the Islam in society the Islamic society itself changed which in the end contributed to the decline of the Islamic world. Because it's role changed to the worse. To more fundamentalism, to less space for freethinkers, to less openess. Just you don't get any false impressions of what I am trying to explaine here.

You haven't really shown it. I get what your saying but what you think was a decline in Islamic thought in the aggregate wasn't actually the case at all. The center of gravity simply diffused away from the heartlands of Mesopotamia and Arabia with the decline of the Caliphate and the growth of its various successors. While Islam did put a freeze on interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith it was really only signing the dotted line of a contract that all the parties were already fulfilling. It didn't prove to be all that much of a handicap in all honesty, other factors had a far greater effect on Islamic civilization viz. a viz. the West than the 'tarik' (I don't know the proper Arabic term for it just the shorthand and I'm to tired to look it up).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The center of gravity simply diffused away from the heartlands of Mesopotamia and Arabia with the decline of the Caliphate and the growth of its various successors.

This is true, but does not invalid my point, it only showes that the religions was a factor, not the initiator.

While Islam did put a freeze on interpretation of the Quran and the Hadith it was really only signing the dotted line of a contract that all the parties were already fulfilling. It didn't prove to be all that much of a handicap in all honesty, other factors had a far greater effect on Islamic civilization viz. a viz. the West than the 'tarik' (I don't know the proper Arabic term for it just the shorthand and I'm to tired to look it up).

The Golden Age did not end because of the Islam. But the way the Islam was handled and used - the role of the Islam - helped to continue this process. Europe got ahead because the society detached its besaic development from religion, getting poorer and weaker the Islamic world experienced a closer attachement. It dominated the society in its development, which as not been the case during the Golden Age. Back than religion merely provided a tool to unite and give identity. Later it was everything educational or since-wise which had stayed and it worked hard to not lose this role. It became the measure of all things allowing the powerful to secure their power using religion. Innovations, freethinkers - they started to be just in the way.

I tryed to show this on examples - maybe not as good as possible but I did - you basicly ignore those examples and keep referring to the theology and mock my lack of knowdlegde of it. I have alrady stated that I at first overrated the importance of the religion and I am glad to have been able to correct this view. But so far you offered nothing to invalid my basic point: That the grip of the Islam tighened and this way hindered the Islamic world going on by themselfs.
The Golden Age ended because of exterior factors. But that the Islamic world was that much left far behind by the west was due internal factors.

You may or may not agree. However, as I don't expect you to bring up any new insights which shed a new light on it I am afraid this discussion has arrived at an end. Any prolonging could be an interesting fight , but it would be based way more on personel feelings than arguments.

Anyway I somewhat enjoyed it.

PS.: If you point out that the Wahabbi resembles the umma the most and at the same time that all muslems pursue the umma the implication is clear. To then deny this implication saying that you only meant the historical umma shows, that you either just argue for the sake of argueing or that you are unabel to admit logical mistakes.

 

[Masada]

Europe got ahead because the society detached its besaic development from religion, getting poorer and weaker the Islamic world experienced a closer attachement.

You haven't provided any evidence of the religiosity of the Islamic world increasing or of Europe decoupling from its religious foundations, all you've provided is vague words - hints of secularism lost, indoctrination of the faithful, submission of free-thought to religion, a growth in 'fanaticism' and 'fundamentalism' - all of which have been refuted, haven't been substantiated or have no bearing whatsoever on the subject at hand - observatory.

It dominated the society in its development, which as not been the case during the Golden Age.

Is that a vague unsubstantiated claim without any evidence to back it up? Why yes it is. Are we going to see more of these? I hope not!

Back than religion merely provided a tool to unite and give identity.

...Speak of the devil? Etc.

I tryed to show this on examples - maybe not as good as possible but I did - you basicly ignore those examples and keep referring to the theology and mock my lack of knowdlegde of it.

Your debating the religiosity or lack thereof of a religious group and you're not in the least bit interested in examining the very thing that will tell you the state of that religion with regards to how it saw itself, how it saw innovation, technology, cleanliness of any of the host of other issues which have been raised during the course of this discussion? Great.

But so far you offered nothing to invalid my basic point: That the grip of the Islam tighened and this way hindered the Islamic world going on by themselfs.

Why should I need to address vague nebulous points which you can't backup except with other vague nebulous points? Wait, might it be that I can't invalidate a point so utterly vague and so utterly broad that it really defies any attempt at pinning it down. It isn't incumbent upon me to refute your argument, as it is more properly know since a point assumes some degree of factual backing, its incumbent upon you to prove it and me in turn to attempt to disprove it or cast sufficient doubt upon it that the argument needs to be reworked. Those few concrete points you've raised with some grounding in fact, rather than your opinion, and the only example of that you've provided has been thoroughly debunked - purported secular motifs and observatories don't cha' know.

You may or may not agree. However, as I don't expect you to bring up any new insights which shed a new light on it I am afraid this discussion has arrived at an end. Any prolonging could be an interesting fight , but it would be based way more on personel feelings than arguments.

Your personal feelings, you mean. You wouldn't know what mines are, if I have any at all on the subject. I'm also going to have to disagree with a large amount of what you've said during the thread simply because you haven't proved it, or provided evidence for it other than your opinion.

PS.: If you point out that the Wahabbi resembles the umma the most and at the same time that all muslems pursue the umma the implication is clear. To then deny this implication saying that you only meant the historical umma shows, that you either just argue for the sake of argueing or that you are unabel to admit logical mistakes.

It isn't hard to realize that very few people in the world see history as it actually was. I don't believe that Jane Austen novels represent how Great Britain was when she wrote them. I recognize that they were crafted around the time but that they were intended as works of escapist fiction, quite removed from reality, and that that's how they should be interpreted for the historical record. I also recognize that the Quran as source has peculiar rules surrounding it, criticizing or questioning it isn't something that Muslims like to do. I'm not bound by that and I can question and criticize it all I like, however, I'm not fool enough to believe that those who labor under those proscriptions see it the same way I do. I know they don't. That creates an interesting disconnect between believers and non-believers, they see the umma as something to aspire to without the need to question it, or look at it in a comparative light compared to say Wahhabi's. That isn't important for them, they simply accept that the umma is something to aspire to, and believe that that the Mahdi will ultimately bring about paradise on earth before judgment day. I see it a wholly different way, I can look at the umma critically, question some of Muhammad's decisions, look at how the society functioned and notice its problems. I can make comparative analysis which most Muslims don't see a need to make - the Mahdi is going to sort it out so why bother? Its fair to say that there is a large disconnect between what Muslims believe the early umma was like and what it was actually like. The faithful meeting the historical record wouldn't be all together pretty I'd imagine.