WI: Khosrau II captures/executes/assassinates Mohammed

[Tate the Brewer]

Sorry, this post is definitely going to re-hash some of the other posts, but I haven't had a chance to drop in. So here we go...

First, as other people have said idk if this would change history all too much as the Muslim community still has Abu Bakr, Ali ibn Talib, Umar bin al-Khattab and technical Khalid ibn Walid. However for the sake of argument I will assume events will change and without Muhammad Islam will be changed tremendously, I will also assume Khalid ibn Walid does not convert without Muhammad to receive him at Medina.


If this is to happen then I can see a longer war between Muslims and the Quryash making the Hejaz more fractured. That being said it is likely that the Muslims will be victorious and will unite the Hejaz, however without the swift conquest of the Middle East and Arabia there will be more dissection in Islam, most likely a stronger and more fearsome Kharajite movement which could fracture the Islamic state in the Hejaz.

At the same time I can see the Sassanids attempt to reconstruct themselves after the disastrous wars with the Byzantines(which will be preoccupied with the Avar khaganate). I seriously do not see the Sassanids expand and it is possible they loose Oman to the natives or even rogue Muslims ( Khawarij ) seeking to take land from the Persians. These Khawarij could possibly upon breaking free from the Hejaz launch raids and small scale invasions of Sassanid and Byzantine territory. In time these Khawarij could completely separate from orthodox Islam creating extremely distinct religions who just use the same book and traditions (Quran,Hadiths and Sharia) with the orthodoxy in Hejaz proclaims the caliph must be related to Muhammad while the Khawarij proclaim only the most knowledgable can rule and shout their slogan "no rule but gods". Also the different sects would have different types of followers with orthodoxy catching on around the coast and among the merchants and elite while the Khawarij would primarily be Bedouins who had previously spent their life raiding and from lower clans and tribes.


Back to the Persians, they would most likely continue their rule despite these Khawarij raids and will attempt to play the sects against each other effectively nullifying a full on invasion which at the moment they would not be able to handle.

Byzantines at the same time without the Arab invasion, can resume conqeusts of southern Italy and deal with the Avar Khaganate. Without large piracy by the Arabs the Mediterranean will be somewhat safer and will have more information spread between Europe and Africa . While the Mediterranean would be safer, inland middle east will be more dangerous as the borders of three holstile enemies create no room for trade and the flowing of ideas (how the Islamic golden age began) these hostile borders would be raiding Khawarij and Hejazi (orthodox Muslims in this scenario), the Sassanids and Byzantines with both withholding information and trade from the other.
With that said the Hejazi with their merchant tendencies could possibly create a rich merchant society with friendly ties to Aksum and possibly Byzantine Egypt.

To Aksum, without fear of Islam Aksum retains its trading power in the gulf of Aden and in the Indian Ocean, however I foresee them still having trouble with Somalians which would likely convert to the Hejazi version of Islam, via Arab merchants. In Yemen it is a toss up between Aksum, Hejaz and native tribes ( Qataban) and could probably be split in threes by the states.

Interesting...

In Europe the various kingdoms would be unlikely unite ( no Charlemagne) without the threat of Islam, most likely the Visigoths retain control over Spain, plus without Arab influences the Iberians are likely to adopt Spanish and perhaps continue speaking a Germanic language. The Berbers and Tauregs are slowly Christianised however not at the same speed as with Islam and most likely West Africa will only be loosely influenced by Christianity, as well it is possible the Berbers and Tauregs developed their own forms of Christianity (Arianism), and due to their relative isolation to the Christian power bases they will retain this form of Christianity with little to no persecution. Also in North Africa, African Romance languages will dominate the coast while Punic continues its decline, however with out their easy assimilation to Arabic avoided their communities could last for much longer in isolated enclaves throughout Libya.

I can't agree here. I really don't think that European politics were that simple at the time. Just because there is no threat of Islam, doesn't decrease Christian religious fervor against their local enemies - the pagans, and likewise, we may see religion removed from the European political scene with time. But this doesn't mean no unifying figure, like Charlemagne, it just means that the nature of this person and their empire is going to be very different from the one we know today.


I also can't really see African Romance persisting anywhere except for urban areas of the cost, if even there. We have an extremely minimal amount of data on Romance being spoken at all in North Africa, and the linguistic situation there during the days of the Roman Empire was likely not entirely that different from Britan, i.e. Latin in small pockets, with local languages abounding in the countryside. That being said, Berber languages will probably end up swallowing them up.


It's also important to understand that though Visigoths conquered Hispania, their language was never very widely spoken throughout their empire, and by the time of the Arab conquest was probably limited to Gothic upper class. The situation there is going to be very similar to France, where Frankish was influential on local dialects of Latin where the Franks settled, but it was eventually engulfed by Romance. We will also see an entirely different set of Romance languages being spoken within Iberia. If the Visigoths are able to hold on to their French territories over the Pyrenees, which is unlikely, dialects of Occitan and Gascon (they are not the same thing) might permeate further south. This is increasingly likely if the Franks invade and set up puppet states like the French Mark IOTL in their wake. But modern Iberian Romance languages come from the high mountain valleys of the northern part of the peninsula, and are only spoken across the peninsula today because of the Reconquista. Mozarabic dialects belonged to a very different branch that is poorly understood, but while it shared some sound changes and retentions with Southern and North-Central Italian languages, it had a very different vocabulary and probably was not closely related. These languages are going to be the ones absorbing Gothic, not Spanish.


I would write more, but I need to use the bathroom, and I'm at work... lol.

 

[John Farson]

The OP made me think of this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhy9--YRBD8

Though I doubt assassinating Muhammad would have the same effect on his followers.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Sorry, this post is definitely going to re-hash some of the other posts, but I haven't had a chance to drop in. So here we go...





Interesting...





I can't agree here. I really don't think that European politics were that simple at the time. Just because there is no threat of Islam, doesn't decrease Christian religious fervor against their local enemies - the pagans, and likewise, we may see religion removed from the European political scene with time. But this doesn't mean no unifying figure, like Charlemagne, it just means that the nature of this person and their empire is going to be very different from the one we know today.


I also can't really see African Romance persisting anywhere except for urban areas of the cost, if even there. We have an extremely minimal amount of data on Romance being spoken at all in North Africa, and the linguistic situation there during the days of the Roman Empire was likely not entirely that different from Britan, i.e. Latin in small pockets, with local languages abounding in the countryside. That being said, Berber languages will probably end up swallowing them up.


It's also important to understand that though Visigoths conquered Hispania, their language was never very widely spoken throughout their empire, and by the time of the Arab conquest was probably limited to Gothic upper class. The situation there is going to be very similar to France, where Frankish was influential on local dialects of Latin where the Franks settled, but it was eventually engulfed by Romance. We will also see an entirely different set of Romance languages being spoken within Iberia. If the Visigoths are able to hold on to their French territories over the Pyrenees, which is unlikely, dialects of Occitan and Gascon (they are not the same thing) might permeate further south. This is increasingly likely if the Franks invade and set up puppet states like the French Mark IOTL in their wake. But modern Iberian Romance languages come from the high mountain valleys of the northern part of the peninsula, and are only spoken across the peninsula today because of the Reconquista. Mozarabic dialects belonged to a very different branch that is poorly understood, but while it shared some sound changes and retentions with Southern and North-Central Italian languages, it had a very different vocabulary and probably was not closely related. These languages are going to be the ones absorbing Gothic, not Spanish.


I would write more, but I need to use the bathroom, and I'm at work... lol.

Thanks for the info. Glad you thought it was interesting.


But back on topic. It may be true that without Islam there would be a uniting figure, however in what way does the unifying ruler gain legitimacy? As far as Christianity, you do have to admit without Islam Christianity would at least be slightly less militarized. By this I mean, would the Baltic Crusade happen without Islam drawing in crusaders? That being said I can see possibly a decentralized Europe still sending crusaders to fight Persia, however it would be less prevalent than it was against Islam. It would take some major horde to arouse Christendom into crusading fervor as it did OTL. (Perhaps a northern horde conquest of Byzantium)

As far as Iberia goes, I admittedly have only minimal knowledge of Iberia before Ummayads. My question is how possible was it for a strong Visigothic state perhaps calling itself Iberia in the future, and how stable was the Visigoth state pre-Ummayads?

 

[Sian]

can't Christian militarism trace its root back to early Frankish missionaries followed up by armies if the pagans doesn't follow 'orders'?, or was that first really at Charlemagne?

 

[Roger II]

can't Christian militarism trace its root back to early Frankish missionaries followed up by armies if the pagans doesn't follow 'orders'?, or was that first really at Charlemagne?

I mean, it arguably traces itself back to late antiquity and the claim circulating among Christians and Zoroastrians at the time that religion and empire were both justifications for state-sponsored and individual violence-one thinks both of Kerdir's inscriptions in which he praises himself for smiting non-Zoroastrians and of Shenoute of Atripe's famous dictum that "There is no crime for those who have christ".

 

[Sian]

eh ... probably close enough given that my point was that 'No/only regional islam' didn't necessarily kill off the much later baltic crusades

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

eh ... probably close enough given that my point was that 'No/only regional islam' didn't necessarily kill off the much later baltic crusades

Yes but without the example set by the first crusade it will not really be anything like it was OTL. There will likely be no millitary monk orders which was unique during this era, the Baltic crusade might happen but it would be led by the state not by men coming from all over Europe to fight in the name of God. There would still be holy wars, but a holy war like had been done before (which was just justifying war through the gods or god) not a crusade on the level of the 1100s-1300s were men from extremely different backgrounds and nationalities traveled enormous distances to fight for a country or people they have never heard of, were monks untraditionally traded they're life of monasticism for the sword.

So theoretically you are right that there would be holy wars, but to say that the militarization of Christendem is like otl without the force of Islam, seems doubtful to me.

 

[Timaeus]

can't Christian militarism trace its root back to early Frankish missionaries followed up by armies if the pagans doesn't follow 'orders'?, or was that first really at Charlemagne?

well, even when Rome wasn't dying out yet, there were Christian soldiers in the Legions. so...

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

well, even when Rome wasn't dying out yet, there were Christian soldiers in the Legions. so...

And? Does this equate a full scale crusade like what was seen in the 1100s-1300s, without the possibke threat of Islaam? Would Christianity militarize like otl whenever they still controlled Judea,Egypt and Syria?

Let's look at possible targets for crusade like otl. Persia is unlikely, if the Sassanids collapse and persia reforms into a new dynasty, Persia will begin to look inward and to its east toward a new threat (the Turks). At this point it is impossible to say that the west would crusade against the east (as in eastern christians in Greece and middle east) as it is not for sure in this tl that there would be a schism between Catholics and Orthodox and it is likely with the Levant and Alexandria still apart of Christendom, that Christianity remains United (roughly) under Chalcedonism. I have already covered the Pagans in the North. The only possible way would be a cataclysmic horde invasion akin to a Mongol invasion of the Middle East , taking Jerusalem. Christians then from Europe and Africa take up arms to retake the "holy land" from the heathen horde.

Just my 2 cents though.

 

[Sian]

Yes but without the example set by the first crusade it will not really be anything like it was OTL. There will likely be no millitary monk orders which was unique during this era, the Baltic crusade might happen but it would be led by the state not by men coming from all over Europe to fight in the name of God. There would still be holy wars, but a holy war like had been done before (which was just justifying war through the gods or god) not a crusade on the level of the 1100s-1300s were men from extremely different backgrounds and nationalities traveled enormous distances to fight for a country or people they have never heard of, were monks untraditionally traded they're life of monasticism for the sword.

So theoretically you are right that there would be holy wars, but to say that the militarization of Christendem is like otl without the force of Islam, seems doubtful to me.

Granted, it might go slower since it didn't have an example to follow, but at least for Danes and Swedes calling it a crusade was more of an excuse and PR than an actual reason ... reasons were stopping the baltic pirates, and grabbing easy land to make themselves look greater, and any slowing down would be more because of it being more tricky to get the armies running (nobles and the chruch would be somewhat less interested), than any lack of want from the kings.

IIRC, Fait accompli, was a considerable part of it being called a crusade, as they were allready well at it when the Pope got around giving them the banner

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Maybe someone could make a timeline based on the stuff we have posted on here. Maybe?

 

[Harald Sigurdson II]

Maybe someone could make a timeline based on the stuff we have posted on here. Maybe?

My mouth is absolutely watering over this.... we should pay Jared a thousand dollars to do this

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

My mouth is absolutely watering over this.... we should pay Jared a thousand dollars to do this

It would be nice to see all this hard work put into a timeline. I basically wrote a book worth of stuff in this thread.

 

[Harald Sigurdson II]

I pose a question: what trade routes would Islamic religion(s) be likely to spread upon? I doubt it would make progress in Christian areas, but it might gain some popularity in southern Mesopotamia, and East Africa, along with joining the Gnostic bandwagon in Sogdiana, some of Persia and Central Asia. But, where might go eastward from there? China is a bit far and unlikely to gain popularity. However, India and Indonesia are different questions. Also, I mean by conversion, not conquest.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I pose a question: what trade routes would Islamic religion(s) be likely to spread upon? I doubt it would make progress in Christian areas, but it might gain some popularity in southern Mesopotamia, and East Africa, along with joining the Gnostic bandwagon in Sogdiana, some of Persia and Central Asia. But, where might go eastward from there? China is a bit far and unlikely to gain popularity. However, India and Indonesia are different questions. Also, I mean by conversion, not conquest.

Lol, the thread rises (my favorite thread I have posted on so far). I can see Islam spreading to southern India and possibly Somalia, especially once Aksum inevitably falls and turns inward to modern Ethiopia. Islam will be spread by merchants in the Indian ocean by trade, while the Khwarij (Shurah) will be spread by the sword anywhere the Khawarij conquer. Islam once spread into India could then hop to Indonesia, however it would take a Muslim state in India for Indonesia to make the conversion it did otl.

 

[Harald Sigurdson II]

Lol, the thread rises (my favorite thread I have posted on so far). I can see Islam spreading to southern India and possibly Somalia, especially once Aksum inevitably falls and turns inward to modern Ethiopia. Islam will be spread by merchants in the Indian ocean by trade, while the Khwarij (Shurah) will be spread by the sword anywhere the Khawarij conquer. Islam once spread into India could then hop to Indonesia, however it would take a Muslim state in India for Indonesia to make the conversion it did otl.

I don't what to see this die, so many questions and things. How long might it take for a Indian state where both the elite and peasants are Muslim, in order for it to spread to Indonesia?

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I don't what to see this die, so many questions and things. How long might it take for a Indian state where both the elite and peasants are Muslim, in order for it to spread to Indonesia?

The peasants don't necesarily have to be Muslim, what is important is for the rulers to be Muslim (very tolerant) and for the merchant class to be Muslim. If these spheres can be dominated and a state around the size of say Bengal emerges, then Malacca will most likely convert to gain trade rights and incentives that only a fellow follower can get. Once Malacca converts and gains special treatment; the others will do the same to counteract them. Thus the conversion of Indonesia goes somewhat otl. In this scenario, Islam will be almost no existant in the North but somewhat powerful in the south and could even create powerful trading states. This is all assuming Somalia converts.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

So no one else wants to check this thread?

 

[AlwaysLikeThis]

I'm not sure how easy it'd be to get Islam into India without the Arab conquest of Persia. Even OTL Islam struggled in India (except under the Mughals, when it flourished to 50% of India's population). That took a full scale conquest and hundreds of years under Muslim rule (Delhi Sultanate etc).

Even then, Southern India was a Hindu stronghold. Any ruler converting to Islam in India would most likely be overthrown in a coup by nobles or the military in some form, or even a peasant uprising.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I'm not sure how easy it'd be to get Islam into India without the Arab conquest of Persia. Even OTL Islam struggled in India (except under the Mughals, when it flourished to 50% of India's population). That took a full scale conquest and hundreds of years under Muslim rule (Delhi Sultanate etc).

Even then, Southern India was a Hindu stronghold. Any ruler converting to Islam in India would most likely be overthrown in a coup by nobles or the military in some form, or even a peasant uprising.

Southern India became a Hindu stronghold as a response to the Muslim conquest. In fact the most influential India states until Vijayanagar were based in the North (Gupta,Maurya,Pala). In this TL Islam is even more merchant orientated and will spread more readily in South India than otl. However I do agree it could go the other way in certain situations but there's no fun in that.