WI: Muslim Vikings?

[Dagoth Ur]

Hmm that is true. Poor Olaf. But on the sidenote, scotland is in a better position to be ruled by muslim vikings (with a large Pagan population). And while drawing analogy between the Nazarene rulers of scandinavia and their misadventure with a probable muslim one, it should be noted that Muslims can be tolerant of pagans. Unlike nazarenes, they have one secret weapon......jizya! So they are in no hurry to convert their kinsmen and have a steady revenue flowing from the populace and also dedicate themselves to raiding other settlements with economic and (possible military) ties established with Qurtuba Emirate. Some strict islamic rules will be circumvented by rulers and there can always be active sufi orders in the region, who were the backbone in converting the pagan populace in India and Nusantara OTL (poor analogy, yeah I know)

I doubt Muslim rulers and jihadis would bother with Scotland without first subduing wealthier lands

 

[Lions21]

I doubt Muslim rulers and jihadis would bother with Scotland without first subduing wealthier lands

Yup the Vikings barely bothered with it OTL anyways

 

[Jürgen]

Hmm that is true. Poor Olaf.

I think there's a general agreement that Olaf deserved a end a lot worse than he got. Olav was pretty much the Norse version of Vlad the Impaler just with a lot better PR.

 

[Paradoxer]

Inspired by the Vikings TV show (not historically accurate of course), where a character named Floki discovers Islam and is fascinated by it during a raid on Algeciras. He appreciates their devotion to Allah and his amazement at it even brings him to question his own pagan beliefs. What if then, through trade or war with the Islamic world, the Vikings or at least a substantial portion of them, adopt Islam as their religion? Would it survive or would they be killed for being heretics? They would certainly be accepting of the idea of "jihad" and holy war, which they could use as a motivation for further raiding and wars.

How could you achieve this to the point where Scandinavia becomes Islamic? Would there be a forcible Christianisation campaign down the line like there was in OTL?

Bit off topic, but Floki conversion seem super out of character and nearly ruined show for me when I think back to very first two episodes and see how he acts in the monastery or church which he showed no respect for stuff or people there.

I really think the show did not have balls and feared “backlash” of some type of he did that to Muslims in show.

Few issues with Islam in converting any Northern Europeans. One diet is big one. Pork/pigs are often a reliant livestock for more cold and muggy European climate compared to most animals. The Muslims might see them as dirty and pest(the things will literally eat anything shit or it’s own kind of fed it) but they are endurable/resilient as hell. Look at wild hogs for proof of that.

Also alcohol is big and sometimes must in cold north. You can you vodka to disinfect wounds or as pain killers. Also doesn’t freeze as easy as water or get contaminated.

The Russians even have funny saying about why they did not convert to Russia. One of tsars said basically said “what is Rus and it’s people without vodka“. Also they like pork too.

Also the Norse and Northern Europeans in general especially before Christianity do take less restrictive and oppressive restrictions on women. Even in otl some of women family members of kings or wives of converted Norse sometimes opposed conversion to Christianity for similar reasons. It screws over their position in society most and puts them even more in background compared to their pagan ancestors. These areas people arguably never became overly religious as its southern counterparts even in otl. It’s always been more political to them nothing more.

 

[Vulgarian]

Islam in places far from its borders was spread through trade routes, so you'd have to make Muslim trading to Scandinavia much stronger than OTL.

There would be two ways to achieve this, firstly as @Dagoth Ur said have the Franks and a few others such as the English, Irish or Frisians be Muslim. Or have an overall much weaker christian world in general.

This is why I suggested having Constantinople fall to the Arabs.

Under such circumstances it's not implausible that we would see Islamic Rus.

From there, it's less plausible, but not impossible that they could spread Islam to say some areas of Sweden.

Of course there also seems to have been some kind of change among the Rus from trading East to Baghdad to going south to Constantinople. I've seen this blamed on both the silver mines around Tashkent being played out, and on the Volga Bolga, or the Khazars limiting access to the Caspian. If you can keep this network going and actually increase it then you would also have a Scandinavia that is more plugged into the Islamic world. Possibly, this could happen if the Khazars converted to Islam and insisted the Rus did as well if they wanted to trade.

I think it's unlikely that there would ultimately be an islamic scandinavia. I think a divided scandinavia, with some parts Muslim, and others becoming Christian which continues for a time, might be interesting.

 

[Jürgen]

Few issues with Islam in converting any Northern Europeans. One diet is big one. Pork/pigs are often a reliant livestock for more cold and muggy European climate compared to most animals. The Muslims might see them as dirty and pest(the things will literally eat anything shit or it’s own kind of fed it) but they are endurable/resilient as hell. Look at wild hogs for proof of that.

While the ability to transform garbage into calories is a major benefit with the pig, the main benefit with pigs is the fact that they can forage in temperate forests. It’s in general labor intensive to get calories out of temperate forests, but with pigs you can just release them and they collect the calories for you and you just need a swineherd to keep a eye on them.

In Russia it’s also pretty telling that the expansion of Islam stopped where steppes became forest.

 

[Paradoxer]

While the ability to transform garbage into calories is a major benefit with the pig, the main benefit with pigs is the fact that they can forage in temperate forests. It’s in general labor intensive to get calories out of temperate forests, but with pigs you can just release them and they collect the calories for you and you just need a swineherd to keep a eye on them.

In Russia it’s also pretty telling that the expansion of Islam stopped where steppes became forest.

Nasty and mean bastards especially their wild counterparts(don’t eat them. They carry pest). They survive like pest and I did know they could forage.

They actually have great noses and can be used to track certain stuff in forest to fit herbs or food ingredient

 

[Jürgen]

Nasty and mean bastards especially their wild counterparts(don’t eat them. They carry pest). They survive like pest and I did know they could forage.

They actually have great noses and can be used to track certain stuff in forest to fit herbs or food ingredient

That’s also another benefit with pigs, they remove the niche wild boars could potential move into. In Scandinavia the wild boars had completely disappeared only to make a comeback when foraging by domestic pig ended.

 

[Paradoxer]

That’s also another benefit with pigs, they remove the niche wild boars could potential move into. In Scandinavia the wild boars had completely disappeared only to make a comeback when foraging by domestic pig ended.

These discussions of religion really do not take points like this and geography into account as much as you think.

Although more Islam gets into Europe more likely you see less rigid sects like one in Muslim Spain who I think drank alcohol.

Even in any pod that involves Islam eventually taking over bunch of Europe I imagine the religion has more sects form of wide variety to point Arabs in Saudi consider Europeans more of “apostates” and “heretics” more so then Iranians.

Issue with Islam is “low key” bias and excessive favoritism towards Arab people and language. What hell would Norse language even look like with that alphabet.

Some Arabs especially from Arabia and Levant still see themselves as “heart” of Islam and most “true Muslims”.

Christianity wasn’t even that extreme or no where near as much favoritism towards Greek and Latin culture as Islam to Arabs

 

[Lions21]

These discussions of religion really do not take points like this and geography into account as much as you think.

Although more Islam gets into Europe more likely you see less rigid sects like one in Muslim Spain who I think drank alcohol.

Even in any pod that involves Islam eventually taking over bunch of Europe I imagine the religion has more sects form of wide variety to point Arabs in Saudi consider Europeans more of “apostates” and “heretics” more so then Iranians.

Issue with Islam is “low key” bias and excessive favoritism towards Arab people and language. What hell would Norse language even look like with that alphabet.

Some Arabs especially from Arabia and Levant still see themselves as “heart” of Islam and most “true Muslims”.

Christianity wasn’t even that extreme or no where near as much favoritism towards Greek and Latin culture as Islam to Arabs

I think thats very much an exaggeration to say the least. Sure with Arabic being the liturgical language you're of course going to see some form of Arabo centrism when it comes to religion, but to say it extended to the point of viewing peoples who converted to Islam as 'less muslim' is just frankly untrue, that whole debate died with the overthrowal of the Umayyad Caliphate and even with them the arabo centrism of that dynasty is very much overstated.

Persians are really second only to Arabs when it comes to contribution to the Islamic corpus and Persians were considered people of high culture, hence why Persian styles, government and ideas were very readily embraced by Arabs. As a small example, belly dancing which is something we often associate with arabic cultures was in fact originally persian.

Would the Arabs look down on Western Europeans even if they converted to Islam? Yes of course they would as they did OTL when they were christan anyway and usually for reasons besides religion, in contrast to how they viewed the Eastern Romans the Muslim arabs saw the Franks as backwards and barbaric people.

In short, the Arabs of this period and their views on different peoples was usually affected by how civilised they perceived the culture to be and though religious values did sometimes come into play, its important not to conflate that with a sense of inate arab superiority in religious terms.

Modern arabs is a whole different can of worms I won't get into.

 

[Paradoxer]

I think thats very much an exaggeration to say the least. Sure with Arabic being the liturgical language you're of course going to see some form of Arabo centrism when it comes to religion, but to say it extended to the point of viewing peoples who converted to Islam as 'less muslim' is just frankly untrue, that whole debate died with the overthrowal of the Umayyad Caliphate and even with them the arabo centrism of that dynasty is very much overstated.

Persians are really second only to Arabs when it comes to contribution to the Islamic corpus and Persians were considered people of high culture, hence why Persian styles, government and ideas were very readily embraced by Arabs. As a small example, belly dancing which is something we often associate with arabic cultures was in fact originally persian.

Would the Arabs look down on Western Europeans even if they converted to Islam? Yes of course they would as they did OTL when they were christan anyway and usually for reasons besides religion, in contrast to how they viewed the Eastern Romans the Muslim arabs saw the Franks as backwards and barbaric people.

In short, the Arabs of this period and their views on different peoples was usually affected by how civilised they perceived the culture to be and though religious values did sometimes come into play, its important not to conflate that with a sense of inate arab superiority in religious terms.

Modern arabs is a whole different can of worms I won't get into.

True, Persia I often associated with being center group influential for Shia sect and Arabs more so Sunni and North Africa. Then Turks randomly come in later as third big cultural element in Islamic(didn’t Turks try to play middle man between two groups ever?). But anyway I always Persian and Arab divide and any hostile is more rooted in Shia and Sunni divide. Often hear Arabs associate Shia sect more with Persian influences.

European version of Islam could be even more different and foreign to them.

Also I feel lack of hierarchy like churches might lead to excessive and uncontrollable syncretism.

Look at Africa. You have people still currently in otl who somehow mix Jesus/Christianity, Muhammad/Islam, and African traditional folklore/faiths all together.

You could honestly get “another prophet” or some wild new religion form out of this in long run between.

 

[Paradoxer]

I think thats very much an exaggeration to say the least. Sure with Arabic being the liturgical language you're of course going to see some form of Arabo centrism when it comes to religion, but to say it extended to the point of viewing peoples who converted to Islam as 'less muslim' is just frankly untrue, that whole debate died with the overthrowal of the Umayyad Caliphate and even with them the arabo centrism of that dynasty is very much overstated.

Persians are really second only to Arabs when it comes to contribution to the Islamic corpus and Persians were considered people of high culture, hence why Persian styles, government and ideas were very readily embraced by Arabs. As a small example, belly dancing which is something we often associate with arabic cultures was in fact originally persian.

Would the Arabs look down on Western Europeans even if they converted to Islam? Yes of course they would as they did OTL when they were christan anyway and usually for reasons besides religion, in contrast to how they viewed the Eastern Romans the Muslim arabs saw the Franks as backwards and barbaric people.

In short, the Arabs of this period and their views on different peoples was usually affected by how civilised they perceived the culture to be and though religious values did sometimes come into play, its important not to conflate that with a sense of inate arab superiority in religious terms.

Modern arabs is a whole different can of worms I won't get into.

Using Christianity for example especially in Americas looking at all whacky and random sects to pop out of reformation and in new world like Mormons.

For example, Catholics don’t even technically consider Mormons Christians or use to not to.

 

[Ursogulos]

I doubt Muslim rulers and jihadis would bother with Scotland without first subduing wealthier lands

No Scotland? No muslim vikings then. Because despite my surface knowledge on this area, I know that Scotland was the least christened one. So basically the only place Islam could make gains without competing with Christianity outright. But when it came to choosing a religion in terms of rulers, economy and politics played a part. Khazars for example, converted to Judaism (If only the nobility) to avoid being politically dominated by neighboring powers of Abbasid and Byzantines. But yes, theirs is not a successful example, so muslim vikings aren't an option unless we can have Franks defeated at some battle and splint into various successor kingdoms afterwards, so when Vikings came a centralized developing Qurtuba would be awe-inspiring instead of the bickering kingdoms of Francia. Note you don't have to convert the Franks outright (Not that some of them wouldn't convert). This mirrors the 'weak byzantium' scenario presented by users above. And there is a timeline on that path, Talus I Dixi's Muslim world: the true faith

 

[PsyloSurgeon]

People in general seem to think most Muslims in history were extremists or fundamentalists when Wahhabism is only about 150 years old and started as a reaction to western imperialism. The Bible and Kur'an both prescribe death for homosexual activity, but you had Edward II and Mehmed the Conqueror, both pretty fond of men/boys, and not put to death for it.

The teachings of ibn wahhab originated with the decline and modernization of the Ottoman empire, not really western imperialism.

 

[SPJ]

True, Persia I often associated with being center group influential for Shia sect and Arabs more so Sunni and North Africa. Then Turks randomly come in later as third big cultural element in Islamic(didn’t Turks try to play middle man between two groups ever?). But anyway I always Persian and Arab divide and any hostile is more rooted in Shia and Sunni divide. Often hear Arabs associate Shia sect more with Persian influences.

European version of Islam could be even more different and foreign to them.

Also I feel lack of hierarchy like churches might lead to excessive and uncontrollable syncretism.

Look at Africa. You have people still currently in otl who somehow mix Jesus/Christianity, Muhammad/Islam, and African traditional folklore/faiths all together.

You could honestly get “another prophet” or some wild new religion form out of this in long run between.

You helped make the point I was going to make about West Africa. As I learned from the Extra Credits Youtube Channel, Muslim traveler and scholar Ibn Battutah commented on his visit to the Mali Empire and how the people of that region had only "partly" converted. With some converting to Islam, some maintaining traditional beliefs, and other combining them to one degree or the other. I imagine a similar balance is the most plausible way the Norse would convert to Islam

I'm also surprised that no one has mentioned Michael Crichtions book "Eaters of the Dead", or the movie adaptation "The 13th Warrior" staring Antionio Banderas yet. Extra Credits also happened to make a video on the incident that helped inspire that book, in which Islamic scholar Ibn Fadlan wrote his account of a Viking Funeral

 

[Lions21]

True, Persia I often associated with being center group influential for Shia sect and Arabs more so Sunni and North Africa. Then Turks randomly come in later as third big cultural element in Islamic(didn’t Turks try to play middle man between two groups ever?). But anyway I always Persian and Arab divide and any hostile is more rooted in Shia and Sunni divide. Often hear Arabs associate Shia sect more with Persian influences.

European version of Islam could be even more different and foreign to them.

Also I feel lack of hierarchy like churches might lead to excessive and uncontrollable syncretism.

Look at Africa. You have people still currently in otl who somehow mix Jesus/Christianity, Muhammad/Islam, and African traditional folklore/faiths all together.

You could honestly get “another prophet” or some wild new religion form out of this in long run between.

Thing is with the Sunni Arab vs Shia Persian dichotomy, for the period that we're talking about its very much not a thing. There were Shias in Iran I'm not disputing that but there were Shias in Arabia, Iraq, North Africa, Syria etc etc, Iran was not unique at the time in being a host to Shias. The association with Shia Islam and Iran is something that really only came about with the Safavids.

There would probably be a degree of heterodoxy in European Muslims but I think it wouldn't last too long, usually these sorts of things tend to be smoothed over with Sufi tariqahs and saints (Hajj Bektash for the Turks is a good example), I imagine we'd see in the west an Islam heavily influenced by the Andalusians and almost definitley Maliki.

 

[Paradoxer]

Thing is with the Sunni Arab vs Shia Persian dichotomy, for the period that we're talking about its very much not a thing. There were Shias in Iran I'm not disputing that but there were Shias in Arabia, Iraq, North Africa, Syria etc etc, Iran was not unique at the time in being a host to Shias. The association with Shia Islam and Iran is something that really only came about with the Safavids.

There would probably be a degree of heterodoxy in European Muslims but I think it wouldn't last too long, usually these sorts of things tend to be smoothed over with Sufi tariqahs and saints (Hajj Bektash for the Turks is a good example), I imagine we'd see in the west an Islam heavily influenced by the Andalusians and almost definitley Maliki.

Probably more hierarchy and clergy base form of Islam in former heavily Christian parts. Doesn’t Shias in otl have more prominent clergy/Iman then Sunni counterparts?

Also within sect themselves they have various different schools of thought. The Saudi Wab school started in 1700th century. It’s crazy to think that school about as old as US and ironically took Islam more extreme then Mohammed himself.

But even before Islam, I bet the Arabs in eastern Arabia and parts of Mesopotamia were heavily influenced by Persian culture and been clients or under it at one time or another.

Muslims in Africa are just Arabized/Islamified Berbers. I think Berbers is old Arab term for general term for people from region.

The image of Islam extreme Arabized factor comes from what they did in North Africa from European viewpoint. Many of those people even Berbers use to speak Latin language or Greek before Islam.

Even Arabs from Levant and Arabia eventually came to see them as “Arab brothers” even if looked at as like north in US looks at southern. Maybe more backwards or jokes at time but Arabization seem to be big success there to point you see Arab and Berber used interchangeably at times

 

[Lions21]

Probably more hierarchy and clergy base form of Islam in former heavily Christian parts. Doesn’t Shias in otl have more prominent clergy/Iman then Sunni counterparts?

Also within sect themselves they have various different schools of thought. The Saudi Wab school started in 1700th century. It’s crazy to think that school about as old as US and ironically took Islam more extreme then Mohammed himself.

But even before Islam, I bet the Arabs in eastern Arabia and parts of Mesopotamia were heavily influenced by Persian culture and been clients or under it at one time or another.

Muslims in Africa are just Arabized/Islamified Berbers. I think Berbers is old Arab term for general term for people from region.

The image of Islam extreme Arabized factor comes from what they did in North Africa from European viewpoint. Many of those people even Berbers use to speak Latin language or Greek before Islam.

Even Arabs from Levant and Arabia eventually came to see them as “Arab brothers” even if looked at as like north in US looks at southern. Maybe more backwards or jokes at time but Arabization seem to be big success there to point you see Arab and Berber used interchangeably at times

Nah I imagine we'd see muslim clerics take on more of the role of shamans like with the anatolian beyliks and the caucasus peoples either that or you wouldn't see much clerical difference between them and their counterparts across the pond, especially if a state is trying to introduce Islam.

Shi'ites and particularly twelvers have a strong clergy for very specific reasons, namely the twelver concept of taqlid where twelver laymen choose a living ayatollah and follow his rulings throughout their life as well as paying the khums tax to him.

The so called wahabi school is really much younger than that and didn't really gain relevance until relatively veey recently. The arabs on the east coast of the gulf before Islam were naturally influenced by the Persians but they still maintained a unique arabness as well as their own religions from paganism to nestorianism.

The whole arab vs berber thing is very controversial because alot and I mean alot of arab tribes moved west into north africa so calling them arabised berbers is very much an oversimplification.

You had groups like the Almohads who were as berber as it gets but at the same time the most fanatical and extreme islamic movement the world had seen since the Khawarij, much more fanatical than the urban dwelling maghrebi arabs. So its important to make a distinction between Islamisation and Arabisation because though they often went hand in hand, they are not quite the same.

 

[Paradoxer]

Nah I imagine we'd see muslim clerics take on more of the role of shamans like with the anatolian beyliks and the caucasus peoples either that or you wouldn't see much clerical difference between them and their counterparts across the pond, especially if a state is trying to introduce Islam.

Shi'ites and particularly twelvers have a strong clergy for very specific reasons, namely the twelver concept of taqlid where twelver laymen choose a living ayatollah and follow his rulings throughout their life as well as paying the khums tax to him.

The so called wahabi school is really much younger than that and didn't really gain relevance until relatively veey recently. The arabs on the east coast of the gulf before Islam were naturally influenced by the Persians but they still maintained a unique arabness as well as their own religions from paganism to nestorianism.

The whole arab vs berber thing is very controversial because alot and I mean alot of arab tribes moved west into north africa so calling them arabised berbers is very much an oversimplification.

You had groups like the Almohads who were as berber as it gets but at the same time the most fanatical and extreme islamic movement the world had seen since the Khawarij, much more fanatical than the urban dwelling maghrebi arabs. So its important to make a distinction between Islamisation and Arabisation because though they often went hand in hand, they are not quite the same.

They completely demographically storm Egypt. Even before Islam some of Egyptian ancient dynasties might have had proto Arab or semetic roots of types. Later dynasties before Greeks at least.

Always wonder how much of Egypt Coptic and natives that often got more pushed south got just “out breed” by incoming Muslims from Levent and Arabia. Many of traditional religions of Egypt people went deep down south after Islam took over. A lot of Arabs likely got “bogged” down with settlements on Nile, Red Sea, and mediterranean.

Also aren’t shiite sects common among most Turkic groups outside of otl Turkey itself? Along with many Muslims in steppe? Couldn’t Europeans become more Shiite through steppes then that’s one Vikings take on? Also Slavs. This could also end up making China more Muslim

 

[Lions21]

They completely demographically storm Egypt. Even before Islam some of Egyptian ancient dynasties might have had proto Arab or semetic roots of types. Later dynasties before Greeks at least.

Always wonder how much of Egypt Coptic and natives that often got more pushed south got just “out breed” by incoming Muslims from Levent and Arabia. Many of traditional religions of Egypt people went deep down south after Islam took over. A lot of Arabs likely got “bogged” down with settlements on Nile, Red Sea, and mediterranean.

Also aren’t shiite sects common among most Turkic groups outside of otl Turkey itself? Along with many Muslims in steppe? Couldn’t Europeans become more Shiite through steppes then that’s one Vikings take on? Also Slavs. This could also end up making China more Muslim

The native Egyptian population was simply too big for a demographic "storm" and the arabs were already pretty spread thin, genetic studies have proven this though there was a not insignificant arab component in modern egyptian genetics.

No not really the only strongly Shi'ite turkic groups are the azerbaijani turks and the alevis of central anatolia, the rest of the Turks are very much Sunnis and don't possess much of a shia component at all, or that I know of at the least.

The thing is who's going to spread shi'ism to the europeans? Their most immediate muslim neighbours are the Andalusians who are Sunni Malikis, I suppose depending on where we put the PoD the shi'ite kalbids and fatimids could convert some or maybe the Zaydi Idrisids of Morocco but really Sunni muslims have held the ball in that part of the world for the vast majority of the time.