WI: Islam develops 300 years earlier

[jerry kraus]

So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

[The Old Man]

Post by jerry kraus
So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

Possibly the only thing might be that Mohammed is forced to stay in his own sandbox because the Romans (in a pitched battle) would hand Mohammed is ass on a platter. With luck, they might give his widow his head. However, I'm not sure as to the kind of battle that Moe's troops would have fought, although the probability of a guerilla campaign isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Regards,
John Braungart

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:38:51 -0800 (PST), The Old Man

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus
So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

Possibly the only thing might be that Mohammed is forced to stay in his own sandbox because the Romans (in a pitched battle) would hand Mohammed is ass on a platter. With luck, they might give his widow his head. However, I'm not sure as to the kind of battle that Moe's troops would have fought, although the probability of a guerilla campaign isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Well if it was actually 300 AD (e.g. literally as opposed to 325 or
after when Constantine had his epiphany) it would definitely affect
the inter-Roman battles that put Constantine in charge.

I agree a Muslim Jihad in North Africa along OTL's route would have
been unsuccessful as the Romans would have fought VERY hard to retain
Egypt (their main source of grain) and something all would-be Emperors
would unite to fight for. Perhaps they would have gone east with the
result that all of India is Muslim today.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus
So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

Possibly the only thing might be that Mohammed is forced to stay in his own sandbox because the Romans (in a pitched battle) would hand Mohammed is ass on a platter. With luck, they might give his widow his head. However, I'm not sure as to the kind of battle that Moe's troops would have fought, although the probability of a guerilla campaign isn't beyond the realm of possibility.
Regards,
John Braungart

I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

Could be which I think is interesting since OTL's Islam owes more to
Judaism than Christianity.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by jerry kraus
I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Horny Goat
Could be which I think is interesting since OTL's Islam owes more to
Judaism than Christianity.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I think that's rather the point here, to some extent. So, given a situation closer to that in which Christianity was founded, but, still with less absolute and unquestioned central authority than we had 300 years earlier, we'll likely have a religion in which there's something of a balance between transcendentalism and materialism. Possibly, somewhat like Protestantism? After all, Protestantism developed in a period in which we had increasing, but by no means absolute central authority developing in Europe.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

Could be which I think is interesting since OTL's Islam owes more to
Judaism than Christianity.

Of course, Horny, what we actually got, around 300 A.D. was Constantinian style Christianity, based in Rome itself, which was indeed a significant change in the nature of Christianity, by many accounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinian_shift

The transcendentalism of Christianity was replaced by more encouragement of centralized government control, as Roman central control became weaker.

But, suppose parallel to this movement in Rome, we get local movements in Arabia, colored by the very different environment there. Much more anarchic, although not as much so as 300 years later. How does this change things?

[pyotr filipivich]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

Could be which I think is interesting since OTL's Islam owes more to
Judaism than Christianity.

There are many of us who say that Islam started as Christological
Heresy, and progressed from there.

[jerry kraus]

Post by pyotr filipivich

Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 11:06:52 -0800 (PST), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
I think one of the things that interests me here is that extent to which Islam would be a different religion, if conceived of 300 years earlier. After all, the fall of Rome is one of the major themes of the Koran, and the Koran is, in a way, a kind of political science textbook for founding a government in the place of anarchy of the type that prevailed in 600 A.D. So, given a still solid, although somewhat tottering Roman Empire, how would Islam be different? Might it not be somewhat intermediate between Christianity and OTL Islam -- that is, more transcendental, and less practically materialistic? Less emphasis on government control as the ultimate good, and more encouragement of individualism. And, if so, what effects would that have on subsequent history.

Could be which I think is interesting since OTL's Islam owes more to
Judaism than Christianity.

There are many of us who say that Islam started as Christological
Heresy, and progressed from there.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Yes, Pyotr, I think you've hit the nail on the head. If Islam had developed 300 years earlier, it would simply have been classified as a rather extreme branch of Christianity. A kind of super-Constantinian Christianity, in which the state and Church were unified, and had the level of power of some of the more autocratic Russian Czars, such as Ivan the Terrible, and Peter the Great. And, such a system was precisely what was required at the time to maintain the Roman Empire, and might have lasted indefinitely.

So, how does this differ from Islam? Well, crudely put, the State had the power to torture and kill you for its own survival, but, unlike in Islam, you didn't have to thank them for the privilege! It's a subtle distinction, but, I think, a significant one. It's rather like Machiavelli's Prince, and what the Borgias had in mind in their attempt to unify Italy. But, even Machiavelli doesn't go as far as the Muslims. He doesn't insist that his Prince is "all loving, all merciful", as he annihilates his enemies.

[Tim]

Post by pyotr filipivich
There are many of us who say that Islam started as Christological
Heresy, and progressed from there.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Dante, for one, who plants Mohammed in the section of Hell reserved for heresiarchs, ie those who attempt to sunder the Church, along with Arius et al.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Tim

Post by pyotr filipivich
There are many of us who say that Islam started as Christological
Heresy, and progressed from there.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.

Dante, for one, who plants Mohammed in the section of Hell reserved for heresiarchs, ie those who attempt to sunder the Church, along with Arius et al.

Yes, Tim, this is one of the difficulties with those who try to classify Muslims as bad, and Christians as good, or vice versa. Actually, the too religions have a great deal in common, particularly if we consider "Constantian Christianity", which actually looks a great deal like Islam, when we examine its nature closely.

[Phil McGregor]

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus
So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

Possibly the only thing might be that Mohammed is forced to stay in his own sandbox because the Romans (in a pitched battle) would hand Mohammed is ass on a platter. With luck, they might give his widow his head. However, I'm not sure as to the kind of battle that Moe's troops would have fought, although the probability of a guerilla campaign isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

Given how they treated the Jews (and Jerusalem) after the First, Second and Third Revolts ... well, let's just say there'll probably be a
Temple to Jupiter Capitolinus where the Ka'aba was, to be replaced by a Christian Church when Christianity takes off (if it still does).

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@tpg.com.au

[jerry kraus]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus
So, the Western Roman Empire is still intact and strong when Muhammad has his divine vision and the Koran is recorded. We're talking 300 A.D., instead of 600 A.D. How does this change things, subsequently?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by The Old Man
Possibly the only thing might be that Mohammed is forced to stay in his own sandbox because the Romans (in a pitched battle) would hand Mohammed is ass on a platter. With luck, they might give his widow his head. However, I'm not sure as to the kind of battle that Moe's troops would have fought, although the probability of a guerilla campaign isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Phil McGregor
Given how they treated the Jews (and Jerusalem) after the First, Second and Third Revolts ... well, let's just say there'll probably be a
Temple to Jupiter Capitolinus where the Ka'aba was, to be replaced by a Christian Church when Christianity takes off (if it still does).
Phil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phil, I think if Islam is conceived in 300 A.D. in exactly the same form as it existed in 600 A.D., I'd say you're probably correct. The Roman Legions will absolutely crush the threat. However, is this likely, given that the fall of the Western Roman Empire itself is central to how Islam was conceived, in the Koran itself? Essentially, anarchy, and the fall of Empires, are precisely what the Koran was written to avoid. The Koran is "instant government". So, with a weakening, but still intact Roman Empire, I would suspect that Islam would be conceived of as a somewhat different religion -- somewhat more transcendental, somewhat more like Christianity, as a means to oppose excessive central authority. Hence Islam would be less militaristic, less openly confrontational.

Post by Phil McGregor
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------