What if, Islam expanded as far as it possibly could?

[johnreiter]

My idea was to find every occasion in history where Islam could have expanded further, and then change history so that it does. So far, this is just a list of PODs, but I may put more detail into it later

718: the Umayyad Caliphate wins the Siege of Constantinople, leading the the conquest of Byzantium, and soon after that, the Balkans

726: the Umayyad Caliphate conquers Gujarat and Malwa, bringing Islam to India early

732: the Muslims win the Battle of Tours decisively, killing Charles Martel. Just as with the conquest of Spain, when this raid exposes the weakness of the French the Muslims commit more resources and conquer France just as they did Spain

794: Muslims from the Balkans push north and conquer Germany

844: England is annexed by Muslim France

846: the Emirate of Sicily conquers southern and central Italy

889: Khashkhash Ibn Saeed discovers the new world, and soon Muslim merchants from al-Andalus and Morocco are setting up trading posts in the Caribbean

928: with supports from the Muslim in France and the Balkans, the conquest of Italy is completed

988: Tsar Vladimir converts to Islam instead of Christianity (though, to a sect which does not forbid the drinking of alcohol)

1212: With support from Morocco, England gains it's independence from France

1311: Abu Bakr II, king of Mali, circumnavigates the world and discovers the OTL Straights of Magellan

1368: Tamerlane conquers China

1378: Indonesian Muslim merchants discover Australia, and it is colonized by the Indonesians

 

[Jormungandr]

To be blunt, the moment Islam couldn't expand by the sword any longer e.g. they run out of land to conquer, they'd turn on each other as they did in OTL but on a grander scale, and the world would fall into nothing but oppressive civil wars and societal and technological stagnation and regression.

As ego-centric as it is to say, the West basically built the world we see today in everything from technology to medicine, even though the foundations it was built on were laid by others (such as the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, et cetera).

A meteorite wiping us all out or a super plague spreading and killing us all off would be a mercy by this point.

 

[johnreiter]

To be blunt, the moment Islam couldn't expand by the sword any longer e.g. they run out of land to conquer, they'd turn on each other as they did in OTL but on a grander scale, and the world would fall into nothing but oppressive civil wars

In this way, I can't see that they would be much different from the Christian states IOTL. They fought other christian states as often, if not more often, then they crusaded against the Muslims.

Civil wars aren't wholly bad, since massive monolithic empires actually slow progress

societal and technological stagnation and regression

This is a much bigger problem. TBH, if I wanted to make this an IDEAL timeline for Islam, I would have to address the reasons why the Muslim golden age ended, and the rationalism of the Abbasid Caliphs was not continued. I would likely eliminate al-Ghazali, and have Avicenna rise to much greater levels of popularity, becoming the Muslim version of Thomas Aquinas.

Still, even these changes would not eliminate the other major problem with Muslim civilization, rampant slavery. Slavery is a poison to society which stagnates progress, and reliance on slaves to support their governments was part of what led to the collapse of the Arab dynasties and the end of the Muslim golden age. The Muslim slave trade was the most massive in history, and I don't think even I could butterfly it away.

 

[Jormungandr]

In this way, I can't see that they would be much different from the Christian states IOTL. They fought other christian states as often, if not more often, then they crusaded against the Muslims.

Civil wars aren't wholly bad, since massive monolithic empires actually slow progress

This is a much bigger problem. TBH, if I wanted to make this an IDEAL timeline for Islam, I would have to address the reasons why the Muslim golden age ended, and the rationalism of the Abbasid Caliphs was not continued. I would likely eliminate al-Ghazali, and have Avicenna rise to much greater levels of popularity, becoming the Muslim version of Thomas Aquinas.

Still, even these changes would not eliminate the other major problem with Muslim civilization, rampant slavery. Slavery is a poison to society which stagnates progress, and reliance on slaves to support their governments was part of what led to the collapse of the Arab dynasties and the end of the Muslim golden age. The Muslim slave trade was the most massive in history, and I don't think even I could butterfly it away.

It's because, fundamentally, Islam is far more aggressive and intolerant than Christianity, even when Christianity was younger and even with the Protestant/Catholic split IOTL. It's a core tenant of their religion to convert or kill non-believers and apostates.

With no external threats, they'll turn on each other like rabid, starving wolves. I mean, just look at the Sunni/Shiite conflicts going on now, and then divide that by god knows how many other splits in this WI timeline.

This timeline would be an unending dumpster fire.

 

[S'task]

The Muslim slave trade was the most massive in history, and I don't think even I could butterfly it away.

Corrections: the Muslim slave trade is the most massive in history. It continues, to this day, across Africa and the Middle East.

 

[ATP]

Corrections: the Muslim slave trade is the most massive in history. It continues, to this day, across Africa and the Middle East.

Logical,Machomet was warlord who enslaved and sell enemies.They could not abadonn his ways.

In this way, I can't see that they would be much different from the Christian states IOTL. They fought other christian states as often, if not more often, then they crusaded against the Muslims.

Civil wars aren't wholly bad, since massive monolithic empires actually slow progress

This is a much bigger problem. TBH, if I wanted to make this an IDEAL timeline for Islam, I would have to address the reasons why the Muslim golden age ended, and the rationalism of the Abbasid Caliphs was not continued. I would likely eliminate al-Ghazali, and have Avicenna rise to much greater levels of popularity, becoming the Muslim version of Thomas Aquinas.

Still, even these changes would not eliminate the other major problem with Muslim civilization, rampant slavery. Slavery is a poison to society which stagnates progress, and reliance on slaves to support their governments was part of what led to the collapse of the Arab dynasties and the end of the Muslim golden age. The Muslim slave trade was the most massive in history, and I don't think even I could butterfly it away.

1.On that,i could agree

2.Slavery - true,but golden age was sometching which happened only by accident - Islam is not religion of Reason,like Chrystianity,where you have God who create Laws of Nature.
Only reason why we have science is becouse people seeks Laws of Nature,but they could do so becouse they belived in God who created such laws.

In Islam,all we have ia Allah who decide on the whim what would happen.Apple fall,becouse Allah will so,not becouse of Law of Gravity.If Allah changed his mind,apple could fly and sing.

That is why muslim Newton could be never born....

 

[johnreiter]

Islam is not religion of Reason,like Chrystianity,where you have God who create Laws of Nature.
Only reason why we have science is becouse people seeks Laws of Nature,but they could do so becouse they belived in God who created such laws.

In Islam,all we have ia Allah who decide on the whim what would happen.Apple fall,becouse Allah will so,not becouse of Law of Gravity.If Allah changed his mind,apple could fly and sing.

That is why muslim Newton could be never born....

I have heard this argument before, about how the intrinsic differences between the Muslim and Christian religions and cultures prevented the rise of independent Muslim modernity. While I'm not sure I completely agree with it, it is a very good argument with a lot of evidence behind it. I agree that it is more likely than not that this world would be centuries behind our own technologically, and would not see a restoration of rationalism, at least as the norm. There may be some Muslim states that remain or become centers of learning and scholarship, however, even to the present day. It's big, and diverse world. Even today, the culture of Muslims in West Africa is as different from the culture of Muslims in Indonesia as donuts from pizzia.

 

[ATP]

I have heard this argument before, about how the intrinsic differences between the Muslim and Christian religions and cultures prevented the rise of independent Muslim modernity. While I'm not sure I completely agree with it, it is a very good argument with a lot of evidence behind it. I agree that it is more likely than not that this world would be centuries behind our own technologically, and would not see a restoration of rationalism, at least as the norm. There may be some Muslim states that remain or become centers of learning and scholarship, however, even to the present day. It's big, and diverse world. Even today, the culture of Muslims in West Africa is as different from the culture of Muslims in Indonesia as donuts from pizzia.

Not lack of muslim modernity,but lack of muslim science.Becouse their religion forbid them from search of Law of Nature,and science is juct about that - search for Laws of Nature.
Differencies - yes,that world would be diversed,maybe even they would have countries without pedophilia or slavery.
But non of them would have science.