|
Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM |
|
|
Join Writer Development Section Writer Development Member Section
This Day in Alternate History Blog
|
What if the Sunni-Shia Split had never happened? This idea never got as
far as I wanted. If you want to
continue it, please do so. After the formation of
Islam by the Prophet Mohammed, the new religion expanded rapidly, and, after
Mohammed’s death, was led by the four caliphs.
Abu Bakr, the friend of the Prophet and the first adult male to embrace
Islam, became the first caliph, followed by 'Umar, 'Uthman and Ali.
With Ali’s death the rule of the "rightly guided" caliphs,
who hold a special place of respect in the hearts of Muslims, came to an end. During Abu Bakr’s regain,
a number of people said that Ali, who was a close relative of Mohammed, should
have been caliph instead, but Ali and his supporters (the so-called Shiat Ali or
Party of Ali) eventually recognized the community's choice. The next two caliphs
- Umar, who succeeded in 634, and Uthman, who took power in 644 - were
acknowledged by the entire community. When Ali finally succeeded to the
caliphate in 656, Muawiyah, governor of Syria, rebelled in the name of his
murdered kinsman Uthman. After the ensuing civil war, Ali moved his capital to
Mesopotamia, where a short time later he, too, was murdered. Ali's death ended the
period in which the entire community of Islam recognized a single caliph. Upon
Ali's death, Muawiyah proclaimed himself caliph from Damascus. The Shiat Ali,
however, refused to recognize Muawiyah or his line, the Umayyad caliphs; in
support of a caliphate based on descent from the Prophet, they withdrew and
established a dissident sect known as the Shiva. Originally political in nature,
the differences between the Sunni and Shia interpretations gradually assumed
theological and metaphysical overtones. Some Shia groups developed doctrines of
divine leadership far removed from the strict monotheism of early Islam,
including beliefs in hidden but divinely chosen leaders with spiritual powers
that equalled or surpassed those of the Prophet himself. The most important outcome
of the succession crisis, however, was the destruction of the Muslim unity. Henceforth, it was possible for Islam to schism, which
happened frequently. This created
two main sects, Sunnis and Shias, and a whole number of others, which ruined any
chance of Islam remaining a powerful unity. So, what might have
happened if it had not? How, first,
can we have Islam remaining a united body?
The best method that I can think of would be to have Mohammed instruct
the believers not to schism under any circumstances, or we could have Ali
recognise and accept his lot and forbid his followers to break up the community. Therefore, what’s coming
for the believers? I suspect that
Islam would continue to expand, but that that expansion would happen more slowly
than in OTL, as there would be no pressure for the different sects to separate.
Further, there might be less tolerance of the Jews or Christians without
the split, although, as the ideals of Mohammed would have remained intact, there
might be more tolerance. Would Islam have fitted
well into the tribal groups in Afghanistan and the surrounding region?
With a stricter definition of what Islam is, they may never embrace it to
the extent of OTL or perhaps treat Muslims the same way they treated Christians. A more cohesive Islam has
more interesting effects further down the line.
If the Muslims invade India as in OTL, would they be as successful in
adapting to their conditions there? If
Islam is more monolithic, they might be less able to pick up bad habits from
their new Hindu subjects and might well provoke more revolts than in OTL. The Christian lands might
well be less advanced in this timeline. Much
of their advancement was built on the previous work of Islamic scholars, which
will be less widespread than OTL. There
might well be an earlier flowering of the conflicts in the church without the
Islamic advance towards Europe.
|
