Jump to content
Mishael

How would Arabia be if Islam never existed?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, hasanhh said:

What has yet to be pointed out so far is that there were numerous chr!stians and Jews in Arabia for hundreds of years.

I was aware of that, which is why I feel some form of Christianity is a good candidate for a possible alternative religion. Judaism was not particularly missionary ,but Christianity was. It's kind of interesting to think of Hinduism or Buddhism coming up the trade routes from South Asia as well. Zoroastrians from Iran, too, as some have pointed out. Could have been a multi-religious society like Iran or India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

That is also quite possible. I have often wondered what congregation used that church which ruins were found in Saudi Arabia. As far as the Arabs vexing " ignorant"back then, etc. Arabs were and are too big and diverse of a group to make broad statements about,IMHO. Same problem that is had with the Druids, etc....the people writing about you are often your enemies. Not often an objective source of information.

I wrote a forum post about the history of Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia a couple of months ago. It might make a good blog post.

 

You're definitely right, you cannot discuss Arabia as a homogenous entity, it was made up of various people who, slowly and over centuries, were Arabized, in that they adopted Arabic as their language — though with great dialectical diversity — and even retaining aspects of their culture. Yemen contained millennia old civilisations while Jordan had been occupied by Arab nomads ever since there was an Arabic language to speak. That is to say that we need to recognize diversity in culture and language. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arabia was filled with many different religions and they all lived together usually wars were based on territory and tribal stuff Arabs never cared for religious wars against each other. Although sometimes if a pagan tribe defeated a Christian tribe they would desecrate their church and if a Christian tribe won they'd break pagan idols same old stuff the Babylonians and Vikings did. There were Zoroastrians in the east of Arabia which was under the influence of Persia and the north was Christian which was under the influence of the Byzantine empire and the rest was split between some Jewish colonies and most was still pagan although Paganism by then was losing its touch among the Arabs due to it unable to explain life after death and other details,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jordanian Bedouins migrated there from Hejaz over time and a lot migrated when Saudi was founded especially the real authentic Arab Bedouin Christians the actual native Jordanians are the Palestinians who make up 80% of Jordan they are not really Arab however like you said they are descended from Aramaens and Canaanites who were arabized same as Lebanese, Iraqis, Syrians, or Egyptians. Actually my ancestors might have been Bedouin Christians from Najd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Arabs never cared for religious wars against each other.

Are you forgetting what happened in Najran some 40 years before the prophet Muhammad (saaw) was born? The attempted eradication of the Christian community there by the Jewish King, Dhu-Nuwas. 

 

I'm curious how you came to your conclusions about the state of pre-Islamic Arabia, or even what you're referring to as "Arabia".

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persecution against Christians only came with the reign of Dhu Nawas or Abu Nawas as some called him other Jewish Himyari rulers didn't persecute Christians like Abu Kariba.

Edited by Mishael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Christianlady said:

...

Personally, I believe that one of the reasons God has blessed the USA is because many Jewish people have made the USA their home. While God definitely punishes disobedient Jewish people for their sins, He also richly blesses them in ways that makes other groups of people jealous (hence one of the sad excuses for antisemitism).

Sura 10 Ayat 49

Judaism has nothing to do with it.  If it did, how will you explain Rome, China, Siam, Mogul, the Khanate, Babylon, and so forth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Persecution against Christians only came with the reign of Dhu Nawas or Abu Nawas as some called him other Jewish Himyari rulers didn't persecute Christians like Abu Kariba.

:hahaha:   "...only came with..."

What about Rome 600 years earlier? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

:hahaha:   "...only came with..."

What about Rome 600 years earlier? 

Actually many empires have been enemies of the Jews not just Rome it started with the Canaanites I suppose then it went to Egypt then to Babylon then to Greeks then Romans then Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mishael said:

Persecution against Christians only came with the reign of Dhu Nawas or Abu Nawas as some called him other Jewish Himyari rulers didn't persecute Christians like Abu Kariba.

That's precisely my point, you're busy trying to invent unfounded cliches and not looking at the nuances of Arabian culture and history. You also don't seem to realize that there are massive gaps in our knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia that you can make such definitive statements.

4 hours ago, Mishael said:

I know during the first fitna my ancestors fought with Muawiyah ibn abi Sufyan against Ali ibn Abi Talib. 

I'm not sure how you can know this, but if it is the case, then it isn't anything at all to be proud of.

أللهم إلعن كل من حارب الإمام أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى قيام يوم الدين

May Allah curse anyone who fought Imam Amir al-Mu'minin (as) until the day of reckoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mishael said:

Arabia was filled with many different religions and they all lived together usually wars were based on territory and tribal stuff Arabs never cared for religious wars against each other.

Excuse me what? The Pagan religion was the main drive for the tribalism of the Arabs. Each Idol in the Kaab represented one tribe and each tribe fought each other to make their idol higher. Please read the incident of the black stone and the cloth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mishael said:

I know during the first fitna my ancestors fought with Muawiyah ibn abi Sufyan against Ali ibn Abi Talib. 

How do you know that? Are you from Banu Umayya? And that is the second fitnah...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mishael said:

Actually many empires have been enemies of the Jews not just Rome it started with the Canaanites I suppose then it went to Egypt then to Babylon then to Greeks then Romans then Muslims.

Muslims never actually hated Jews or wanted to exterminate them... I don't know where people get this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

How do you know that? Are you from Banu Umayya? And that is the second fitnah...

 

44 minutes ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

That's precisely my point, you're busy trying to invent unfounded cliches and not looking at the nuances of Arabian culture and history. You also don't seem to realize that there are massive gaps in our knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia that you can make such definitive statements.

I'm not sure how you can know this, but if it is the case, then it isn't anything at all to be proud of.

أللهم إلعن كل من حارب الإمام أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلى قيام يوم الدين

May Allah curse anyone who fought Imam Amir al-Mu'minin (as) until the day of reckoning.

The specific section of Banu Tamim my family is said to be from fought side by side with Banu Ummayah in most major battles against Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, SunniBrother said:

Excuse me what? The Pagan religion was the main drive for the tribalism of the Arabs. Each Idol in the Kaab represented one tribe and each tribe fought each other to make their idol higher. Please read the incident of the black stone and the cloth.

I'm pretty sure how ever my ancestors might have been Christians and not pagans but also tribalism existed in every culture even the Iranians before Shah Cyrus the great were tribal and warred amongst each other. It's a cultural thing it doesn't make them barbaric in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mishael said:

 

The specific section of Banu Tamim my family is said to be from fought side by side with Banu Ummayah in most major battles against Ali ibn Abi Talib.

That's odd to believe. Bani Tamim was neutral on those Fitnah, they did not took anyone side. This is documented by the Ibadis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SunniBrother said:

That's odd to believe. Bani Tamim was neutral on those Fitnah, they did not took anyone side. This is documented by the Ibadis

Most of Banu Tamim remained neutral although in the battle of the camel some were seen participating in the battle on the side of Aisha and Muawiyah and from then on I assume they started to participate more. There are many documents stating that the Khawarij were also made up of many tribesmen from Banu Tamim.

Edited by Mishael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting question actually. The answer probably would be that the whole world would be worse for everyone. I believe the focus has only been the good of other cultures without counting on the good that Islamic (and NOT Arab) culture has done to the WHOLE world.

Islamic sciences has basically paved the ground for the Renaissance and even the French Revolution. Through al Andalus and the Byzantine Empire the world has experienced a progresd that would have never been achieved so early. Mostly because the arabs were tribes who fought each other and made a living from raiding people. Couldn't experience any expansion as they only could live in plain places (the ones they were used to for their raids - read Ibn Khaldun's historic approach on this issue in Al Muqadimma).

If I had to bet, I would say that there would be no one to stop the Mongols (arabs were a bunch of non-militarized tribes who were jealous of one another, treachery would have rapidly spread in such circumstances instead of unity). The Mongol empire would have probably reached the Maghreb and who knows, considering how backwards Europe would be without the muslim knowledge, I would bet they would not be stopped in Hungary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Bakir said:

It is a very interesting question actually. The answer probably would be that the whole world would be worse for everyone. I believe the focus has only been the good of other cultures without counting on the good that Islamic (and NOT Arab) culture has done to the WHOLE world.

Islamic sciences has basically paved the ground for the Renaissance and even the French Revolution. Through al Andalus and the Byzantine Empire the world has experienced a progresd that would have never been achieved so early. Mostly because the arabs were tribes who fought each other and made a living from raiding people. Couldn't experience any expansion as they only could live in plain places (the ones they were used to for their raids - read Ibn Khaldun's historic approach on this issue in Al Muqadimma).

If I had to bet, I would say that there would be no one to stop the Mongols (arabs were a bunch of non-militarized tribes who were jealous of one another, treachery would have rapidly spread in such circumstances instead of unity). The Mongol empire would have probably reached the Maghreb and who knows, considering how backwards Europe would be without the muslim knowledge, I would bet they would not be stopped in Hungary.

If Islam never came the Byzantine empire would definitely continue can't say the same for the Sassanid empire since it was already collapsing before Abu Bakr made the first campaigns against them and if the Muslims didn't conquer Iran then the Turks would have since they nearly conquered Iran many centuries before Islam but they were disunited and the Sassanids took advantage of this and drove them back to the Steppes but if they were united then Sassanid Iran would have been conquered way before the Arabs would ever come, the Byzantine empire was however quite stable there only weakness at the time of the Muslim conquests was lack of man power but in a few centuries they could have recovered and possibly stop the Mongol hordes advance into the Middle East and Europe also the Byzantine empire was quite civilized compared to other powers at the time the Persian empire was also civilized and its knowledge started the Islamic renaissance just like how the Byzantines started the European renaissance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Byzantines contributed to the Renaissance by transmiting Islamic science. Without it, there would be no contribution. European diseases would have spread even in deadlier ways because of the lack of hygiene and proper medicine (or just medicine, because it didn't exist as a science in the dark ages). Also, Baghdad fell to the Mongol Empire without barely any effort, as well as the Persian Empire. Certainly the Byzantines would do nothing against the Mongols' fast-moving militarized army. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bakir said:

The Byzantines contributed to the Renaissance by transmiting Islamic science. Without it, there would be no contribution. European diseases would have spread even in deadlier ways because of the lack of hygiene and proper medicine (or just medicine, because it didn't exist as a science in the dark ages). Also, Baghdad fell to the Mongol Empire without barely any effort, as well as the Persian Empire. Certainly the Byzantines would do nothing against the Mongols' fast-moving militarized army. 

The Abbasids were nothing more then a weak city state at the time they were like the Papal States but without the religious authority since Islam had been split between many sects and heresies at this time no one cared for the authority of the Abbasids anymore if the Abbasids were at there height I doubt the mongols could even reach Iraq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bakir said:

It is a very interesting question actually. The answer probably would be that the whole world would be worse for everyone. I believe the focus has only been the good of other cultures without counting on the good that Islamic (and NOT Arab) culture has done to the WHOLE world.

Islamic sciences has basically paved the ground for the Renaissance and even the French Revolution. Through al Andalus and the Byzantine Empire the world has experienced a progresd that would have never been achieved so early. Mostly because the arabs were tribes who fought each other and made a living from raiding people. Couldn't experience any expansion as they only could live in plain places (the ones they were used to for their raids - read Ibn Khaldun's historic approach on this issue in Al Muqadimma).

If I had to bet, I would say that there would be no one to stop the Mongols (arabs were a bunch of non-militarized tribes who were jealous of one another, treachery would have rapidly spread in such circumstances instead of unity). The Mongol empire would have probably reached the Maghreb and who knows, considering how backwards Europe would be without the muslim knowledge, I would bet they would not be stopped in Hungary.

But the Mongols went home of their own accord and no one knows why. Now the best guess is the weather, which would have happened in any case.

But you are correct in that contact with Islamic culture is often not given its due in jump starting the Renaissance.

Edited by LeftCoastMom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ {1} [Shakir 1:1] In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful. *****   وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ {107} [Shakir 21:107] And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
    • Salam, After a long time I'm back to shiachat. Lots of change and I'm still not sure how things go. Went to chat to say hi, but it's not working. Is there something special with the chat or is it genuinely broken?
    • Salam, l read through your reference. Al-Majlisi is described as an "expert" in philosophy but why he uses pagan Greek ideas of harmony to organize his writings is not explained. Three English translators --Ali once, Skakir twice and Picktall thrice-- add this word into the reading. A couple of these verses is using "harmony" for reconciliation of the waw fa qaf  tri-literal root. The remainder are gross insertions of the word. Therefore, as far as l can find, "harmony" is not in Quran. Quran is revealed as "self-explained" so why use a pagan philosophy for delineation of subjects? Now again to the "love" part. Even though al-Majlisi uses it the fundamental problem of meaning still remains. We can define "prefer" as something more valued. We can define "endear" as an appreciation or even 'affection'. But we cannot define "love". Like the word genius, everyone has something to say about the word "love", but nobody can define it. Not sufficiently, at least. Allah-s.w.t. is not a "love god".
    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K31Ajbk8UI   video sound is persian(Farsi) with Eng sub  
×