Updated Sunday 15 May, 2011 12:18 PM

   Headlines  |  Alternate Histories  |  International Edition


Home Page

Announcements 

Alternate Histories

International Edition

List of Updates

Want to join?

Join Writer Development Section

Writer Development Member Section

Join Club ChangerS

Editorial

Chris Comments

Book Reviews

Blog

Letters To The Editor

FAQ

Links Page

Terms and Conditions

Resources

Donations

Alternate Histories

International Edition

Alison Brooks

Fiction

Essays

Other Stuff

Authors

If Baseball Integrated Early

Counter-Factual.Net

Today in Alternate History

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.

In the very long run, I see an Islamic nation covering most of the modern Middle East and upper Pakistan.  To the east lies a collection of Hindu kingdoms, to the west lie Christian kingdoms in Europe and Africa.   

FeedBack Form

Hit Counter