No Islam; effects on the Middle East and beyond?

[Futurist]

What would have been the effects on the Middle East and beyond had there been no creation of Islam--either as a result of Muhammad dying young or as a result of Muhammad deciding not to do this for whatever reason?

Do the Byzantines get to permanently keep their Middle Eastern and North African territories in this scenario? Also, how does Christian Europe conduct its domestic and foreign policy without the existence of Islam? In addition, without Islam, are various ancient Greek and Roman works going to be as well-preserved as they were in real life?

Any thoughts on all of this?

 

[johnincornwall]

'Europe' wouldn't have had any 'policy' because it wasn't a country.

You could argue that the Empire was preserved for so long as some sort of Eastern Bulwark against the spread of islam and therefore it was in many countries' interests to keep it in place. Therefore with no 'danger' from the east it would maybe have collapsed/been conquered centuries before - from the west!

You could also argue that a Persian force may have filled the gap. Or, given the ready adoption of islam by people under the Christian/Byzantine/Visigothic yoke, some other prophet would have emerged for people to follow. There never seemed to be a shortage

 

[Futurist]

'Europe' wouldn't have had any 'policy' because it wasn't a country.

You could argue that the Empire was preserved for so long as some sort of Eastern Bulwark against the spread of islam and therefore it was in many countries' interests to keep it in place. Therefore with no 'danger' from the east it would maybe have collapsed/been conquered centuries before - from the west!

Do you think that Europeans would have actually had the military power to conquer the Byzantines, though?

You could also argue that a Persian force may have filled the gap.

Heraclius defeated them pretty decisively in the early 7th century, no?

Or, given the ready adoption of islam by people under the Christian/Byzantine/Visigothic yoke, some other prophet would have emerged for people to follow. There never seemed to be a shortage

Any possible candidates for this, in your opinion?

 

[civfanatic]

It's possible that the Age of Discovery would have never taken place, because the impetus for the Age of Discovery came from Europeans wanting to avoid Islamic lands and develop direct trade routes with India and the Far East. In the absence of Islam (or any other similar entity), the Europeans would have no incentive to undertake such daring and risky voyages, since it would be much safer (and as far as they knew, more profitable) to use the old tried and tested trade routes through the Middle East. It's possible that in this alternate timeline, the New World would remain isolated from the Old World even in the 21st century.

 

[PoitierFrance]

What would have been the effects on the Middle East and beyond had there been no creation of Islam--either as a result of Muhammad dying young or as a result of Muhammad deciding not to do this for whatever reason?

Do the Byzantines get to permanently keep their Middle Eastern and North African territories in this scenario? Also, how does Christian Europe conduct its domestic and foreign policy without the existence of Islam? In addition, without Islam, are various ancient Greek and Roman works going to be as well-preserved as they were in real life?

Any thoughts on all of this?

Persia would stand as the perenniel oriental enemy ever since Persian invasion of Greece.

Without islam, Europe would face an even more dangerous enemy. An enemy not burdened by a rigid orthodoxy, stifling scientific and cultural process, perhaps the works of such great heterodox thinkers like ibn sina and Al-Razi, Al-Biruni exert more influence upon the minds and conciusness of the peoples of the middle East.

Perhaps it will be then that there is a real chance of conquering Europe.

 

[Visigoth Panzer]

Islam not existing does not necessarily mean the arabs wouldn't begin conquering territory. The arab tribes had been becoming more powerful even before Mohammed.
Putting that aside and running with your premise that they don't conquer the middle east+, the byzantines would have eventually lost north Africa and Mesopotamia. The constant barbarian waves would make it untenable. The native Egyptians followed a different religion and hated the greeks.
Europe probably wouldn't have cared about the byzantines without islam or another non-Christian religion threatening the holy land.
Europe did have the military power to conquer the byzantines, they did that during the fourth crusade.
The Byzantines did crush the Persians but afterward both states were exhausted, which left them vulnerable to the arabs.
The turks still would have migrated west, possibly adopting Christianity instead. They would eventually move towards Anatolia to seek its riches.

 

[civfanatic]

Persia would stand as the perenniel oriental enemy ever since Persian invasion of Greece.

Without islam, Europe would face an even more dangerous enemy. An enemy not burdened by a rigid orthodoxy, stifling scientific and cultural process.

Before Islam, Persia did not produce a single scientist, mathematician, or philosopher of note. A single Greek city, Athens, produced more academic literature than the entirety of the Achaemenid, Parthian, or Sassanian Empires combined.

 

[Visigoth Panzer]

Before Islam, Persia did not produce a single scientist, mathematician, or philosopher of note. A single Greek city, Athens, produced more academic literature than the entirety of the Achaemenid, Parthian, or Sassanian Empires combined.

Much of Persia's ancient works were lost in the destruction of the Achaemenid capital Persepolis (probably by Alexander's troops) and the destruction by Islamic forces. An empire as ancient and successful as Persia was a successful model, especially considering Alexander largely just took it over and modified it.
Middle Persian literature - Wikipedia

 

[PoitierFrance]

Before Islam, Persia did not produce a single scientist, mathematician, or philosopher of note. A single Greek city, Athens, produced more academic literature than the entirety of the Achaemenid, Parthian, or Sassanian Empires combined.

Not Persia perhaps. There was however a large indigenous segment of the middle East active in translating and studying the hellenic sciences and philosophis. They were primarily of semetic background, such as nestorian christians (syrians, iraqis, levantines) and jews. The Persian King Khosrow I also promoted the works of nestorians and jews in the empire and inviting thinkers from india.

That constitute the background to the golden age of arabic science. Some outstanding scholars emerged at that time, such as The central asian Al-Biruni. The majority of scholars hailed from the persinate world.
All ended when orthodox islam triumphed through the the pen of Al-Ghazali.

 

[PoitierFrance]

Much of Persia's ancient works were lost in the destruction of the Achaemenid capital Persepolis (probably by Alexander's troops) and the destruction by Islamic forces. An empire as ancient and successful as Persia was a successful model, especially considering Alexander largely just took it over and modified it.
Middle Persian literature - Wikipedia

Persia was based on the high cultures of the ancient near east, the progenitors of city building, writing, astronomy, mathematics, and epic litterature. Strange that not a single thinker emerged. Zoroastrianism itself is quite sophistocated, especially compared to greek mythology.