I found an old college paper I wrote about Islam, and decided to post it online: http://www.logicaloutlook.com/posts/August_2007/History_of_Islam_the_Prophet_and_the_Violence.asp It's about the divide between the Sunni and Shia, and how it was caused... There are citations on almost every line, so it's not an opinion peice, or politically charged in any way... I figure some people might be interested... But it's just about 8 pages long, so here's a quick, non cited, version:
Do you mean... Why would it be different? -or- How would it be different? http://www.logicaloutlook.com/posts/August_2007/History_of_Islam_the_Prophet_and_the_Violence.asp
No one can know that for sure... Any suggestions would be an opinion, or educated guess... Personally, I believe that while the two sects might still have broken from the once unified religion, they would probably not harbor the same amount of animosity towards each other... Of course, you could put forward other possibilities also.. Like, had the two groups not been fighting each other, they may have put their efforts into bettering themselves, and that may have led to a more developed middle-east... But still, this is all just speculation, as no one knows for sure what would have happened...
The thing is, Islam's growth was based on force, power, struggle.. Unlike other major religions like, Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism, they mixed spirituality and war together. And power always comes with bloody struggle.. The leadership void wasn't the reason actually, the two different thinking were the reason. One group thinks the leadership should remain in bloodline, and other thinks the best man of the community should lead. So these two different thinking were going to clash, sooner or later..
Exactly! That's what my 7-page term paper was about... No one can say for sure, but if the prophet had named his successor people might have known which way he would have wanted it... Probably, but that's all hypothetical, no one knows for sure...
weren't the crusades fought in the name of god? wasn't most of the south america and central america and also large parts of africa turned christian by banning other religions after the christian nations conquered those lands?
Whats your point? It must be ok because you think someone else did it. Didn't Jesus knock over the money changers table and condemn greed? I guess that makes him violent and abusive then? My point is don't even try comparing religions based on peace with one not. Its a no brainer. BTW Islam is doing all those things and more in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe and The Americas today!
Uhhu.. Christianity in it's initial days( When Jesus was around) wasn't concentrating on power. What it became on later days is a different issue. On the other hand, Muhammad started spreading Islam by conquering the neighborhood. So basically Christianity wasn't mixing power and spirituality, but Islam was...