Saladin Redux: What Would It Take To Unite Islam?

[Exarch]

As we all know, Islam is split into different sects/schools of thought be it Sunni, Shia, or Sufi etc etc. The closest Islam has ever come to being united as a political, economic and military force was when a kurdish muslim exhorted his fellow believers in retaking/liberating Jerusalem from Christian crusaders; we all know this individual as Saladin.

Saladin failed, but his goal of a pan islamic caliphate would have successors in people like Egypt's Nasser and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

My thought experiment today, will be to ask:

1) Excluding a Sunni-Shia reconciliation (like a catholic/orthodox reconciliation) what would it take for a pan islamic political/military entity to come into being again in the 21st century? which particular arab/muslim nations would be the principal countries in this federated entity?

2) Assuming this succeeds and the entity encompasses some, all, or more of the area below:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

what relations would this federated entity have with other countries in the world?

[Yosemite]

something great and big

but these countries encompass many different cultures and ethnicity
its like the sectarian religion of Islam as we see it today is not enough to get them together

[thebull0425]

Not possible. Islam itself is divided like many religions between radicalism and main stream thought. I couldn't see it happening. Besides, none of the countries could lead it because they are all flawed in very bad ways, see Assad in Syria. Jack asses like him would make the military/political/economical union impossible, unless they governed responsibly, and I'm not sure any Arab state does without enriching the ruling class/politicians.

There isn't a single unifying force like Christian Crusaders. Some could argue Israel is, but most don't care aside from it's close neighbours.

If I had to pick though, Iran. Why you ask? Look at the history of the region, something always cooking up there.

[panzer 4]

but the Muslims were united under the Ottoman Caliphate. during Saladins time, it was a time of mass civil war and disorganisation in the muslim world.

[Exarch]

but the Muslims were united under the Ottoman Caliphate. during Saladins time, it was a time of mass civil war and disorganisation in the muslim world.

ok, let's go with something along the lines of the ottomon caliphate; a hegemon with a strong islamic culture that tolerated a degree of multiculturalism as the ottomons did.

[PointOfViewGun]

but the Muslims were united under the Ottoman Caliphate. during Saladins time, it was a time of mass civil war and disorganisation in the muslim world.

Sunnis were, not Muslims. Ottoman caliphate was a mostly Sunni entity.

[panzer 4]

well you see, imo, the Muslims will be united through revolution. like the proletariat in russia, the muslims will have enough and a revolution will be in effect. when this happens, the muslims will call for a single, strong willed man to rule the country, and the history of islam always shows, that these are mostly religious men

[Prosaic Visitant]

well you see, imo, the Muslims will be united through revolution. like the proletariat in russia, the muslims will have enough and a revolution will be in effect. when this happens, the muslims will call for a single, strong willed man to rule the country, and the history of islam always shows, that these are mostly religious men

Ok, so various economic, ideological, cultural, social, linguistic, geographical, ethnic, tolerance, political and interpretational differences wouldn't get in the way of some Islamic Empire. Also, why do all Muslims need or want to forge such a realm? What about non-Muslims in the realm? put a tax on them for being non-believers and bar them from holding public office? What about Muslims who want no part of this? what about Muslims who live in a minority in some country?

Also, a)why does a autocratic figure need to rule said mythical empire
b) why is it a man? are women incapable leaders in your eyes?
c) what would convince most Musulmen to have a 'revolution' and then for no apparent reason join a single banner with every other Musulman?


Arguing that either all/ most Muslims are going to or want to form some transcontinental empire just because is as fallacious as saying Christians and atheists would want to as well.

[Tiberios]

Indeed and a country based only on common religion isn't a going to work IMO.

[panzer 4]

Ok, so various economic, ideological, cultural, social, linguistic, geographical, ethnic, tolerance, political and interpretational differences wouldn't get in the way of some Islamic Empire. Also, why do all Muslims need or want to forge such a realm? What about non-Muslims in the realm? put a tax on them for being non-believers and bar them from holding public office? What about Muslims who want no part of this? what about Muslims who live in a minority in some country?

Also, a)why does a autocratic figure need to rule said mythical empire
b) why is it a man? are women incapable leaders in your eyes?
c) what would convince most Musulmen to have a 'revolution' and then for no apparent reason join a single banner with every other Musulman?


Arguing that either all/ most Muslims are going to or want to form some transcontinental empire just because is as fallacious as saying Christians and atheists would want to as well.

Christians and Aethiests are free to leave the country if they want, and Jizya tax is only paid by those that can give, it is a sin to take from those that cant, or dont have enough to sustain themselves.
so a) Islam and Democracy dont compute, under the Ottoman empire, when Democracy was adopted, the corruption spread so quickly that it instead of quelling unrest, it hastened the destruction of the empire
b) Men are mostly better fighters, decision makers and leaders, history has shown that women leaders are not the best. (catherine the great? hmm, maybe she is debatable)
and c) you honestly have no idea what goes on in the "streets" of the middle east, the people are sick of these secular countries and harsh policies such as torture and supporting of the USA against its wars in afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, if you have ever been to a mosque in lebanon, Egypt or Jordan, the imams sometimes talk about the uniting of muslims into a single entity, and these lectures ussually attract the most amount of men.

and to those that think religion dont work, please explain why the Ottoman empire survived for 600 years?
or the Abbassids which lasted 600 too?

and no, rascism *shouldn't* theoritically exist
“ All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action. „

—(Hadith, Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Ch. 3)

[Prosaic Visitant]

Christians and Aethiests are free to leave the country if they want, and Jizya tax is only paid by those that can give, it is a sin to take from those that cant, or dont have enough to sustain themselves.
so a) Islam and Democracy dont compute, under the Ottoman empire, when Democracy was adopted, the corruption spread so quickly that it instead of quelling unrest, it hastened the destruction of the empire

So, autocracy and choosing your leaders based on their reading and speech skills is the best option? You claim democracy is corrupt, well perhaps you should look at the hives of corruption, buddy networks, nepotism, favourtism, inefficiency and lack of transparency in dictatorships and oligarchies.

and to those that think religion dont work, please explain why the Ottoman empire survived for 600 years?
or the Abbassids which lasted 600 too?

If you think a Muslim nation needs to be a theocracy; explain why Turkey and Indonesia have done well for themselves in their endevours, all things considered. Explain why most American Muslims and people like Babur seem Ok with their heathen governments? Explain why Muslims in India or China haven't seceded? Explain why countries with the best living standards and highest rates of educational performance also happen to be secular nations.

Also, where is your precious Ottoman Empire now?

and no, rascism *shouldn't* theoritically exist
“ All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action. „

Key word; theoretically. It's no secret ignorance and a lack of education breed racism. And the 'Muslim' countries aren't exactly bastions of education ATM.

Men are mostly better fighters, decision makers and leaders, history has shown that women leaders are not the best.

wow, women haven't been in enough positions of authority to prove themselves. But hey, why should logic impede your narrow-minded misogyny?

Oh dear, then again, I'm not surprised that this is coming from you.

and c) you honestly have no idea what goes on in the "streets" of the middle east, the people are sick of these secular countries and harsh policies such as torture and supporting of the USA against its wars in afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, if you have ever been to a mosque in lebanon, Egypt or Jordan, the imams sometimes talk about the uniting of muslims into a single entity, and these lectures ussually attract the most amount of men.

Indeed I do; people don't give a damn what government they are under, so long as
~ There are economic oppurtunites and the availability of a good standard of living.
~ The government doesn't abuse it's power (spying, warrant-less arrests etc)
~ The people, once criteria A and B are met, have some sort of influence over laws and governance. People tend to be less indulgent to crap governments when they are fed, educated and have a home.

If these conditions are met, your government could be lead by a guy with Alzheimers for all people care. People want governments who can protect them and offer the most material benefit for the least cost; and if that government is a secular democracy or a militant regime, it matters not. Theocracies are a bad idea because they tend to be corrupt, violent, intolerant, highly aggressive and the rule of law doesn't exist as laws, like media and any other public institution, simply becomes another arm for a tyrannical and meglomanical regime. Also, if you don't agree with the religion of the theocracy, may God have mercy on your soul, because your sheep like contemporaries wont.

You also touched on history, and so will I. The worst crimes, greatest monstrosities, bloodiest wars and most repressive regimes in history were all launched in the name of creating a utopia. Communism, fascism, imperialism and now your Islamism. I doubt this myth will be any different if it should gain traction.

The same far-fetceh elements it would take to unite christendom.

To create a country/union/alliance in 2011 based on religion is almost impossible.

I doubt nomad and panzer will be interested in an argument that tells them this. They seem to think that because if they live under a autocratic theocracy, all their problems will simply disappear in the new utopia where everyone is happy and peaceful and has a luxurious life simply because they live under a 'holy' government.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

If the Muslims stay divided there enemys will keep picking them off 1 by 1...They need to unite the clans

[jonyer]

EN
HO
There isn't a single unifying force like Christian Crusaders. Some could argue Israel is, but most don't care aside from it's close neighbours.
____________________
pandora charms uk

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What Would It Take To Unite Islam?

An arab culture not diametrically opposed to the teachings of Islam.

[Dr. Croccer]

It would be impossible to unite just Arabs under one country, or just unite Sunni and Shia in one country, let alone all Muslims in one state.

[NotYetRegistered]

A Muslim Union. Kind of like how Europe has the EU. But for now, a Muslim Union is really impossible.

[Prosaic Visitant]

You may, may just get an EU-esque Arab Union or something like that in the future. But apart from globalisation melting every border in existence, I don't see some mythical Islamic Empire popping out of existence.

And saying, "oh, but what about the Ottoman Empire" or something like that is a fallacy. Britain and France once fought several wars over centuries; does anyone seriously see a cross channel war erupting in the next century?

[nomad1414]

As a Muslim who really wants a united Muslim nation , I think the following should happen so that we can unite (as Muslims) :
1- Forgetting the west , the loyalty must be only for Islam , for Allah .
2- Sharia law (Quran and Sunna) must rule every Muslim country .
3- Removing the leaders who are loyal to west countries , either by force (revolting) or by elections .
4- And we must all know that the west doesn't want us to unite , so we have to be careful . That makes me say that there must be a really strong and united Muslim army , WITHOUT DEPENDING ON FOREIGN (NON-MUSLIM) COUNTRIES' WEAPONS .
5- A united economy .

that is all I can think of right now ....

[Yosemite]

.
2- Sharia law (Quran and Sunna) must rule every Muslim country .

and that would be wrong

[nomad1414]

and that would be wrong

No , It wouldn't .

When Sharia law ruled Muslim nation in the golden ages of Islam , the streets of Mecca were being lit by gas lamps , while the streets of Paris and London were full of and mud . There weren't much poor people in Muslim countries , while the people in Europe were fighting each other for food ..... etc.