More reasonable Islam?

[MrHola]

In the earlier days of Islam, say the 8th to the 10th centuries, the intelligensia was accepted in Islamic culture, and it was actually remarkably accepting of other religions in comparison to the Christians of the day.

They made good technological advances, and invented the distiller in this period. In the Berber invasion of Spain the Jewish population of some cities even aided the Moslems since they would rather live under, in their opinion, the more accepting Islamic rulers.

This all changed however when the religious fundamentalists assumed control later on, heavily persecuting both other religions, other sects, and crushing the intelligensia into obscurity and oblivion to this day. It is given that the
reasonable parts of Islamic society did terribly in war with the highly unreasonable Christian Europeans (as is usually the case) and this contributed to their downfall. How could the reasonable factions survive and lead Islam without being crushed by Christian Europe?

 

[Max Sinister]

I think the tide turned when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed the last Caliph in 1258.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Since this is a giant load of bullshit, I have no solution to the question. "Funadamentalists" did not take charge and start oppressing anyone - what possible backup to you have for that? If anything, Islamic governments became more worldly and cosmopolitan, not less.

In the earlier days of Islam, say the 8th to the 10th centuries, the intelligensia was accepted in Islamic culture, and it was actually remarkably accepting of other religions in comparison to the Christians of the day.

They made good technological advances, and invented the distiller in this period. In the Berber invasion of Spain the Jewish population of some cities even aided the Moslems since they would rather live under, in their opinion, the more accepting Islamic rulers.

This all changed however when the religious fundamentalists assumed control later on, heavily persecuting both other religions, other sects, and crushing the intelligensia into obscurity and oblivion to this day. It is given that the
reasonable parts of Islamic society did terribly in war with the highly unreasonable Christian Europeans (as is usually the case) and this contributed to their downfall. How could the reasonable factions survive and lead Islam without being crushed by Christian Europe?

 

[Midgard]

Since this is a giant load of bullshit, I have no solution to the question. "Funadamentalists" did not take charge and start oppressing anyone - what possible backup to you have for that? If anything, Islamic governments became more worldly and cosmopolitan, not less.

What a giant load of horseshit. I thought stagnation and decline of Islamic civilization following the cessation of conquests is a well documented historical fact - name nations on the edge of technological and social innovation in the last several centuries, and tell me how many of those are predominantly Islamic nations. The last predominantly Islamic nation to have experienced any degree of innovation was the Ottoman Empire, and even then it stopped when the conquests ceased - by 1800 AD it was but a shell of its former self, barely hanging on while desperately trying to catch up. And even then, it is also rather well documented that even before the sack of Baghdad by Hulagu, Islamic civilization has been in steady decline - even Salah-ad-Din could not reverse it.

You all know my opinion on the topic, and the proof is, I believe, in the pudding. Where are those worldly and cosmopolitan and, I presume you implied, advanced Islamic societies? Where were they for a past thousand years?

Your statement is an equivalent of saying that the Soviet Union really WAS a Socialist Paradise.


Oh, and to answer his question. I think the latest feasible way to turn around the trend is around the Ottomans, with religious authority being firmly subdued to the secular one, and with much better succession methodology (i.e. no "seraglio sultans").

 

[Rockingham]

The salvation of islamic society is easily capable after the fall of the ottoman empire.
More logical maps of the middle east(rather then the hodge podge ones of otl)ie. independant kurdistan, and kurds in turkish region expelled(this may radicalize kurdistan, but does wonders in advancing turkey, whic is a net gain), shites and sunnis divided could all prevent the modern day disaster

Results:
-No israel or greater lebanon, brits decide to side with arabs and no jewish state established, although palestine will have a very large number of jews and be democratic, prosperous, and secular. Lebanon is established at a resonable size, and has majority christian population, minority muslims integrated.

-The US, which has no mandates, and is betrayed by allies on jerusalem, "pressures" allies to stick to their ideal of using mandates only for temporary modernization, and limits are placed on holding times for "A" class mandates.
Resulting in shorter holding time and less abuse, and much less muslim resentment of the west.

-Sans israel, USA develops a policy of friendshp with middleeast, palestine, in return for allowing jewish immigration and jewish equality, the middle east prospers under US, friendship. Because of historical american atagonism for muslim independance, it's status as main source of trade, funds, defence and political support(visa-vis it's staus with israel today, albeit weaker), root muslim culture is far less hostile to USA, if at all.

-The wahabis do not come to power, what is present day saudi arabia eventually unifies(possible including other arab states such as jordan, noth yemen) but under oil prosperity and peaceful rather the chaotic mid-east becomes liberal and democratic(comparitively at least, perhaps more like modern day jordan and kuwait).

-Turkey has little difference, but no kurds, the main stumbling block it's being considered a fair and democratic state today, possibly closer to EU membership(if eu still exists) and first world status(as it has a weaker army), more funds elsewhere. Although turkish army historically intervenes when turkey moves towards radicalism, which may be a stumbling blok in my idea.

-Revolutions, civil wars still occur, but less often.
Under US tutelage, middle eastern regimes move closer to democracy, and positive view of USA by muslims, and greater economic prosperity, may cause liberalism rather then radicalism to be dominant ideology in the muslim world(though less liberal then europe in most cases, and with a greater emphasis on religion in most cases also.

-No disposal of shah in Iran(Butterfly effect), which remains under the incredibly liberal shahs. Their gradual liberalization of Iran continues, Soviets seen as enemy by people of Iran (due to aggression) as opposed to US. The USA, with a vested interest in the middle east, puts money into strenghtening Iran in particular, so it is stronger by OTL, general dissatisfaction of public with government eventually occurs, but only spurs grater liberal reforms(with islamic leanings nonetheless). Soviets are more agessive in turn, but this just pushes mid-east further away from them, weakens control over their own muslim populace(with help from USA).

My only request is that u don't start a dispute on whether islam can accept this level of liberal thought in it's grass root culture, that is a completely unresolvable debate that can easily turn into a pointless(and heavily biased argument. The question is how it could become liberal, not whether it could.

 

[Max Sinister]

OK - and how should these logical borders look like? I know there's a long thread with that topic around, but can't remember we found a solution.

 

[Midgard]

OK - and how should these logical borders look like? I know there's a long thread with that topic around, but can't remember we found a solution.

Well, my own opinion is, if you want "logical" borders for the Middle East with early XXth century POD, keep it Ottoman... it should suppress quite a few nastier tendencies in the region if there is one undisputed power ruling over it all.

 

[Rockingham]

OK - and how should these logical borders look like? I know there's a long thread with that topic around, but can't remember we found a solution.

-Independant kurdistan, with most turkish and iranian kurds immigrated/expelled to.
-Shite and sunni divided iraq
-Smaller, more christian lebanon, with remainder of OTL lebanon to syria
-No Israel, rather multicultural but more muslim palestine
-Saudi arabia areas unified under moderate muslim leaders.
-Turkey OTL borders

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Oh, and to answer his question. I think the latest feasible way to turn around the trend is around the Ottomans, with religious authority being firmly subdued to the secular one, and with much better succession methodology (i.e. no "seraglio sultans").

Wrong. The Ottomans DID firmly subdue religious authority in favor of the secular, and the "seraglio sultan" period was brief - by the 19th c it had been abandoned. Most of the preception of it is based on orientalist fantasy in any case.

To label an entire 1,200 year period stretching from Morocco to Indonesia all decline, stagnation, and religious-reactionary is useless. Different areas at different times had ups and downs. Central Asia before the Mongols was one of the most advanced areas in the world, the Ottoman peak, etc.

As for the Ottomans, their reform program in the 19th c led to very fast economic and political progress. The best solution would have been stopping Russia from attacking in 1877, which not only permanently hobbled the empire and turned Islamism from an optimistic movement onto the trajectory towards anti-Western reaction, by moving heavily to the National Principle at Berlin the Hapsburg, Russian, and Ottoman empires were undermined by nationalist movements all over the place.

 

[Rockingham]

Islam's greates disadvantage was the huge boost to western society that came from discovery of new world.... but that was almost inevitable, not because of culture, but because of geography and the economic situation.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

This solution will lead to horrible genocide and ethnic cleansing and lead to centuries of hatred and resentment. For example half of Turkish Kurds live in "Turkish" areas - and most of the Kurdish elite have their homes and livlihoods there. To uproot them all would destroy any hope of a Kurdish leadership and send millions of people to a resource poor area where most would starve to death or be a huge burden for decades or forever.

Likewise, millions of Turks live in "Kurdish" areas - it would be easier to relocate them, but it would still lead to social collapse as there just aren't resources to properly accommodate them.

This would take two of the least radicalized peoples in the Mid East and turn them into giant al-Qaedas.

The salvation of islamic society is easily capable after the fall of the ottoman empire.
More logical maps of the middle east(rather then the hodge podge ones of otl)ie. independant kurdistan, and kurds in turkish region expelled(this may radicalize kurdistan, but does wonders in advancing turkey, whic is a net gain), shites and sunnis divided could all prevent the modern day disaster

Results:
-No israel or greater lebanon, brits decide to side with arabs and no jewish state established, although palestine will have a very large number of jews and be democratic, prosperous, and secular. Lebanon is established at a resonable size, and has majority christian population, minority muslims integrated.

-The US, which has no mandates, and is betrayed by allies on jerusalem, "pressures" allies to stick to their ideal of using mandates only for temporary modernization, and limits are placed on holding times for "A" class mandates.
Resulting in shorter holding time and less abuse, and much less muslim resentment of the west.

-Sans israel, USA develops a policy of friendshp with middleeast, palestine, in return for allowing jewish immigration and jewish equality, the middle east prospers under US, friendship. Because of historical american atagonism for muslim independance, it's status as main source of trade, funds, defence and political support(visa-vis it's staus with israel today, albeit weaker), root muslim culture is far less hostile to USA, if at all.

-The wahabis do not come to power, what is present day saudi arabia eventually unifies(possible including other arab states such as jordan, noth yemen) but under oil prosperity and peaceful rather the chaotic mid-east becomes liberal and democratic(comparitively at least, perhaps more like modern day jordan and kuwait).

-Turkey has little difference, but no kurds, the main stumbling block it's being considered a fair and democratic state today, possibly closer to EU membership(if eu still exists) and first world status(as it has a weaker army), more funds elsewhere. Although turkish army historically intervenes when turkey moves towards radicalism, which may be a stumbling blok in my idea.

-Revolutions, civil wars still occur, but less often.
Under US tutelage, middle eastern regimes move closer to democracy, and positive view of USA by muslims, and greater economic prosperity, may cause liberalism rather then radicalism to be dominant ideology in the muslim world(though less liberal then europe in most cases, and with a greater emphasis on religion in most cases also.

-No disposal of shah in Iran(Butterfly effect), which remains under the incredibly liberal shahs. Their gradual liberalization of Iran continues, Soviets seen as enemy by people of Iran (due to aggression) as opposed to US. The USA, with a vested interest in the middle east, puts money into strenghtening Iran in particular, so it is stronger by OTL, general dissatisfaction of public with government eventually occurs, but only spurs grater liberal reforms(with islamic leanings nonetheless). Soviets are more agessive in turn, but this just pushes mid-east further away from them, weakens control over their own muslim populace(with help from USA).

My only request is that u don't start a dispute on whether islam can accept this level of liberal thought in it's grass root culture, that is a completely unresolvable debate that can easily turn into a pointless(and heavily biased argument. The question is how it could become liberal, not whether it could.

 

[Dave Howery]

uh... didn't the 'unreasonable fundamentalist' part of Islam begin only after the Europeans colonized parts of the ME? From what I've read, the Islamic states in the ME were tolerant of Jews until Israel was established, so much so that the jews fled to those nations to avoid persecution. The muslims were harsh to Crusaders and the Crusader states they conquered, but that's not really hard to understand.... AFAIK, Christians who lived in the area the whole time didn't really suffer at the hands of muslims. But once the age of colonization really got going, things changed...

 

[Midgard]

uh... didn't the 'unreasonable fundamentalist' part of Islam begin only after the Europeans colonized parts of the ME? From what I've read, the Islamic states in the ME were tolerant of Jews until Israel was established, so much so that the jews fled to those nations to avoid persecution. The muslims were harsh to Crusaders and the Crusader states they conquered, but that's not really hard to understand.... AFAIK, Christians who lived in the area the whole time didn't really suffer at the hands of muslims. But once the age of colonization really got going, things changed...

Wrong. Islam's intolerance for non-Muslims began practically as soon as Islam became the majority. Just ask the Copts, who were put down in a rather ignominous matter to the point that by 1000 AD they were firmly in subservient position to Muslims. The supposed examples to the contrary are Spain, where Muslim power was always strenuous, and Ottoman Empire, which was surrounded by non-Muslim states, and had too great concentrations of non-Muslims to be as oppressive on them as other Islamic states. So, they were exceptions that proved the rule.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

Wrong. Islam's intolerance for non-Muslims began practically as soon as Islam became the majority. Just ask the Copts, who were put down in a rather ignominous matter to the point that by 1000 AD they were firmly in subservient position to Muslims. The supposed examples to the contrary are Spain, where Muslim power was always strenuous, and Ottoman Empire, which was surrounded by non-Muslim states, and had too great concentrations of non-Muslims to be as oppressive on them as other Islamic states. So, they were exceptions that proved the rule.

Oh fer Crissakes give it UP willya. That has to be the most desperate argument I've seen on this board yet. Spain and the Ottomans are the exceptions?, what in hell is the normal, Albania? (Oh, wait, that was part of the Ottomans, too). It's like saying, "well, yes, California and New York are very "American" but they're the exceptions" And naturally the Ottomans were surrounded by non-Muslims, they in fact mainly WERE the muslim states (well at least the Occidental ones) for a long time.

Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but we all know that you believe Islam is EEEEVVIILLL. You've made the point extensively elsewhere, and you've made it clear that nothing, not reason, logic or all of history is going to change your mind. Fine, thank you for your input and we will give it all the consideration we feel it deserves. Now would you please bow out of what some are trying to to make a productive and plausible conversation on what might really happen in a rational and possible ATL, you're muddying the waters.

 

[Midgard]

Oh fer Crissakes give it UP willya. That has to be the most desperate argument I've seen on this board yet. Spain and the Ottomans are the exceptions?, what in hell is the normal, Albania? (Oh, wait, that was part of the Ottomans, too). It's like saying, "well, yes, California and New York are very "American" but they're the exceptions" And naturally the Ottomans were surrounded by non-Muslims, they in fact mainly WERE the muslim states (well at least the Occidental ones) for a long time.

Please read up on history before you start pontificating. My argument is backed by 14 centuries of real-world history. Yours seems like a desperate babble because you simply don't like my point of view. Fine, you can dislike it all you want. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. And as for the "normal" Muslim states, how about anything from Egypt starting with the Fatimids and until (and even after) the Ottoman conquest, how about the Abbassid Caliphate, how about the Almohads, the Marinids, and many others?

Look, I don't mean to be offensive, but we all know that you believe Islam is EEEEVVIILLL. You've made the point extensively elsewhere, and you've made it clear that nothing, not reason, logic or all of history is going to change your mind. Fine, thank you for your input and we will give it all the consideration we feel it deserves. Now would you please bow out of what some are trying to to make a productive and plausible conversation on what might really happen in a rational and possible ATL, you're muddying the waters.

You apparently have not read the (admittedly short, but still valid) proposal of how to make Islam reform itself and get to something resembling modern, post-Enlightenment levels of cultural and social mores. As far as my opinion of Islam, that does not need further elaboration, and unless you have some reasonable, valid arguments instead of sprouting nonsense when logic, reason, and all of history DO provide valid support for my point, then I would suggest you vacate the debate.

 

[carlton_bach]

uh... didn't the 'unreasonable fundamentalist' part of Islam begin only after the Europeans colonized parts of the ME? From what I've read, the Islamic states in the ME were tolerant of Jews until Israel was established, so much so that the jews fled to those nations to avoid persecution. The muslims were harsh to Crusaders and the Crusader states they conquered, but that's not really hard to understand.... AFAIK, Christians who lived in the area the whole time didn't really suffer at the hands of muslims. But once the age of colonization really got going, things changed...

While there is definitely a feedback loop between Western interference and radical anti-Western Islamism in our day, Islam has pretty much always had its share of bigots and sectarian nasties. Of course, most Islamic states prior to 1700 look good compared to most European satates prior to that date, that is because pre-Enlightenment Europe for several centuries was world leader in sectarian hatred and repression. Nobody did it quite as well.

Under traditional Islamic regimes, Christians and Jews had a specified place in society inferior to Muslim, but with clearly defined legal rights and obligations. This is broadly analogous to the position of the Jews in the Christian Roman Empire (I guess that's where Muhammad got the idea) and has over time run the gamut from all-but-equality through second-class citizenship to precarious marginalisation. Being a Christian under the Almoravids was no fun at all, and if we can trust Benjamin of Tudela, being a Jew in 12th century Iran wasn't a bed of roses either. At the same time, the Jewish community in Alexandria was prosperous and influential and the Christians of Syria also didn't do too badly, whether their overlords were Seljuq, Ayyubid, Mamluk or Ottoman. For most of history, being a Christian or Jew in Islamic countries was preferable to being a Jew or Muslim in Latin Christendom, for all the inferior status it carried.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

You apparently have not read the (admittedly short, but still valid) proposal of how to make Islam reform itself and get to something resembling modern, post-Enlightenment levels of cultural and social mores.

Truly I have not, and I would appreciate your posting it again, if it is not too much trouble.

That is another main problem with your general argument here. So much effort is expended in trying to refute the idea that Islam has NEVER done ANYTHING to improve the world that a possibly valid kernel, the idea that modern Islam is in need of reform, is lost in the dross.

 

[Midgard]

Truly I have not, and I would appreciate your posting it again, if it is not too much trouble.

That is another main problem with your general argument here. So much effort is expended in trying to refute the idea that Islam has NEVER done ANYTHING to improve the world that a possibly valid kernel, the idea that modern Islam is in need of reform, is lost in the dross.

Selective reading, perhaps? Or is Islam not open to criticism despite having enough points to condemn it in many eyes, both in its doctrines and in its historical deed?

My idea was to have stronger, more efficient, longer-lasting Ottoman Empire. In OTL, the Ottomans began opening to Western influence when Enlightenment came about, but it was too little, too late - and whatever could have been salvaged was destroyed by WWI.

 

[Keenir]

Wrong. Islam's intolerance for non-Muslims began practically as soon as Islam became the majority. Just ask the Copts, who were put down in a rather ignominous matter to the point that by 1000 AD they were firmly in subservient position to Muslims.

weren't the Copts the financiers (and businessmen) of Egypt throughout the Middle Ages?

The supposed examples to the contrary are Spain, where Muslim power was always strenuous, and Ottoman Empire, which was surrounded by non-Muslim states, and had too great concentrations of non-Muslims to be as oppressive on them as other Islamic states. So, they were exceptions that proved the rule.

what of Malaysia and northern China?

or were the Uighurs unable to be intolerant because they were China's best soldiers?

 

[Calgacus]

Flawed question I think. Fundamentalism surely did not become a serious issue until the Wahhabis in the 19th century, and even then was not influential until the last century. Ottoman Turkey and neighbouring Persia, whatever state of advance or decline you consider them to have been in at various points, were hardly fundamentalist. Kind of like saying that Anglican England was fundamentalist Christian in the 18th century....