AHC: A More Secular Middle East

I was, actually, refering to "Russia was much much more conservative before communism on many things."
It was in regards to women and influence of religion over society. I would also say politics too. A absolute monarchy are usually the most conservative in how it runs itself

Edit: think of trans people in Iran right now. They might be more open towards them but I would not call them a progressive regime. Sometimes their are exceptions on a few things
 
oh and i really, really hate doing these whataboutisms but citing human rights abuses alone doesnt discredit one state based ideology over another as all states do it, all they have to do is call yu a terrorist or a threat to national security and all your rights become forfeit. So yes statecommunism is to be feared, states are to be feared! all hierarchical authorities are crafted and maintained with force. its comply or die out here. obey my rules and work my property and i might deem you and your family worthy of water

until the means of survival are no longer fenced off, until we no longer need to beg and barter for the bread made by people who must do likewise themselves, human rights will remain a cruel joke
 
oh and i really, really hate doing these whataboutisms but citing human rights abuses alone doesnt discredit one state based ideology over another as all states do it, all they have to do is call yu a terrorist or a threat to national security and all your rights become forfeit. So yes statecommunism is to be feared, states are to be feared! all hierarchical authorities are crafted and maintained with force. its comply or die out here. obey my rules and work my property and i might deem you and your family worthy of water
Can we focus on the AHC? We know how brutal many regimes can be. Can we just focus on ideas for a more secular Middle East and not get too caught up on discussing politics?
 

kernals12

Banned
The argument was on whether or not Nasser death would damaged or prevent the rise of Pan-Arabism. Whether or not events play like otl is irrelevant if the question is whether or the Ideology will rise to prominence.
Pan-Arabism would lose its galvanizing figure. I think that would stop Pan-Arabism from arising.
 
Secular nationalism got discredited after they couldn't defeat Israel and Islamism grew after the war in Afghan (79-89). Change one or both and you could see Islamism reduced considerably as a viable option
 
Pan-Arabism would lose its galvanizing figure.
Who is replaceable and losing a galvanizing figure in this instances might not be a bad thing as without his prestige. A Syrian-Egyptian Union might be a more federalist system as opposed to otl's drive to hand total power over to Nasser.

I think that would stop Pan-Arabism from arising.
As I have pointed out before It was already popular before Nasser. To put the popularity of Pan-Arabism on Nasser's shoulders alone is Great Man history at it's most extreme.
 
Last edited:
Oxymoron, religion is vital among muslim, the thing you want is less extremism and political hate..stop treating MENA as europe playground(specially britain and USA), no israel too... heck we might get back to ottomans surviving or winning WW1 and purging of the french and british holding and capitulations
 

kernals12

Banned
Oxymoron, religion is vital among muslim, the thing you want is less extremism and political hate..stop treating MENA as europe playground(specially britain and USA), no israel too... heck we might get back to ottomans surviving or winning WW1 and purging of the french and british holding and capitulations
That's not possible. MENA is too important to the West (USA is not part of Europe btw), the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf oil are vital to the world economy.
 
Oxymoron, religion is vital among muslim, the thing you want is less extremism and political hate..stop treating MENA as europe playground(specially britain and USA), no israel too... heck we might get back to ottomans surviving or winning WW1 and purging of the french and british holding and capitulations
You do realize that’s why people like Saddam(before Gulf War) and other Arab dictators encouraged nationalism. The west before nationalism often called itself the Christian world or “Christiandom” because they saw religion as more vital then national, ethnic, or cultural identities. The growth of nationalism flipped that the other way around. This is why the west calls themselves the “western world” instead of “Christiandom” now. The more nationalistic you make a culture in mindset the less likely it is to fall to religious extremism. That’s why the US has so many hypocritical Christians. Some of them might say the are fundamentalist in belief but their actual actions and behaviors shows they are more nationalistic with religion playing more into the culture instead of being above it. Another example is Irish nationalist thinking being Catholic was a part of being “Irish”. They aren’t super religious they just see it as part of their culture. For example, Christians in the Middle East, India, and Africa are often much more fundamentalist in beliefs then Christians in the west because they lack that level of nationalism that the west has had for centuries now. That’s why the Catholic Church often hated nationalism because it often met more secularization and people valuing nations over the church. If your a dictator you rather have citizens more loyal to the country over being loyal to a school of Islam that you come into conflict with. It’s the same reason European monarchs in the past rather have citizens loyal to the nation over the church because if they are more loyal to the church then the country what does that mean for the monarch when he opposes the church/religion. Nationalism is the very reason Germany united. Before nationalism German Catholics often rather ally with the French over Protestant Germans. Protestant Germans rather ally with Protestant Brits over Catholic Germans. After nationalism that flipped. It’s the same with Islam now. Sunni vs Shia is more important then Arabs vs non-Arabs. Many Muslims even still learn ancient Arabic language like Christians use to learn Latin and Greek language for religious reasons.
 
Religion has an unusually strong influence on life in the Middle East. We even have states like Saudi Arabia and Iran that are virtual theocracies. Can we make the MENA region more secular?

- Ottomans remain in there and secularizs over time. Big population centres like Aleppo, Beirut, Jaffa-Tel Aviv etc may become as secular as Izmir or... Sevilla is. Still believers but not practising as much as now. Although Southern Iraq, Interior of Lebanon and rural ME will still be as religious as they are now minus Iranian and Saudi influence.

- Democratic or Communist Arab States. Will help in urban centres. Ideally no Israel or Saudi Arabia or Islamist Iran
 
Both of these would lead to massive Islamic/Nationalist insurgencies in both Counties

Algeria staying part of France is unsustainable, yes. But there is a high chance that the war might be more ethno nationalist than religious in nature.

However, I think a united India can be worked out. The 2 situations here aren't very similar.
 
But there is a high chance that the war might be more ethno nationalist than religious in nature.
It was Ethno-Nationalist in nature however insurgencies in Muslim areas fighting against non-Muslims have progressively gotten more religious in nature over time as Secular Nationalism was discredited and the rise of Islamism as prominent ideology.

However, I think a united India can be worked out. The 2 situations here aren't very similar.
Kashmir is India's only Muslim majority region. Pakistan being a part of India would be larger version of that given the distant nature of the region and it's poorer nature.
 
It was Ethno-Nationalist in nature however insurgencies in Muslim areas fighting against non-Muslims have progressively gotten more religious in nature over time as Secular Nationalism was discredited and the rise of Islamism as prominent ideology.


Kashmir is India's only Muslim majority region. Pakistan being a part of India would be larger version of that given the distant nature of the region and it's poorer nature.
Well, if secular nationalism was no discredited to begin with, the Algerian revolt would stay that way.

As for India, pakistan is not distant at all. Sindh, Punjab and Bengal where/are very densly populated regions highly interconnected with the rest of the subcontinent. The Pashtun area, while geographically peripheral, was also a stronghold of Congress and joined pakistan rather late. The only region India would have real trouble with is Baluchistan. And its not like they dont already deal with similar problems otl (Northeast)
 
Top