Islamic Theocratic Superpower in a world where Islam is regarded generally inclusive.

... well the Islam outside of that particular theocracy of course...;)

Yes this thread is connected to this thread. Basically this is the thread where I want to discuss about this subject with the others. How could we get a world where there exists an Islamic theocracy as one of the dominant world powers there, in a world where Islam is seen as generally inclusive religion, or as "inclusive" (degrees may vary) as Christianity in that world ? And maybe that Muslim theocratic power would be part of a bloc that basically encouraging their particular religious affiliations as the only true faith (much like this particular ideological movement in this particular TL. ;)), and that particular bloc would be in an active competition (in any forms) against a pro-religious tolerance bloc... maybe.....

EDIT : More emphasizing on the first point, of course...
 
Last edited:
Bumpage !

No thoughts and opinions ?

Well, you know what I'll say in advance. You're pretty much describing the Ottoman Empire. As a POD, have Selim III have the willpower of Mahmud II and you start Ottoman reform at the same time as the French Revolution instead of decades after. i.e. a bit too late. Having the freedom to clean house while the entire continent is being devastated by war would have allowed the Ottomans to be further along politically and militarily, which would have put them in a better position economically and diplomatically, resisting foreign aggression and intervention and thus fuelling anti-Westernism much less.

It's really impossible to have a truly theocratic Sunni Islamic state due to the lack of religious hierarchy, but there is at least a nominal lack of separation between religion and state.

I have to note that Islami in OTL was much more inclusive than Christianity - and probably still would be if not for the whole Israel and oil thing. Christians could serve in high office in the Ottoman Empire - but Muslims weren't even allowed to live in European countries.

If you meant by today, the lack of Israel or Western backing of corrupt and oppressive regimes for the sake of oil would have obviated much of the hostility that we see today in OTL. Control over all the oil of the Middle East and North Africa, and maybe even the Caucasus, plus the other material and manpower resources of the Ottoman Empire the size it was in the late 18th c would necessarily make it a superpower.

I calculated this out once - It would have a population of something like 500 million and a PPP GDP of $5.5B - That compares with:

World $75.6B
EU $15.2B
USA $14.4B
China $12.5B
OE $5.5B
India $5.0B
Japan $4.5B
Germany $2.7B

That's the third largest economy, without taking into consideration earlier development in your scenario plus the greater synergies of belonging to a unitary and powerful empire.

If you consider that Russia's is about $2.0B - maybe $4.0B with the whole Soviet/Warsaw Pact empire, it's pretty plausible. It's location and oil give it a serious advantage as well - at least in strategic importance.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Well, you know what I'll say in advance. You're pretty much describing the Ottoman Empire. As a POD, have Selim III have the willpower of Mahmud II and you start Ottoman reform at the same time as the French Revolution instead of decades after. i.e. a bit too late. Having the freedom to clean house while the entire continent is being devastated by war would have allowed the Ottomans to be further along politically and militarily, which would have put them in a better position economically and diplomatically, resisting foreign aggression and intervention and thus fuelling anti-Westernism much less.

It's really impossible to have a truly theocratic Sunni Islamic state due to the lack of religious hierarchy, but there is at least a nominal lack of separation between religion and state.

I have to note that Islami in OTL was much more inclusive than Christianity - and probably still would be if not for the whole Israel and oil thing. Christians could serve in high office in the Ottoman Empire - but Muslims weren't even allowed to live in European countries.

If you meant by today, the lack of Israel or Western backing of corrupt and oppressive regimes for the sake of oil would have obviated much of the hostility that we see today in OTL. Control over all the oil of the Middle East and North Africa, and maybe even the Caucasus, plus the other material and manpower resources of the Ottoman Empire the size it was in the late 18th c would necessarily make it a superpower.

I calculated this out once - It would have a population of something like 500 million and a PPP GDP of $5.5B - That compares with:

World $75.6B
EU $15.2B
USA $14.4B
China $12.5B
OE $5.5B
India $5.0B
Japan $4.5B
Germany $2.7B

That's the third largest economy, without taking into consideration earlier development in your scenario plus the greater synergies of belonging to a unitary and powerful empire.

If you consider that Russia's is about $2.0B - maybe $4.0B with the whole Soviet/Warsaw Pact empire, it's pretty plausible. It's location and oil give it a serious advantage as well - at least in strategic importance.
Hmmmm....according to Wikipedia, by modern day calculations, the OE would control 1/3 of the world oil production. Of course, this does not take into account the fact that the pattern of oil exploitation would be different, but it gives a general idea.

I find it unlikely, however, that the world powers wouldl et one nation have such a monopoly.
 
Hmmmm....according to Wikipedia, by modern day calculations, the OE would control 1/3 of the world oil production. Of course, this does not take into account the fact that the pattern of oil exploitation would be different, but it gives a general idea.

I find it unlikely, however, that the world powers wouldl et one nation have such a monopoly.

Production, but not reserves, and Mid Eastern oil is much cheaper to extract.

The world powers had no problem with Russia and the USA having 99% of oil production in the 19th c - having one fairly stable country with the oil is easier and more secure than a bunch of unstable despotates as is the case now.
 

Glen

Moderator
Production, but not reserves, and Mid Eastern oil is much cheaper to extract.

The world powers had no problem with Russia and the USA having 99% of oil production in the 19th c - having one fairly stable country with the oil is easier and more secure than a bunch of unstable despotates as is the case now.

Agreed. So long as the Ottomans kept the oil flowing at reasonable rates to all, no one's going to mess with them, since they'd probably also be able to afford and would buy a fairly modern military and no one would want to risk getting cut off if they couldn't guarantee victory.
 

Glen

Moderator
I agree.

Historically at least, Islam has been much more inclusive and dare I say tolerant than many other religions, certainly in the West. Unfortunately that has not held true from the twentieth century.

I disagree a bit with Abdul as to some of the reasons. I think one of the big butterflies that started the Islamic World down the road to fundamentalism and radicalism (not all of course, but still much more so than historically) was the alliance between the Wahabis and the Saudis that led to their control of the Holy sites in Arabia and was magified by oil revenues.

I also suspect the late stage, ham-handed imperialism of the Western Powers especially in the aftermath of World War I (promising one thing but delivering quite another) also led to a lot of anger in the West.

Unfortunately, the formation of Israel and the festering issue of the Palestinians has been another powerful radicalizing factor, as Abdul notes.

Actually, I do agree with Abdul that having the Ottoman Empire remain in power in some slowly liberalizing form would be the most likely solution to satisfy your requirements. Of course, the Arabs aren't going to be particularly happy about that...

Well, you know what I'll say in advance. You're pretty much describing the Ottoman Empire. As a POD, have Selim III have the willpower of Mahmud II and you start Ottoman reform at the same time as the French Revolution instead of decades after. i.e. a bit too late. Having the freedom to clean house while the entire continent is being devastated by war would have allowed the Ottomans to be further along politically and militarily, which would have put them in a better position economically and diplomatically, resisting foreign aggression and intervention and thus fuelling anti-Westernism much less.

It's really impossible to have a truly theocratic Sunni Islamic state due to the lack of religious hierarchy, but there is at least a nominal lack of separation between religion and state.

I have to note that Islami in OTL was much more inclusive than Christianity - and probably still would be if not for the whole Israel and oil thing. Christians could serve in high office in the Ottoman Empire - but Muslims weren't even allowed to live in European countries.

If you meant by today, the lack of Israel or Western backing of corrupt and oppressive regimes for the sake of oil would have obviated much of the hostility that we see today in OTL. Control over all the oil of the Middle East and North Africa, and maybe even the Caucasus, plus the other material and manpower resources of the Ottoman Empire the size it was in the late 18th c would necessarily make it a superpower.

I calculated this out once - It would have a population of something like 500 million and a PPP GDP of $5.5B - That compares with:

World $75.6B
EU $15.2B
USA $14.4B
China $12.5B
OE $5.5B
India $5.0B
Japan $4.5B
Germany $2.7B

That's the third largest economy, without taking into consideration earlier development in your scenario plus the greater synergies of belonging to a unitary and powerful empire.

If you consider that Russia's is about $2.0B - maybe $4.0B with the whole Soviet/Warsaw Pact empire, it's pretty plausible. It's location and oil give it a serious advantage as well - at least in strategic importance.

Oh yeah, and I do agree that your figure likely under-represents the GDP of a surviving OE.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Production, but not reserves, and Mid Eastern oil is much cheaper to extract.

The world powers had no problem with Russia and the USA having 99% of oil production in the 19th c - having one fairly stable country with the oil is easier and more secure than a bunch of unstable despotates as is the case now.
Oil wasn't as important then though...and incidentally, the US was to economcially important and far away, while Russia....well, that would have exhausted them, and if their intervention in the RCW is anything to go by, they may have failed anyway.

Remember, even the British wanted a weak Ottoman Empire, only just strong enough to hold of the Russians. Strategic and economic importance, let alone total hegemony over the most strategic region of the world and the most important economci resource of the world, can be a curse as well as weakness.
 

Glen

Moderator
Oil wasn't as important then though...

We're looking to the future.

and incidentally, the US was to economcially important and far away, while Russia....well, that would have exhausted them, and if their intervention in the RCW is anything to go by, they may have failed anyway.

Remember, even the British wanted a weak Ottoman Empire, only just strong enough to hold of the Russians. Strategic and economic importance, let alone total hegemony over the most strategic region of the world and the most important economci resource of the world, can be a curse as well as weakness.

That's debatable. Remember, the Ottomans weren't always the 'Sick Man of Europe'. Strengthen them as opposed to weakening them in the 19th century, and no one is going to do well tangling with them (much like it would be difficult with any of the great powers).
 

Rockingham

Banned
We're looking to the future.



That's debatable. Remember, the Ottomans weren't always the 'Sick Man of Europe'. Strengthen them as opposed to weakening them in the 19th century, and no one is going to do well tangling with them (much like it would be difficult with any of the great powers).
1) You missed my point. I was saying oil not being as important was why American and Russian oil hegemony was tolerated. Once it became important, the search began to find other reserves.

2) Yes, but against the combined desires of the other world powers to insure they had cheap oil? Even if the Ottomans sold oil rather cheaply, they could not guarantee they would not change that in the future...

In any case, the powers could put soft-power pressure on, maybe insuring North Africa, indepdnance became total and irreversible at least.
 

Glen

Moderator
1) You missed my point. I was saying oil not being as important was why American and Russian oil hegemony was tolerated. Once it became important, the search began to find other reserves.

Operative word, 'other'. Only Hitler was nutty enough to take on the Russians in hopes of getting a hold of their oil (in addition to 'lebensraum').

2) Yes, but against the combined desires of the other world powers to insure they had cheap oil? Even if the Ottomans sold oil rather cheaply, they could not guarantee they would not change that in the future...

In any case, the powers could put soft-power pressure on, maybe insuring North Africa, indepdnance became total and irreversible at least.

Maybe on the North Africa front, Egypt probably depending on your POD.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Operative word, 'other'. Only Hitler was nutty enough to take on the Russians in hopes of getting a hold of their oil (in addition to 'lebensraum').



Maybe on the North Africa front, Egypt probably depending on your POD.
The Japanese as well.
 
Top