Less reactionary Muslim world

Status
Not open for further replies.
With any pod after 1900, make it so that the Muslim world at large is as secular and socially progressive as the west. This is for things regarding stuff like gay rights, apostasy laws, etc. And make it so that the laws in most/all Muslim countries are completely secular.

And if you're really up to the challenge, make it so that the Muslim world is more progressive than the west
 
Do most of the people still have to believe in and actively practice the Muslim faith? Or can they be Muslim in the same sense that places like Sweden are Lutheran?
 
Do most of the people still have to believe in and actively practice the Muslim faith? Or can they be Muslim in the same sense that places like Sweden are Lutheran?
tHIS SHOW how little you know how the faith, there 'lypsinc' in any region, but most of muslim i've meet(both local and travellers groups) are very proactive in our faith
 
Against my better judgement, muslim input would actually be useful here to keep this from devolving islamophobic nonsense, so I think the two things you would need to do are:

1. Strangle Wahabbism in the cradle.

2. America needs to stop being a willing partner in exporting Wahhabism to combat Soviet influence.

contrary to many beliefs about how if Islam just "needs a reformation", Wahabbism is basically our protestants. They *are* a reaction to growing Western influence.

There also were more modernist/progressive islamic scholars throughout the MENA in the 19th and 20th centuries (this is actually where the salafi movement originates, before converging with Wahabbism) but unfortunately for America, if they managed to form governments it would bring them down in the fight to contain (percieved) communism. Oops.
 
For a start, the Ottoman Empire needs to have a significantly better early 20th century.

Maybe the Young Turks movement is more successful and cohesive, turning the Porte into a constitutional monarchy. Although they probably have to be more strictly inclusive, rather than turning into (or being perceived as) a Turkish nationalist group.

With the point made by @YourWaifuForLaifu, it might also require communism not being considered a threat, or at least not as much of one as it was IOTL.

There is also the issue of reactions against these movements. It happens everywhere, unfortunately - people invested in the status quo aren't happy with change, whilst people who were originally part of the progressive movement might switch to conservative, but don't drop the radical "we must change the system, it isn't working" mentality.
 
tHIS SHOW how little you know how the faith, there 'lypsinc' in any region, but most of muslim i've meet(both local and travellers groups) are very proactive in our faith

Well, yeah, but I'm wondering if the OP will allow a scenario in which Islamic-majority cultures evolve in such a way so that a lot of nominal and ancestral Muslims are basically non-believers.

(And for the record, no, I'm not saying that secularized Muslims are superior to the devout kind.)
 
Well, yeah, but I'm wondering if the OP will allow a scenario in which Islamic-majority cultures evolve in such a way so that a lot of nominal and ancestral Muslims are basically non-believers.

(And for the record, no, I'm not saying that secularized Muslims are superior to the devout kind.)
There not such thing as that, you're just an ethic X(example in colombia there a lot of secular lebanese and syrian too), there not such thing as 'turn off' your religion, that sound rude at best, awful at worst
 
Two things come to mind: A different ending to the Great War and a unified Arabia under the Hashemites.

Maybe the US never gets involved in the Great War, but kinda have it to where both sides pretty much call it a draw or something. If someone needs to win, have it be the Central Powers.

A unified Arabia under the Hashemites would have a change to grow at their own pace and without the threat of communism from a lack of USSR or such, it can probably try and do so. Hashemites and whomever Allies they get will crush the Saudis and any prominent Wahhabist.

Beyond that, have them grow and change, reaping the benefits of oil and modernizing at a similar pace to the other prominent nations of global politics. Have the monarchy invest in infrastructure and so on.

The Muslim world’s reactionary stance is, as said, a reaction to the “liberal West.” After all, conservatism and its radical counterparts are based on law, order and tradition (especially religion) from an ideology stand point.

Arabia will likely liberalize at a similar pace to the rest of the world with the end of the Great War and reaping economic benefits. Additionally, should they take on a caliph role, they can fund more liberal schools of thoughts across the Muslim world and so on.
 
Against my better judgement, muslim input would actually be useful here to keep this from devolving islamophobic nonsense, so I think the two things you would need to do are:

1. Strangle Wahabbism in the cradle.

2. America needs to stop being a willing partner in exporting Wahhabism to combat Soviet influence.

contrary to many beliefs about how if Islam just "needs a reformation", Wahabbism is basically our protestants. They *are* a reaction to growing Western influence.

There also were more modernist/progressive islamic scholars throughout the MENA in the 19th and 20th centuries (this is actually where the salafi movement originates, before converging with Wahabbism) but unfortunately for America, if they managed to form governments it would bring them down in the fight to contain (percieved) communism. Oops.

But Wahhabism takes many of it's teachings from Salafism, doesn't it? I know Wahhabism played a critical role in the creation of Saudi Arabia and so the eradication of Wahhabism would prevent the creation of Saudi Arabia, but wouldn't Salafism just take it's place as a reform movement within Islam?
 
Could Egypt or a mixed-religious Palestine exert some kind of influence over Mecca and Medina?

More likely Egypt than Palestine. The only problem is that if a foreign power (especially one controlled by the British, a Christian colonial empire) takes over Mecca and Medina, it's going to send ripples throughout the Islamic community worldwide.
 
More likely Egypt than Palestine. The only problem is that if a foreign power (especially one controlled by the British, a Christian colonial empire) takes over Mecca and Medina, it's going to send ripples throughout the Islamic community worldwide.

What about a post-independence Egypt?
 
Kuwait gains the Saudi oil fields. The Kuwaitis aren’t the most liberal people in the Middle East, but they’re not as bad as the House of Saud.
 
What about a post-independence Egypt?
Monarchist egypt was nothing more than a puppet of the British and anyone knew it.


Also would like to add the hashmites aren't 'liberal' there goal is selfish there legitimacy and relevance come from there blood line to muhammad, they won't push anything towards making them less relevant, they are legitimist ie they want to be in charge (there not a very well liked people).

What you need is greater funding of islamic learning in general and more prevalence of non-arabs muslims in front of islam. Non-arabic islam generally tends to adopt more wider view and allows for the more numerous parts to have a say creating a more pluralistic islam, making it easier for new ideas to be accepted.

Vatican City has in Italy
The problem is theres no caliphs, the cities themselves give legitimacy to who rules them (custodians). Giving them no leader doesn't help make islam any different, and may put the cities in more danger as now any power could try and assert dominance.
 
Have the Pan-Arab regimes win against Israel and 1968 and political islam may never have an opening, perhaps leaving the Arab World to, like the West, not having a conservative version of its major religion as a dominant political force.
 
There not such thing as that, you're just an ethic X(example in colombia there a lot of secular lebanese and syrian too), there not such thing as 'turn off' your religion, that sound rude at best, awful at worst

So, then, how would you describe someone who was baptized Catholic, married in a Catholic church, had his kids baptized, lists "Catholic" on the census form, but only attends mass a couple of times a year and doesn't believe in most of what the church teaches about theology and moral issues? Because there are a lot of people like that in some Christian-majority nations.

And for the record, I am NOT one of them. I stopped worshiping as a Catholic when I could no longer accept church teachings, and no longer identify as Catholic. But not everybody is like me.
 
So, then, how would you describe someone who was baptized Catholic, married in a Catholic church, had his kids baptized, lists "Catholic" on the census form, but only attends mass a couple of times a year and doesn't believe in most of what the church teaches about theology and moral issues? Because there are a lot of people like that in some Christian-majority nations.

And for the record, I am NOT one of them. I stopped worshiping as a Catholic when I could no longer accept church teachings, and no longer identify as Catholic. But not everybody is like me.
A former catholic, some use 'lapsed' but i don't belive in those thing, either you're active in your faith or you're a atheist/non theist.
 
Monarchist egypt was nothing more than a puppet of the British and anyone knew it.

Well the egyptian revolution could be more successful.

Of course for monarchist Egypt to survive IMO Faruk needs to be a completely different man. By that I mean not a kleptomaniac, womanizing, corrupt, greedy, incompetent king.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top