Less reactionary Muslim world

Status
Not open for further replies.
Religion doesn't work like this, it is not a gradient of how much you participate or not that decides whether you are or are not of a religion.
It Does, that is why critize the idea of 'lypsinc', maybe is variable but better if you don't try the faith, better not declared it. When i'm not the perfect Muslim, i effort to pray and learn the most i can.
 
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
Surviving, prosperous Ottoman Empire.
 
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?
Either or, with the latter slightly preferable.


I think the Ottomans surving and fully joining the European social political space would go a long way towards this. Also have them absolutely crush the Sauds.
 
It Does, that is why critize the idea of 'lypsinc', maybe is variable but better if you don't try the faith, better not declared it. When i'm not the perfect Muslim, i effort to pray and learn the most i can.

No, it does not. But since I'm not allowed to argue with people on this forum I won't.
 
Speaking as a Muslim

1. Do not allow the Wahhabis and by extension Al Saudis from ever becoming the dominant power in the Arabian peninsula

2. Have the Arab alliance win aganist Israel or at least have the dominant Zionist ideology be a more inclusive/ integration based brand

3. Somehow keep the new states from being granted “democracy” by the USA

4. Have a more stable and reformist Ottman empire and prevent the partition of the Middle East between France and Britian

That’s all I have for now thoughts ?
 
I wonder if it's possible without a surviving Ottoman Empire. The issues that caused the rise of reactionary Islam IOTL like European colonialism in the Middle East and the Saudi takeover of Mecca and Medina are linked to the collapse of the Sublime Porte, but in theory can still be prevented or mitigated even without it, AIUI.
 
Butterflies go flappity-flap, Ottomans stay around, and the eventual decolonization movements in the Muslim world are shaped after the success story of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgar movement. (Gandhi? Who?)
Later on, Ottoman version of TTL Arab Socialism successfully builds upon this foundation, with increasing living standards, education and following secularization calm down the Middle-East.
 
Have the Ottomans decide to sit out WWI, no Sykes-Picot and maybe the Ottoman empire manages something akin to Kamalist reforms and no imposition of artificial borders when it does start to retreat.
 
Butterflies go flappity-flap, Ottomans stay around, and the eventual decolonization movements in the Muslim world are shaped after the success story of Abdul Ghaffar Khan and the Khudai Khidmatgar movement. (Gandhi? Who?)
Later on, Ottoman version of TTL Arab Socialism successfully builds upon this foundation, with increasing living standards, education and following secularization calm down the Middle-East.
Have the Ottomans decide to sit out WWI, no Sykes-Picot and maybe the Ottoman empire manages something akin to Kamalist reforms and no imposition of artificial borders when it does start to retreat.
This would have probably worked , especially as European colonialism was one of the main factors in the popularity of reactionary movements
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
The Saudis weren’t that radical until the Grand Mosque Seizure. You don’t need to reach back into the 1910s or 1920s to prevent radical Islam, it could probably be done with a PoD in which Israel gets strangled in the cradle and the Iranian Revolution, the Grand Mosque Seizure, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are butterflied away.
 
Speaking as a Muslim

1. Do not allow the Wahhabis and by extension Al Saudis from ever becoming the dominant power in the Arabian peninsula

2. Have the Arab alliance win aganist Israel or at least have the dominant Zionist ideology be a more inclusive/ integration based brand

3. Somehow keep the new states from being granted “democracy” by the USA

4. Have a more stable and reformist Ottoman Empire and prevent the partition of the Middle East between France and Britain

That’s all I have for now thoughts ?

What if the Middle East had been partitioned, but in such a way to grant the Hashemite dynasty of Hejaz control over all the Arab lands in the former Ottoman Empire, but not the whole Aleppo to Aden region that was claimed? On one hand, Great Britain would've had to let France hold sway to the immediate north and south of the new Hejazi-Mashriqi kingdom, but such a polity would have had immense potential nonetheless.
 
The Saudis weren’t that radical until the Grand Mosque Seizure. You don’t need to reach back into the 1910s or 1920s to prevent radical Islam, it could probably be done with a PoD in which Israel gets strangled in the cradle and the Iranian Revolution, the Grand Mosque Seizure, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan are butterflied away.

The problem is that I think that’s a simplification of the problem the Arab world haves. Arab nationalism will happen without Israel, it will also fail with or without Israel (as Arab countries will still be lead by illiberal autocrats), which will give rise to Islamic fundamentalism as a next big thing, especially because the Saudi will fund such movement abroad, but also because Islamic groups will be the main opposition to Arab nationalist regimes which will give them political legitimacy. As for the Grand Mosque Seizure, it was not something coming out of the blue, the House of Saudi rule build on a alliance with Wahhabism, and a counter reaction against modernity was pretty much given.

Let’s imagine no Israel, instead we see a bigger and richer Jordan, but because the Jordanian Royal power build on the tribal eastern areas, the royal power are weaker. At some point we see a coup like in Iraq, and the Baath comes to power at least official, unofficial Jordan end up run by a military junta.
 
The problem is that I think that’s a simplification of the problem the Arab world haves. Arab nationalism will happen without Israel, it will also fail with or without Israel (as Arab countries will still be lead by illiberal autocrats), which will give rise to Islamic fundamentalism as a next big thing, especially because the Saudi will fund such movement abroad, but also because Islamic groups will be the main opposition to Arab nationalist regimes which will give them political legitimacy. As for the Grand Mosque Seizure, it was not something coming out of the blue, the House of Saudi rule build on a alliance with Wahhabism, and a counter reaction against modernity was pretty much given.

Let’s imagine no Israel, instead we see a bigger and richer Jordan, but because the Jordanian Royal power build on the tribal eastern areas, the royal power are weaker. At some point we see a coup like in Iraq, and the Baath comes to power at least official, unofficial Jordan end up run by a military junta.
Not really as you have just simplified arabs as all being the same, morrocans speak differently to jordianians. Arab nationalism won't just happen not matter what because it requires support of the people, and a 'Strong leader' nasser stood up to the west and won, thats why people supported him. Some dictator coming to power is not going to be some arab hero because reasons. Your argument ignores the fact only nasser saw strong support for arab nationalism, arabs weren't chanting gaddafi name, saddam or assad. Also these coups only happened because of changing einds of the time. Why is jordan going to have a coup? Because reasons the reason almost happened was due to nasser not because these people already arab nationalists. Again you ignore the entire history arab nationalism it gained steam not because of Westphalian nation states but because of egypt. Any other place it would have less influence.
 
Not really as you have just simplified arabs as all being the same, morrocans speak differently to jordianians. Arab nationalism won't just happen not matter what because it requires support of the people, and a 'Strong leader' nasser stood up to the west and won, thats why people supported him. Some dictator coming to power is not going to be some arab hero because reasons. Your argument ignores the fact only nasser saw strong support for arab nationalism, arabs weren't chanting gaddafi name, saddam or assad. Also these coups only happened because of changing einds of the time. Why is jordan going to have a coup? Because reasons the reason almost happened was due to nasser not because these people already arab nationalists. Again you ignore the entire history arab nationalism it gained steam not because of Westphalian nation states but because of egypt. Any other place it would have less influence.

The Arabs states have failed to deliver prosperity to their populations, that’s the reason for the instability in the Middle East. But they haven’t failed to deliver because of individual people, but because of institutional weakness. One of the reason why Erdogan are so incredible popular in Turkey have been because he’s one of the few people who delivered increased prosperity. But he has been able to do this, because he used EU as a counter to the military and the deep state, which meant he had to set up institution, which was demanded by EU, and those institution lead to increased prosperity (now he has begun to dismantle them, and the effect are obvious). No other Middle Eastern state have been in a similar position to Turkey.

Weak rule of law, high corruption and a weak monopoly of force will not change because Israel aren’t there, neither will the high population growth which eat up economic growth and economies who outside the oil state have large BOP deficits. Religious minorities will also still be second class citizens. The winner of no Israel are Lebanon, but I don’t see Lebanon being a model for the rest of Arab world, as it will simply be the regional Switzerland.
 
One of the reason why Erdogan are so incredible popular in Turkey have been because he’s one of the few people who delivered increased prosperity. But he has been able to do this, because he used EU as a counter to the military and the deep state, which meant he had to set up institution, which was demanded by EU, and those institution lead to increased prosperity (now he has begun to dismantle them, and the effect are obvious). No other Middle Eastern state have been in a similar position to Turkey.
Didn't Erdogan do reforms that nothing to do with EU which brought the country prosperity not the EU, with turkey then the EU offered turkey the road to join. It wasn't EU reforms that fixed turkey or chance of joining EU but Erdogan early reforms that worked. Joining EU came later. Your point here claims he only succeeded because EU reforms which is a lie as he was reforming before EU offered Turkey conditions moreover he was never elected in his first term as the EU guy, thats a lie he had supprot of the religious who didn't like the secular rule.
 
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

This seems a little over-assertive. Recent polling has suggested that in every MENA country polled barring war-torn Yemen there is a gradually-increasing (or dramatically rising, in the North African states) percentage of the population identifying as non-religious: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48703377

This seems to make the OP's request a matter of nudges rather than revolution.

I suspect that the key PoD would revolve around Israel, or possibly around the holocaust, so either would be horribly controversial.
 
This seems a little over-assertive. Recent polling has suggested that in every MENA country polled barring war-torn Yemen there is a gradually-increasing (or dramatically rising, in the North African states) percentage of the population identifying as non-religious: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48703377

This seems to make the OP's request a matter of nudges rather than revolution.

I suspect that the key PoD would revolve around Israel, or possibly around the holocaust, so either would be horribly controversial.


But if you assume an earlier POD of the Ottoman Empire surviving then you may well butterfly away the creation of Israel. Also I suspect any solution based on the British/French drawing lines on a map is bound to fail.
 
To show you how absurd (at least to the political elites of that time) some Islamist ideas now widespread seemed in the 1950's, here is Nasser speaking:



“In ‘53, we really wanted to compromise with the Muslim Brotherhood, if they were willing to be reasonable.

"I met the head of the Muslim Brotherhood and he sat with me and made his requests. What did he request? The first thing he asked for was to make wearing a hijab mandatory in Egypt, and demand that every woman walking in the street wear a tarha (scarf). Every woman walking [someone in audience yells ‘Let him wear it!’, crowd erupts].

"And I told him that if I make that a law, they will say that we have returned to the days of Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, who forbade women from walking during the day and only allowed walking at night, and my opinion is that every person in his own house decides for himself the rules.

"And he replied, ‘No, as the leader, you are responsible.’ I told him, ‘Sir, you have a daughter in the Cairo school of medicine, and she’s not wearing a tarha. Why didn’t you make her wear a tarha?’

"I continued, ‘If you… [crowd’s cheering interrupts] if you are unable to make one girl, who is your daughter, wear the tarha, how can you tell me to put a tarha on 10 million women myself?'”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top