Less reactionary Muslim world

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?'”

The headscarf is an easy symbolic point with a complex history of associations and uses.
It is probably a much more common sight in the middle class neighbourhoods of Cairo now than it was in Nasser's times, but then, it was very common (an unofficially regarded by many as a requirement) in preceding generation. As far as I know, no modern Egyptian government ever seriously entertained the idea of making it mandatory, but informal pressure about it has certainly increased a lot, from the Seventies onwards.
Class and place difference also matter a lot.
 
The headscarf is an easy symbolic point with a complex history of associations and uses.
It is probably a much more common sight in the middle class neighbourhoods of Cairo now than it was in Nasser's times, but then, it was very common (an unofficially regarded by many as a requirement) in preceding generation. As far as I know, no modern Egyptian government ever seriously entertained the idea of making it mandatory, but informal pressure about it has certainly increased a lot, from the Seventies onwards.
Class and place difference also matter a lot.
On the contrary if anything the pressure for it is actually decreasing , many women who wore it for years are now taking them off. The only time I can think of where the pressure for it increased was in the interval of 2010-2014
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Easy.

LOTS more money in the hands of the average citizens of the region. Mandatory public education. Liberal Democracy.

These sort of go together. Higher average income means a reduced need for having children working to being in whatever money they can (or work in the fields). Increased overall wealth will also provide more income for a government to tap to provide social serves and public infrastructure, allowing things like fully funded public education (one of the things that tends to help create/continue religious dominated societies, be it 2019 Qatar or 1819 Ireland is the combination of poverty and that the only source of even basic education is in religious schools, be they a Madrasas in rural Mindanao or Saint Patrick in County Clare). A better educated, fully literate (again, religious schools in highly conservative societies tend to teach students in a very narrow band of subjects), approaching "middle class" society tend (not exclusively, there are always exceptions, TEND) to lean toward "Liberal Democracy". Liberal democracies tend to become increasingly secular as time passes.

The religion never goes away, never stops being influential, but it becomes just one factor. This can be seen in most "Western" democracies which vary from having some considerable religious influences (The Republic of Ireland) to Moderate influence on some issues and very little on others (the UK, U.S.) to nearly none on the vast majority of issues (modern France). All of these countries were once exceptionally religious and very intolerant of those not of the "approved" faith/sects.

This is not to say that you can not be middle class or wealthy had have deep religious convictions, just that the basic framework I describe tends to make it more a matter of individual beliefs and less official state policy.
 
What if we had the US support the Arab nationalists instead of Israel after WW2? The Saudis were very friendly towards the Soviets in the 20s and 30s because of a Muslim diplomat whose name I can't recall, say Stalin doesn't purge him and after WW2 ends the two are very friendly despite ideological differences. Say the Lavon Affair and the Rosenberg trials make the Red Scare more anti-semetic so the US supports Nasser and other nationalists to the hilt to oppose the Franco-British supported Israel and the Soviet supported Saudi Arabia. CIA helps the Egyptians support the 1969 free princes movement and nips later radical islamist movements in the bud.
 
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.

When you have to enter EU, there's a road map to enter EU, and that road map are pretty much just general rules of good governance and ways to build up democratic institutions. It's why when a country join EU, you will have seen a significant wealth increase in the year up to the membership. These are called the Copenhagen Criteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria

Turkey have followed a lot of these, it was why they removed the death penalty and why they began negotiation with the Kurds. But it was also a tool he used to weaken illiberal but secular institutions in Turkey, by claiming that it was necerssary to live up to the Copenhagen Criteria.

We also see something similar in Europe, Ukraine and Poland had relative similar economy in 1990, but as Poland have continued outgrown Ukraine even before the EU membership and a major reason for this is that Poland had to live up to the Copenhagen Criteria to gain membership in EU.
 
Easy.

LOTS more money in the hands of the average citizens of the region. Mandatory public education. Liberal Democracy.

The problem is that it's not this easy. There's plenty of Arab states with well educated and rich population, a good example would be Libya pre-2011. The problem in the Middle East are that wealth build on resource extraction, high population growth eat up economic growth, and there lack civil institution and non-state actors necessary for liberal democracy. Turkey is a rather good example, it was by far the most successful country (beside Israel) in the region in the 20th century. It had a relative diversified economy, the elite was secular. But it lacked liberal institutions, which was why it had in 1990 a lower GDP per capita than communist Bulgaria.


Europe-GDP-1990.png


Liberal democratic institution are hard to build, and you don't get a liberal democracy without them. In fact in my own land, independent religious organisations was a major part of the early establishment of them. The first real non-religious example of them was cooperatives and socialist unions.
 
On the contrary if anything the pressure for it is actually decreasing , many women who wore it for years are now taking them off. The only time I can think of where the pressure for it increased was in the interval of 2010-2014
Are you referring to Egypt specifically?
 
Arab nationalism will happen without Israel, it will also fail with or without Israel (as Arab countries will still be lead by illiberal autocrats),
This makes no sense. Most countries in Europe where lead by illiberal autocrats and most of them "worked" in the end.

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.
Do Arab countries not have their own laws?

And high population growth isnt nessecarily a bad thing if most of them are employed.

Easy.

LOTS more money in the hands of the average citizens of the region. Mandatory public education. Liberal Democracy.

These sort of go together. Higher average income means a reduced need for having children working to being in whatever money they can (or work in the fields). Increased overall wealth will also provide more income for a government to tap to provide social serves and public infrastructure, allowing things like fully funded public education (one of the things that tends to help create/continue religious dominated societies, be it 2019 Qatar or 1819 Ireland is the combination of poverty and that the only source of even basic education is in religious schools, be they a Madrasas in rural Mindanao or Saint Patrick in County Clare). A better educated, fully literate (again, religious schools in highly conservative societies tend to teach students in a very narrow band of subjects), approaching "middle class" society tend (not exclusively, there are always exceptions, TEND) to lean toward "Liberal Democracy". Liberal democracies tend to become increasingly secular as time passes.

The religion never goes away, never stops being influential, but it becomes just one factor. This can be seen in most "Western" democracies which vary from having some considerable religious influences (The Republic of Ireland) to Moderate influence on some issues and very little on others (the UK, U.S.) to nearly none on the vast majority of issues (modern France). All of these countries were once exceptionally religious and very intolerant of those not of the "approved" faith/sects.

This is not to say that you can not be middle class or wealthy had have deep religious convictions, just that the basic framework I describe tends to make it more a matter of individual beliefs and less official state policy.
Didnt the Ottoman empire have most of these institutions in place
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is that it's not this easy. There's plenty of Arab states with well educated and rich population, a good example would be Libya pre-2011. The problem in the Middle East are that wealth build on resource extraction, high population growth eat up economic growth, and there lack civil institution and non-state actors necessary for liberal democracy. Turkey is a rather good example, it was by far the most successful country (beside Israel) in the region in the 20th century. It had a relative diversified economy, the elite was secular. But it lacked liberal institutions, which was why it had in 1990 a lower GDP per capita than communist Bulgaria.


Europe-GDP-1990.png


Liberal democratic institution are hard to build, and you don't get a liberal democracy without them. In fact in my own land, independent religious organisations was a major part of the early establishment of them. The first real non-religious example of them was cooperatives and socialist unions.
It isn't as simple as GDP per capita. Lord knows it would be better if it were. Egypt wouldn't be in "Medium Development HDI rankings if it were.

Looking at Libya just prior to the Civil War is actually every useful in this regard. GDP per capita was 204,628. The United States in the same year (2009) was 14,418,725. Canada 1,296,774 while Denmark was 225,215. Clearly both Canada and Denmark were infinitely closer to the U.S. in wealth (arguably the average citizen of both countries was wealthier, once things like health care are factored in and both rank directly above the U.S. in the HDI), this despite their PPP figures being much closer to Libya's than to the U.S.

Much matter in who has the money and how it is spent.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
This makes no sense. Most countries in Europe where lead by illiberal autocrats and most of them "worked" in the end.


Do Arab countries not have their own laws?

And high population growth isnt nessecarily a bad thing if most of them are employed.


Didnt the Ottoman empire have most of these institutions in place
No.

A key is middle class or at least "yeoman farmer" status. The UK and U.S. were in Yeoman status at the time of the revolution (actually the UK was there before then) The Ottoman Empire varied wildly. Some regions were approaching "middle class" other would have needed some cash infusions to reach "dirt poor".
 
It isn't as simple as GDP per capita. Lord knows it would be better if it were. Egypt wouldn't be in "Medium Development HDI rankings if it were.

Looking at Libya just prior to the Civil War is actually every useful in this regard. GDP per capita was 204,628. The United States in the same year (2009) was 14,418,725. Canada 1,296,774 while Denmark was 225,215. Clearly both Canada and Denmark were infinitely closer to the U.S. in wealth (arguably the average citizen of both countries was wealthier, once things like health care are factored in and both rank directly above the U.S. in the HDI), this despite their PPP figures being much closer to Libya's than to the U.S.

Much matter in who has the money and how it is spent.

Calbear that's pure GDP, not GDP per capita.

But Libya had spread the money pretty much out to the population, had a functioning healthcare system, and universal education. The problem was that it didn't that the education have produced a population with any real practical skills[1]. It did produce a people who valued education, and after the fall of Gaddafi, it seems education have improved.

But it show the problem in much of the Arab world outside minority and Islamic groups, most initiatives seem to be run rather top-down and are effected by local leader eccentric beliefs.

[1]https://borgenproject.org/education-in-libya-gaddafi/
 
No.

A key is middle class or at least "yeoman farmer" status. The UK and U.S. were in Yeoman status at the time of the revolution (actually the UK was there before then) The Ottoman Empire varied wildly. Some regions were approaching "middle class" other would have needed some cash infusions to reach "dirt poor".

There was also problem with tribal ties. Which is fundamental a example of a weak monopoly of force, that local peasants answer to local tribal or clan leaders. We could see in Britain the problems it gave them in Scotland, where the Stuart pretenders received local support. It wasn't like there wasn't pretenders in other European countries, but I can't really think of similar examples in the same period, where people rose up in favor of a pretender.
 
No.

A key is middle class or at least "yeoman farmer" status. The UK and U.S. were in Yeoman status at the time of the revolution (actually the UK was there before then) The Ottoman Empire varied wildly. Some regions were approaching "middle class" other would have needed some cash infusions to reach "dirt poor".
Could a surviving Ottoman Empire at least get to otl India levels of development?

There was also problem with tribal ties. Which is fundamental a example of a weak monopoly of force, that local peasants answer to local tribal or clan leaders. We could see in Britain the problems it gave them in Scotland, where the Stuart pretenders received local support. It wasn't like there wasn't pretenders in other European countries, but I can't really think of similar examples in the same period, where people rose up in favor of a pretender.
Urbanization can break tribal ties
 
Mohammed Ali pulls a meiji in the 1850s, leading to a truncated turkey+Iran following suit a few decades later, along with partial success in say tunisia/a hashemite state in otl saudi arabia/yemen.

My guess is you end up with a MENA region looking alot like say portugal/spain/italy/greece by now, albeit with US-style high drinking ages because islam. Probably even down to having "islamic democracy" party on the model of southern european CD parties.
 
Contemporary Libya has a functioning school system?
Somewhat from what I could read, it functions but suffer under the civil war, and many parents put their children in private schools instead. While the old system was incredible shitty, it seems to have given the Libyan population respect for education.
 
Could a surviving Ottoman Empire at least get to otl India levels of development?

If it got hit with a few nuclear weapons maybe?

You do realize that India is one of the poorest and least developed countries parts of the world? Aggregate the former Ottoman successor states in OTL, and that region is on average already more developed by a considerable margin than India is on average.

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.

Egypt had been the protector of the Holy Cities before, and Egyptian charity (mostly grain donations) was the main support for the holy cities throughout the Ottoman period. The issue here is British control of Egypt. If Egypt were independent, I can't see any reason why there'd be any particular problem with them being custodians of the cities.

The Arabs states have failed to deliver prosperity to their populations, that’s the reason for the instability in the Middle East.

I disagree. So long as people are not starving and feel things are generally improving, prosperity doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with stability.

If we compare the Muslim world to the Christian world, is one or the other more reactionary? I've not seen any data that has looked into this, but I would not be confident to say the Muslim world was more reactionary, which we would assume if there was a strong link between prosperity and reactionary politics.

I think the instability has much more to do with geography, more geography, climate, foreign meddling, the break-up of the Ottoman and Persian empires and the general malaise that generally afflicts cultures when they go from number 1 to something further down the totem pole.

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.

Eh. I think there's a real big difference between different kinds of atheists and agnostics. So sure, there's a difference between people who practice a faith and those who don't practice a faith, but there's more than just those two categories in the world.

And even in families who have been atheist for generations, cultural context counts heavily. I live in a country that is majority atheist or agnostic, yet the our culture is full of unquestioned assumptions inherited from an age where just about everyone on these islands were Christian. Today we are very much a Christian atheist country.

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

So keeping it to post 1900 PoDs, I can think of 3:

1) Ottoman Empire survives. The fertile crescent isn't cut up into unnatural states and remains part of a single economic unit with Anatolia, millions of people are not subjected to colonialism under Christian Europeans, Saudi Arabia is likely stomped, Jewish settlement in the Holy Land likely doesn't degenerate into such extreme inter-communal violence. There's just a whole lot less to react against in this scenario.

2) No schism between Hindu nationalists and Muslim nationalists in India, leading to less anti-Muslim violence in India, no partition of India, no Pakistan. Again, we have a situation where there's just less to react against.

3) No successful Islamic Revolution in Iran. Khoumeini's success not only showed would-be copycats that Islamic Revolution could bear fruit, Iran also heavily supported various groups in order to gain pan-Islamic cred, which also led to various Sunni states upping their support of some of the same groups and a few different groups in order to contain what they saw as Iran trying to spread their revolution (not unfairly, since often the Iranians really were trying to spread their revolution). So this as PoD would mean an important example of success for reactionaries is removed and resources for reactionary/reactionary fostering groups is reduced.

And as a bonus:

4) A more ideologically heterogeneous Soviet Union where movements like the Jadids and other "Islamic Socialist" groups are allowed to prosper, rather than being fed into the gulag by Stalin. Then, as the Soviet Union became more wealthy and more engaged with world politics, the example of a mature Jadid movement in the USSR can not only serve as a model for people elsewhere in the world, but there is a superpower interested in opening Jadid schools hither and yon as a way of competing for influence, not only resulting in a better educated next generation, but also be another example giving a lie to the idea that the only way to adapt to the modern world is to give up Islam as is the reactionary thesis. I could also throw in a whole bunch of other more education-oriented PoDs along similar lines.

fasquardon
 
When the Middle East is colonized, the Europeans decide to industrialize it. So you have a relatively wealthy region with a diverse economy, high literacy, and strong trade unions and secular liberal-conservitive and labor parties that dominate politics instead of Ba’ath juntas or Islamists. Countries like Iraq and Syria have an economy where while oil is still an important part of the GDP, it doesn’t take over the whole economy. Most people work in a factory or in the service sector.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top