Less reactionary Muslim world

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

When was Egypt the protector of the Holy Cities?
 
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.
Thats not colonialism and a colonial power would never do that, also saying just industralise it doesn't mean it becomes western. Islamic identity is still strong and seen to be more important punjabi muslims share more with tamil muslims than they did with punjabi hindus. This ignores the entire fact islamic countries have there own cultures that aren't shaped by europe or european stuff. Secular in the muslim world is different from that in the west.
 
I can only answer from my interactions with Muslim's .

I have never met a Muslim who wanted to kill me due to my religion or other reasons .
The Muslims I have met come from Africa (4 nations well spread out that I know locations of ) , Turkey and European's .
They hate the fundamentalists much like I hate groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist because they create a fear of an entire religion that is not deserved .
I have had numerous discussion's of the similarities between the Bible and Koran and the differences as well .
Wahhabism is a problem due to it being used as a weapon . This can be placed at the feet of the CIA and other agencies looking to undermine soviet influences . Al Quaeda is a perfect example of such an own goal .
The less non Muslims try and interfere in the religion the sooner it can return to centre and we can all calm down .
 
So, it seems the state of the Muslim world seemed like it was caused by a bunch of really unfortunate things that happened in conjunction. The Indian partition, Iranian revolution, invasion of Afghanistan, and some others
 
So some of those are self-inflicted (like Mohammed Reza Pahlavi being an incompetent, egotistic twit) but many others are as a result of imperialist action (the partition of India being the logical consequence of Britain's divide and rule strategy, or Afghanistan's status as buffer state in the Great Game, or the Fertile Crescent being subjected to "Scramble for Africa" like borders).
 
So, it seems the state of the Muslim world seemed like it was caused by a bunch of really unfortunate things that happened in conjunction. The Indian partition, Iranian revolution, invasion of Afghanistan, and some others

I don’t buy it, yes without those events, the Muslim worlds would be different, but different doesn’t mean better. The Saudi are not going to end up as super liberal Democrats no matter what happen. A coup in Saudi Arabia as we almost saw could replace the House of Saud with a military junta, and it’s hard to not see that as a improvement. But if we look at Libya another oil rich state, the replacement of the monarchy only resulted in a deranged madman taking over. Saddam Hussain while better than Ghaddafi was also still a major destabilizing factor in the region. It’s also next to impossible to imagine that Iran won’t have coup and counter coups, the Revolution was what’s the 3rd or 4th violent change in power in Iran in the 20th century. As for India I have also a hard time seeing the partition being avoided, and I suspect if it was avoided, it would not result in unified India being a happy happy fun land. Instead we could see a more unstable India with even a higher degree of regional civil wars and ethnic strife than in OTL.

Also even without Saudi Arabia we still have the Muslim Brotherhood.
 
I don’t buy it, yes without those events, the Muslim worlds would be different, but different doesn’t mean better. The Saudi are not going to end up as super liberal Democrats no matter what happen. A coup in Saudi Arabia as we almost saw could replace the House of Saud with a military junta, and it’s hard to not see that as a improvement. But if we look at Libya another oil rich state, the replacement of the monarchy only resulted in a deranged madman taking over. Saddam Hussain while better than Ghaddafi was also still a major destabilizing factor in the region. It’s also next to impossible to imagine that Iran won’t have coup and counter coups, the Revolution was what’s the 3rd or 4th violent change in power in Iran in the 20th century. As for India I have also a hard time seeing the partition being avoided, and I suspect if it was avoided, it would not result in unified India being a happy happy fun land. Instead we could see a more unstable India with even a higher degree of regional civil wars and ethnic strife than in OTL.

Also even without Saudi Arabia we still have the Muslim Brotherhood.
Saudi Arabia could very well have not taken over Arabia, if the Ottomans or some other power crushed them.

Maybe a more liberal power could have taken over Iran and not the theocrats.

The partition made hindu Muslim relations worse
 
Saudi Arabia could very well have not taken over Arabia, if the Ottomans or some other power crushed them.
Problem is, the Ottomans had crushed them. Egyptians too.
Repeatedly. Every other generation would typically revolt, troops get sent in, bust things up a bit, and execute surviving leaders or exile, depending how bad the revolt was. 1815 was a real stomping.

lather/rinse/repeat, until the WWI got them Allied Aid.
Revolts led by the House of Saud was nothing new.

And it seems Ibn Saud hated the Brits well before WWI
 
The Saudi are not going to end up as super liberal Democrats no matter what happen.
True, but the religious radicalisation in Saudi Arabia that started in the 80's was for a big part a reaction on the Iranian Revolution.

In general the trouble is that because of the cold war many brutal dictatorships were supported way beyond their expiration dates, secular oposition didn't develop, and in the 70's and 80's many fundamentalist groups were somewhat condoned because they were seen as a possible ally against (mainly communist) oposition groups.
 
Problem is, the Ottomans had crushed them. Egyptians too.
Repeatedly. Every other generation would typically revolt, troops get sent in, bust things up a bit, and execute surviving leaders or exile, depending how bad the revolt was. 1815 was a real stomping.

lather/rinse/repeat, until the WWI got them Allied Aid.
Revolts led by the House of Saud was nothing new.

And it seems Ibn Saud hated the Brits well before WWI
Would there be any way to deal with the Sauds for good?
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Start way before 20th century
Assassinate imam ibn hanbal
Mutazila doctrine dominates muslim lands for centuries
 
Two things would be necessary to prevent the rise of modern Islamist politics. One would be that Israel does not created, or at least does not humiliate the Arabs three times over. This way Arab nationalism might have a fighting chance to remain a credible ideological alternative, although it would probably have to be more successful in creating economic growth as well.

The second thing is that there is no Iranian revolution. This was a huge event, in that it showed Islamist politics could actually take over the state. The best way to prevent it would probably be for the 1953 coup to never happen.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Two things would be necessary to prevent the rise of modern Islamist politics. One would be that Israel does not created, or at least does not humiliate the Arabs three times over. This way Arab nationalism might have a fighting chance to remain a credible ideological alternative, although it would probably have to be more successful in creating economic growth as well.

The second thing is that there is no Iranian revolution. This was a huge event, in that it showed Islamist politics could actually take over the state. The best way to prevent it would probably be for the 1953 coup to never happen.
true but this does not explain the reactionary nature of mediveal islam and ulemas , if anything the salafist revolutions are the reformation of the muslim world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top