Less reactionary Muslim world

Status
Not open for further replies.
How easy would it be for all Muslim countries to abolish/never adopt any anti apostasy or blasphemy laws?

Very hard. Blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are perceived differently to how it is perceived in other religions. In some Islamic circles, they are both seen as tantamount to treason to a particular nation, since these circles see everything they do as being in accordance with God's wishes. Depending on the POD for the minimization of reactionary Islam, some Islamic countries may still hold these views.

Also even without Saudi Arabia we still have the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are they better or worse than the Saudis?
 
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.

Were they really that reactionary compared to other regions of the world at the time? Restricting information, oppressing minorities and women, and enforcing social norms strictly seem like the typical state of affairs in world history.
 
Are they better or worse than the Saudis?

Far far better, but it should also be said it's a broad movement which goes from Tunisian Muslim Brotherhood (peaceful and likely democratic) to the Egypt version to Hamas to the full blown genocidal version in Syria (which by now are mostly dead, replaced by Al Qaeda, ISIS and Turkish backed Islamic militias).
 
to the full blown genocidal version in Syria (which by now are mostly dead, replaced by Al Qaeda, ISIS and Turkish backed Islamic militias).

I know about their failed uprising in the '80s, which led to several citywide massacres on the part of the Ba'ath Party, but to what extent was the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood 'genocidal'? Are we talking ISIS levels of genocide?
 
I know about their failed uprising in the '80s, which led to several citywide massacres on the part of the Ba'ath Party, but to what extent was the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood 'genocidal'? Are we talking ISIS levels of genocide?

No, they didn't practice slavery and Christians was left to only pay a Jizya not banished or enslaved. They did commit massacres on Alawites, but it should be said to their defense that their behaviour seemed more similar to what happened in Yugoslavia in the 90ties, not the nihilistic snuff cult we call ISIS.
 
No, they didn't practice slavery and Christians was left to only pay a Jizya not banished or enslaved. They did commit massacres on Alawites, but it should be said to their defense that their behaviour seemed more similar to what happened in Yugoslavia in the 90ties, not the nihilistic snuff cult we call ISIS.

I know you said the Muslim Brotherhood was a broad movement and not one organization, but what is that movement's opinion towards things like democracy and women's rights?
 
I know you said the Muslim Brotherhood was a broad movement and not one organization, but what is that movement's opinion towards things like democracy and women's rights?

I feel that's too complex for me to sum up, also because there's likely plenty of exceptions. As example Hamas which are part of the movement and clearly not happy about democracy, preferring the one vote once model and are in general conservative Muslims, they still think sending girl to schools are quite important, and in fact running their school system seem to be one of their few successes. In general it's hard to really sum them up, as they have only been in control in unusual situation and outside Gaza only for short times. They seem pretty reactionary and illiberal, but if they ran a country, maybe they would mellow out.
 
In that case, I am under the impression that social pressure toward wearing the hijab or other "Islamic" clothing has been generally increasing, unofficially, since the seventies, albeit with a lot fine-grained variation. Official sanction of that has been rare, as you say (and indeed, it was never a legal obligation as far as I know).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Folks, this is approaching current politics level discussion, either take it back about 40 years or the thread will be locked.
 
To appease the Great Bear, how would decolonisation in India work under this system?

Would a pro-modernist Muslim League* campaign for autonomy within a unified India, or eventually campaign for some kind of Partition?

If Partition does happen, does Bangladesh join this hypothetical Pakistan? I would hope that if it did, it would be treated much better than IOTL.



*or faction within the League
 
Very hard. Blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are perceived differently to how it is perceived in other religions. In some Islamic circles, they are both seen as tantamount to treason to a particular nation, since these circles see everything they do as being in accordance with God's wishes. Depending on the POD for the minimization of reactionary Islam, some Islamic countries may still hold these views.
Doesnt christianity ban apostasy too, yet even the most conservative and reactionary Christian countries have no apostasy laws.

To appease the Great Bear, how would decolonisation in India work under this system?

Would a pro-modernist Muslim League* campaign for autonomy within a unified India, or eventually campaign for some kind of Partition?

If Partition does happen, does Bangladesh join this hypothetical Pakistan? I would hope that if it did, it would be treated much better than IOTL.



*or faction within the League
If hindu Muslim tensions can be peacfully migitated, it could be United. Seeing as a United India would be a very economically powerful country, Indian muslims may see it as in their best interest to preserve the union. There will still be some level of tension, but something can surely be worked out.
 
Doesnt christianity ban apostasy too, yet even the most conservative and reactionary Christian countries have no apostasy laws.

Christianity and Islam are two very different religions. In Islam, everything is about submitting yourself before God and believing in the oneness of Allah. Muslims see the Qu'ran and the words within it as being created by Allah and brought to humanity by the Archangel Gabriel through revelations to Mohammad. But despite Mohammad being a prophet, Islam strictly forbids worship of Mohammad as if he was God. When Mohammad returned to Mecca, the first thing he did was destroy the idols in the Kaaba. That is still celebrated by Muslims today, because as far as they're concerned, the only one who should be worshipped is Allah, no ifs or butts.

In Christianity, Christians do have a relationship with God, but that relationship is determined by how people interpret the teachings of Jesus, his disciples and the apostles. Christians follow the example of Jesus, his disciples and the apostles as they preached the word of God, so God is a supreme being within Christianity, but he is not the one focus of the faith.

Most Christian countries (that I know of) don't have apostasy laws because fundamentally, there is no such thing as a Christian theocracy in the modern world, except for Vatican City. Also, Christianity doesn't have a movement like Wahhabism and Salafism which says 'All Christians must worship the way Jesus did' and things like that.

But, I should point out that in at least five countries, Guyana, Suriname, Greece, Italy and Poland, which have majority Christian populations, blasphemy is still a crime. Even some US states still have anti-blasphemy laws on the books, but they're trumped by the First Amendment. These blasphemy laws, however, are not in accordance with religious teaching. It has more to do with their cultural roots than they do with actual scripture.

(Please correct me If I've got any of that wrong)
 
•After World War I, the allies divide the Middle East in a sensible way(so that any sort of ethnic tensions don’t fuel extremism).

•The Hashemites take over Arabia rather than the Sauds(to stop the rise of Wahhabism).

•Israel is never formed(one less grievance that the Arab World has against the West).
 
•After World War I, the allies divide the Middle East in a sensible way(so that any sort of ethnic tensions don’t fuel extremism).

•The Hashemites take over Arabia rather than the Sauds(to stop the rise of Wahhabism).

•Israel is never formed(one less grievance that the Arab World has against the West).
The fact that there were several spots Israel could have been located helps with that last
 
yes form it out of germany, East Prussia, Pomerania, schleswig holstein.
Never a Jewish Homeland.
Sorry.
There's one area on Earth, and that's where they are at today, and that was recognized in the Great War.

Having the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem buddy up with the Nazis during the War did not help the Arabs desire in that matter
 
Never a Jewish Homeland.
Sorry.
There's one area on Earth, and that's where they are at today, and that was recognized in the Great War.

Having the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem buddy up with the Nazis during the War did not help the Arabs desire in that matter
Werent some cities in Poland or Germany approaching a Jewish majority before the war? Maybe put something there.

Or I guess just have no Israel.
 
Never a Jewish Homeland.
Sorry.
There's one area on Earth, and that's where they are at today, and that was recognized in the Great War.

It would require a pre-1900 POD, but there were plenty of Jews who wanted a Jewish homeland, but weren't bothered about the where. Indeed, many Jews also opposed a homeland being established in Palestine until the (Jewish) Messiah appeared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top