In Theory, Would a Peaceful Islamic Caliphate Have Merit?

[Beet]

This thread isn't entirely serious; given the extreme outlandishness of the scenario, I thought that would be obvious. For these purposes a "Caliphate" just means a united state with Islam as a nominal ideology, but not one by any means more extreme or violent than the Arab people would want to live under, or one too violent to coexist in the international community. A Caliph is a person with ultimate religious authority and a certain amount, but probably not absolute political power.

But I think there would be some advantages of "pan-Arabism", (as well as other transnational movements, such as the E.U.), and I've also come to accept that Western-style social liberal secularism is not the only legitimate path for people in the region to follow. When given the vote, at the very least, nominally Islamist parties such as AKP win (and this in a country considered more moderate than the Arab countries). Mainly I made the thread to make the points that I made: the plethora of wars and failed states in the region would be lesser if there was a strong single state. It is a shame that oil wealth is concentrated in reactionary, unpopulated desert monarchies. Large entities (The U.S., the E.U., the BRICS) tend to have a lot of clout whereas a divided people (such as the Arabs) tend to be victims. And so on.

[politicus]

This thread isn't entirely serious; given the extreme outlandishness of the scenario, I thought that would be obvious. For these purposes a "Caliphate" just means a united state with Islam as a nominal ideology, but not one by any means more extreme or violent than the Arab people would want to live under, or one too violent to coexist in the international community. A Caliph is a person with ultimate religious authority and a certain amount, but probably not absolute political power.

But I think there would be some advantages of "pan-Arabism", (as well as other transnational movements, such as the E.U.), and I've also come to accept that Western-style social liberal secularism is not the only legitimate path for people in the region to follow. When given the vote, at the very least, nominally Islamist parties such as AKP win (and this in a country considered more moderate than the Arab countries). Mainly I made the thread to make the points that I made: the plethora of wars and failed states in the region would be lesser if there was a strong single state. It is a shame that oil wealth is concentrated in reactionary, unpopulated desert monarchies. Large entities (The U.S., the E.U., the BRICS) tend to have a lot of clout whereas a divided people (such as the Arabs) tend to be victims. And so on.

It is (among other things) this idea that the Arabs are "a people" that's problematic. There is an Arabic civilization, but not an Arabic people.

[Velasco]

I've also come to accept that Western-style social liberal secularism is not the only legitimate path for people in the region to follow. When given the vote, at the very least, nominally Islamist parties such as AKP win (and this in a country considered more moderate than the Arab countries).

The AKP is not nominally "Islamist", but officially advocates for a "conservative democracy". The overzealous Turkish secularist institutions (the military and the constitutional court) banned previously the existing Islamist parties or ejected them from power, as it happened with Erbakan. Of course, the AKP is rooted in said parties and it could be defined as "moderate Islamist" or "Muslim-democrat" (something like a vague equivalent of the Christian Democracy), but Erdogan would reject such characterisations. Actually, Turkey and the AKP have had a singular evolution. Perhaps this article might help to understand it:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/04/24-turkey-new-model-taspinar

As for the first part of the paragraph, I tend to agree. I think we cannot expect that other countries are going to trace our model with carbon paper. Perhaps it'd be more realistic trying to export some basic concepts on democracy and human rights, in order that other countries will adapt them to their realities, cultural contexts, systems of beliefs, etcetera. In any case, such processes are slow and gradual, with ups and downs (see "Arab Spring").

[Beet]

I've also come to accept that Western-style social liberal secularism is not the only legitimate path for people in the region to follow. When given the vote, at the very least, nominally Islamist parties such as AKP win (and this in a country considered more moderate than the Arab countries).

The AKP is not nominally "Islamist", but officially advocates for a "conservative democracy". The overzealous Turkish secularist institutions (the military and the constitutional court) banned previously the existing Islamist parties or ejected them from power, as it happened with Erbakan. Of course, the AKP is rooted in said parties and it could be defined as "moderate Islamist" or "Muslim-democrat" (something like a vague equivalent of the Christian Democracy), but Erdogan would reject such characterisations. Actually, Turkey and the AKP have had a singular evolution. Perhaps this article might help to understand it:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/04/24-turkey-new-model-taspinar

As for the first part of the paragraph, I tend to agree. I think we cannot expect that other countries are going to trace our model with carbon paper. Perhaps it'd be more realistic trying to export some basic concepts on democracy and human rights, in order that other countries will adapt them to their realities, cultural contexts, systems of beliefs, etcetera. In any case, such processes are slow and gradual, with ups and downs (see "Arab Spring").

Fascinating link, thanks.

[Mordecai]

The theory seems to ignore the problem of sectarianism within Islam and for that I can't take it seriously at all.

The better theory would probably be the complete opposite, splitting up Iraq into a bunch of smaller autonomous republics. I honestly think that would have a better chance of peace and stability than a giant Islamic caliphate.

[ingemann]

This thread isn't entirely serious; given the extreme outlandishness of the scenario, I thought that would be obvious. For these purposes a "Caliphate" just means a united state with Islam as a nominal ideology, but not one by any means more extreme or violent than the Arab people would want to live under, or one too violent to coexist in the international community. A Caliph is a person with ultimate religious authority and a certain amount, but probably not absolute political power.

But I think there would be some advantages of "pan-Arabism", (as well as other transnational movements, such as the E.U.), and I've also come to accept that Western-style social liberal secularism is not the only legitimate path for people in the region to follow. When given the vote, at the very least, nominally Islamist parties such as AKP win (and this in a country considered more moderate than the Arab countries). Mainly I made the thread to make the points that I made: the plethora of wars and failed states in the region would be lesser if there was a strong single state. It is a shame that oil wealth is concentrated in reactionary, unpopulated desert monarchies. Large entities (The U.S., the E.U., the BRICS) tend to have a lot of clout whereas a divided people (such as the Arabs) tend to be victims. And so on.

There are some good arguments for Pan-Arabism, but the idea of an Caliphat would be the solution seem quite counter-productive as such a state would build on Islam and not Arab nationhood.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I should also point out that unless it includes Spain (and Israel) it's not a Caliphate.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I should also point out that unless it includes Spain (and Israel) it's not a Caliphate.

Why do you say that?

[Velasco]

I should also point out that unless it includes Spain (and Israel) it's not a Caliphate.

Why do you say that?

Who knows why. It'd be cooler reestablishing the independent Caliphate in Cordoba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate_of_C%C3%B3rdoba