In Theory, Would a Peaceful Islamic Caliphate Have Merit?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:05:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  In Theory, Would a Peaceful Islamic Caliphate Have Merit?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: In Theory, Would a Peaceful Islamic Caliphate Have Merit?  (Read 2325 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 19, 2014, 05:49:33 PM »

When we think of "Islamic Caliphate" we immediately think of ISIS, a violent organization that crucifies, beheads, and declares jihad against the West.

But most Muslim scholars have denounced ISIS. What if there were an Islamic state that could reclaim the glories of Arab Civilization from the 7th - 13th centuries? Yes, it would be ruled by some form of what is labelled "sharia", and have some form of Islamist ideology, but not as extreme as ISIS. And it would be at peace with its neighbors, including Israel, establishing diplomatic relations in the community of nations. There are a number of positives I can think of from such an outcome:

One, it gets rid of the present system of arbitrary borders. Nations like Iraq, for instance, an amalgamation of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, which just does not make sense. These borders were drawn by Imperialist powers like Britain and France. They should not define the region in perpetuity.

Second, if countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia were part of a broader Arab Caliphate, the oil wealth these countries get would be spread around. Currently, a vast bonanza of money constantly flows into these tiny little theocracies with barely any population. They have more money than they know what to do with, so they put it in sovereign wealth funds, absurd welfare systems, terrorist insurgencies, and massive, pie-in-the-sky architectural projects. Meanwhile the citizens of the vast Arab diaspora stretching from Iraq to Syria to Jordan, the Palestinian territories live in abject poverty. Not to mention 80 million Egyptians. It makes no sense for such oil wealth to be constantly wasted.

Third, the region would obviously be more peaceful. Instead of constant Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, wars in Iraq, wars in Syria, wars in Libya, etc., 100 different factions and you never know who is friends with who, who is enemies with who, there would be one central authority just controlling everything. One strong central government to set the laws, keep the peace, and determine relations with outsiders. For much of Arab history, this was how it was. The Ottomans ruled over the area and ran a tolerant government, protecting minorities. There would be no need for American or any external military intervention.

Fourth, the Arab people would gain a tremendous amount of clout in international relations. Rather than being powerless vis-a-vis Israel, they would stand on equal ground. The sheer size would compel Israel to negotiate an equitable solution to the Palestinian issue. Such a state would not be bullied by anyone. From an Arab standpoint, it makes sense. Such a state could fund scholars and intellectuals to be leaders in redefining Islam as a religion, spreading influence to the Muslim diaspora as far afield as Indonesia.

In sum, from an Arab standpoint, ISIS is a disaster for multiple reasons. However, the idea of a unified Arab state is not so crazy.
Logged
pendragon
Rookie
**
Posts: 71


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2014, 06:06:23 PM »

As your seventh-grade teacher, I say that this essay gets a B+ and a smiley face sticker. Smiley Good effort!

In the future, you should say "in conclusion" instead of "in sum" for the conclusion sentence on your five-paragraph essays, so you don't confuse the reader!
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2014, 07:00:16 PM »

It might, but it would be a nightmare for Israel.  The Zionist State can only continue to exist so long as the Arabs remain divided.  At a minimum a peace-preferring Arabic Caliphate would insist upon the whole of the Levant being part of it, tho hopefully with guarantees for its Jewish and Christian minorities that would be upheld.
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2014, 10:48:55 PM »

Depends. Have the leaders/people examined the existentialism of the Renaissance and Enlightment, and then chosen caliphate to address the shortcomings of modern Western society? or is it just another Islamic state whose primary claim to fame is setting a new international standard for civic ignorance?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2014, 11:36:58 PM »

In theory, as you described it, it would be better than the status quo.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2014, 11:42:28 PM »

Of course not.  I don't see how you can look at the Arab world and say to yourself, "you know what the problem is?  Not enough crazy medieval religion!"  Islam is a horrible basis for any state and Islamic law is backwards and morally bankrupt.  It would be way worse than the status quo.
Logged
Foucaulf
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 11:50:31 PM »

One glaring oversight in this scenario: do you really think all Arabs believe in some perfectly substitutable Islamic faith? Do you really think citizens in Arabic states don't have their own particular nationalisms either?

Pan-Arabism, of course, was tried during the Cold War and failed. Today alliances constantly shift between states, out of mutual mistrust and the desire for each country to be the leading power. Let us imagine an "Islamic caliphate" claiming its legitimacy - and watch it be ravaged by protests and clerical dissent a week later.

(Not to mention that the Ottoman administrative system in the Middle East was held up in part by a slave trade lasting until the early 20th century)
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2014, 12:47:34 AM »

There's a lot worth being nostalgic about here when compared to the present moment, but for the reasons Foucalf said it wouldn't be sustainable even if you were somehow able to achieve it. Even in Medieval times I don't believe there was a true pan-Islamic caliphate after the Umayyads of the 8th century. 
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2014, 01:01:38 AM »

Absolutely not if it's Wahhabi.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2014, 01:41:17 AM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2014, 04:55:03 AM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?

I didn't really say it was a good idea regardless, but a Wahhabi Caliphate of any kind would be guaranteed to be absolutely awful.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,965
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2014, 05:07:45 AM »

No.

[/thread]
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2014, 05:48:48 AM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?

I didn't really say it was a good idea regardless, but a Wahhabi Caliphate of any kind would be guaranteed to be absolutely awful.

That's kind of a buzz word, Wahhabi.  In reality, there are no neat lines to draw between standard Suni Islam whether it's Wahhabi or Salafi or generic.  It's not like Anglican vs. Lutheran vs. 7th day Adventist. 

To risk oversimplifying, the more conservative schools of thought in Islam are more literal, committed to Islam as a total answer to everything and consumed with religion above all else.  They've basically rotten away their rational thinking abilities with their religion.  However, I don't think there is what we tend to call "moderate Islam" either.  There are people who take religion less seriously and their rationality and humanity guides them to keep religion from clouding their judgment.  There is no moderate, progressive version of Islam, there's no reform Judaism or Episcopalian equivalent in Islam.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,097
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2014, 06:15:03 AM »

When are our Muslim posters going to stop by, tell us we're all morons for even thinking we can discuss such a topic and then explain to everybody some serious facts we don't understand errrr, I mean bring nothing else to the table.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2014, 10:41:59 AM »

However, I don't think there is what we tend to call "moderate Islam" either.  There are people who take religion less seriously and their rationality and humanity guides them to keep religion from clouding their judgment.  There is no moderate, progressive version of Islam, there's no reform Judaism or Episcopalian equivalent in Islam.

The Bektashi might qualify.

And to the OP: No.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2014, 10:54:57 AM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?

I didn't really say it was a good idea regardless, but a Wahhabi Caliphate of any kind would be guaranteed to be absolutely awful.

That's kind of a buzz word, Wahhabi.  In reality, there are no neat lines to draw between standard Suni Islam whether it's Wahhabi or Salafi or generic.  It's not like Anglican vs. Lutheran vs. 7th day Adventist. 

To risk oversimplifying, the more conservative schools of thought in Islam are more literal, committed to Islam as a total answer to everything and consumed with religion above all else.  They've basically rotten away their rational thinking abilities with their religion.  However, I don't think there is what we tend to call "moderate Islam" either.  There are people who take religion less seriously and their rationality and humanity guides them to keep religion from clouding their judgment.  There is no moderate, progressive version of Islam, there's no reform Judaism or Episcopalian equivalent in Islam.

Of course it is possible for a Muslim to take his or her religion seriously without wanting to behead those who disagree with them. How is this in question?  That doesn't even necessitate being "modern" or "progressive" or whatever those terms mean in this context.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,678


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2014, 10:58:23 AM »

The existence of a caliph does not at all necessarily indicate the end of political boundaries.  The experience of the Abbasids pretty clearly indicates that it'll just lead to its rivals promoting themselves to the caliph title.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2014, 11:30:22 AM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?

I didn't really say it was a good idea regardless, but a Wahhabi Caliphate of any kind would be guaranteed to be absolutely awful.

That's kind of a buzz word, Wahhabi.  In reality, there are no neat lines to draw between standard Suni Islam whether it's Wahhabi or Salafi or generic.  It's not like Anglican vs. Lutheran vs. 7th day Adventist. 

To risk oversimplifying, the more conservative schools of thought in Islam are more literal, committed to Islam as a total answer to everything and consumed with religion above all else.  They've basically rotten away their rational thinking abilities with their religion.  However, I don't think there is what we tend to call "moderate Islam" either.  There are people who take religion less seriously and their rationality and humanity guides them to keep religion from clouding their judgment.  There is no moderate, progressive version of Islam, there's no reform Judaism or Episcopalian equivalent in Islam.

Of course it is possible for a Muslim to take his or her religion seriously without wanting to behead those who disagree with them. How is this in question?  That doesn't even necessitate being "modern" or "progressive" or whatever those terms mean in this context.

Not beheading random people who disagree with you is nice, but it does not mean that you embrace basic values of Western liberalism and human rights. 
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2014, 11:47:32 AM »

An Islamic Caliphate? Absolutely not. A secular and democratic united Arab republic? Definitely.

Unfortunately the Cold War negated the possibility of a secular and democratic Middle East (at least at present) with the United States and its Israeli client state arming and supporting religious fundamentalists as a counterweight to secular Arab socialist movements.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2014, 11:57:12 AM »

Theocracies never have merit
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2014, 03:45:02 PM »

No, it would not. The best thing that could happen to that region would be the idea that religion and government should be separate, and that people have basic rights because they are sentient.


^^
That too. Good call.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2014, 06:17:13 PM »


What type of distinction is that?  Do think there's some version of Islam that's compatible with modernity and liberal values?

I didn't really say it was a good idea regardless, but a Wahhabi Caliphate of any kind would be guaranteed to be absolutely awful.

That's kind of a buzz word, Wahhabi.  In reality, there are no neat lines to draw between standard Suni Islam whether it's Wahhabi or Salafi or generic.  It's not like Anglican vs. Lutheran vs. 7th day Adventist. 

To risk oversimplifying, the more conservative schools of thought in Islam are more literal, committed to Islam as a total answer to everything and consumed with religion above all else.  They've basically rotten away their rational thinking abilities with their religion.  However, I don't think there is what we tend to call "moderate Islam" either.  There are people who take religion less seriously and their rationality and humanity guides them to keep religion from clouding their judgment.  There is no moderate, progressive version of Islam, there's no reform Judaism or Episcopalian equivalent in Islam.

Of course it is possible for a Muslim to take his or her religion seriously without wanting to behead those who disagree with them. How is this in question?  That doesn't even necessitate being "modern" or "progressive" or whatever those terms mean in this context.

Not beheading random people who disagree with you is nice, but it does not mean that you embrace basic values of Western liberalism and human rights. 

Why do reforms toward greater freedom and respect for persons need to be Western to be worthwhile?
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2014, 06:18:42 PM »

A caliphate wouldn't have to be any more theocratic than Italy. And would be more progressive than modern Arabia.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,610
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2014, 06:34:51 PM »

This thread is really quite extraordinarily stupid. Do you even know what the Caliph essentially was, Beet? And why are so many of you so keen on such a thoroughly discredited delusion as Pan-Arabism?
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2014, 07:30:05 PM »

This thread is really quite extraordinarily stupid. Do you even know what the Caliph essentially was, Beet?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.065 seconds with 12 queries.