In Theory, Would a Peaceful Islamic Caliphate Have Merit?

[Beet]

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.

[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.

[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.