Its Islamic unity possible?

[SavageCurry]

Embarrassed? Embarrassed is weak word. Oh boy, just imagining your own countrymen acting arrogant and re-claim themselves as aryans and as superiors all the time on the INTERNET, despite they're just some unsuccessful dead walking meat with moss on it, after only being used to have their asses glued on the chair, because they could only use ****-cans, while their mothers bring them food down to the basem- i mean, their offices.

Only a genius would equate forum of few posters with how people think irl. lol

[jama0112]

Okay, maybe i shouldn't had used the word countrymen. But honestly, you will get suprised how cringe paki(there are very few of them though. Got to hate the internet-jatts most) and SPECIALLY indian posters can get. They curse both men and women, if they don't agree with them. They also seems to be pretty arrogant(it's the indians only this time) , specially towards muslims, such as pahstuns and east asians, such as chinese or even nepalis. SO yeah, they're very racist(even more than us pahstuns, as we only curse indians only, and that most of the time with reasons).

It's just the internet, i know, but jesus there got to be limits sometimes.

I'm not saying i'm much better than them, but you would seriously cringe, if you read their posts. Not saying all indians are like that, but you can easily catch such indic posters at antroforums or even youtube.

[SavageCurry]

Muslims need to work for something great. Rebuild a great Islamic civilization again. Muslims control all the important lands, have all the important resources, etc. Have produced great minds in the past, to draw inspiration from.

I am all for Islamic unity if it can stabilize Muslim lands and lead to peace and propserity.

[kunatawar]

Muslims need to work for something great. Rebuild a great Islamic civilization again. Muslims control all the important lands, have all the important resources, etc. Have produced great minds in the past, to draw inspiration from.

I am all for Islamic unity if it can stabilize Muslim lands and lead to peace and propserity.

unity is a good thing but how would you even go about doing that in the real world? theres too much political differences and bad blood between different people

[Khostai]

Salaamoona.

I see no arguments there. Just ad hominem lol

But your stupid point helps to prove my point right, so thank you. In order to defeat nationalism and ethnic hatred the Islamic world should get rid of nation-states. Ethnic hatred is mainly boost by modern Westphalian states. Those Tajik fascists who want to create a new Tajik state need first to ethnic cleanse most of ethnic Pashtuns.

Of course this won't stop there. Once Pashtuns are killed or expelled, other minority groups will suffer the same fate. Because thats the way nation-states and their crazy ideology, nationalism, work: for a nation-state to work properly there must be a huge ethnic, cultural and linguistic homogeneity.

Unlike the West, that has systematically butchered his own minorities, the Islamic world still rich and full of diversity. We have countless ethnic and religious groups.

I also believe the current Western minority group rights system is a failure. Its already crumbling. It couldn't last more than few decades which is embarrassing AF. In my opinion, Ottomans managed to create a better system (Millet, that was reformed with the Tanzimat) which guaranteed not only basic rights for their minorities but also allowed them to follow their own civil laws. This system was practiced by Muslim armies during the early Islamic conquests in the ME, CA, NA and Europe.

Spain is an interesting case because most of the country willingly allowed the Islamic take over without opposing armed resistance basically because the Islamic system was much better than the Visigotic system. There was this Roman nobleman from Murcia, Theudimer, who was allowed to keep his faith, his properties, his Christian countrymen were allowed to rule themselves and the Islamic state had to protect them from all threats. Also they weren't forced to join Islamic armies and so on. In return, they had to obey the state, the Islamic law and pay the Jyzia.

I believe the Islamic minority system has been systematically targeted by Western nation-state establishments and elites but if you study it from an unbiased point of view you will see that in many cases it was much better than the modern Westphalian system. It also lasted longer lol

LOL what have you been smoking?

[Aryana]

I doubt that is achievable even within the next few centuries unless some major demographical/political change occurs throughout the Middle East

[maneatinglizard]

I doubt that is achievable even within the next few centuries unless some major demographical/political change occurs throughout the Middle East

In 600 AD, who could've expected the fractured Arab tribes to unite and eliminate the Persian empire, permanently cripple the Eastern Roman Empire, and spread a religion from southern Europe to China?

In 1200 AD, who could've predicted that the fractured Mongol tribes were going to unite and destroy some of the greatest cities the world had ever known, and conquer most of the known world?

In 1650 AD, who could've predicted that the fractured Afghan tribes would "unite" long enough to become the major power in Persia and India?

Lots of things can happen in 100 years. In just the last 30 years, the Soviet Union went from being the second major power of the world, to dissolving, to its successor Russia catapulting itself back to major power status. On the other hand, 30 years ago the US had become the undisputed dominant power in the world, and yet we're now witnessing it collapse from within.

The West and China (unless their economy really is legit, though I have doubts) will probably collapse within the next few decades, let alone centuries. That will leave a huge power vacuum for someone to take advantage of, so why can't it be us?

Islamic civilizations have pretty much been the dominant driver of world events for most of the last 1500 years, as much as the West wants us to believe otherwise.

[ذو الفقار]

Some Islamic thinkers have put forward the idea of al-Ummat al-Gha’iba (the absence of the Umma). This was put forward by the likes of Syed Qutb, and hinted at by those scholars under his influence like Salman al-Awda.

This is an interesting idea which partially makes sense in light of some of the Islamic prophecies and the present reality of those who are known as the Muslims. The geopolitical term ‘Muslim world’ is often thrown around, but it is definitely debatable whether a Muslim ‘world’ actually exists. Now that there are some forty odd Muslim-majority states, with various forms of government, different systems and ideologies. Then consider the fact that Muslims are divided into numerous sects and parties. Consider also that those who are identified as Muslims do not necessarily consider their being Muslim as a basis of their identity, or primary identity. For them being Muslim may simply be incidental, or a purely private/personal affair, and does not inform their behavior or thinking especially in a geopolitical sense. If this is the prevalent condition, the argument that the Muslims no longer exist as a Umma is quite compelling.

Islamic prophecy outlines a trajectory of bifurcation within the Muslims into two absolutely distinct camps – Fustati Iman (the Camp of Faith) and Fustati Nifaq (the Camp of Hypocrisy). This bifurcation is a gradual process but it will, according to the prophecy, become complete and absolute, such that every single person who would otherwise be identified as Muslim will fall into either of these two opposing camps. And the Camp of Faith is purely faithful without an iota of hypocrisy, while the Camp of Hypocrisy is bereft of any an iota of faith. The same Hadith makes it clear that a mass apostasy is being described, hence, those ‘Muslims’ who will end up in the Camp of Hypocrisy are in fact apostates and disbelievers.

At present, is it therefore appropriate to continue to think of the Muslims as an Umma, and to propose courses of action on that basis? Is it not more appropriate to think not in terms of an Umma but rather as ‘Believing’ Muslims (Mu’mins) as opposed to the ‘other’ Muslims. Now the prophecy of the bifurcation states that it will be complete at the moment of the Antichrist’s emergence, which obviously hasn’t happened yet. So the bifurcation is not complete and there is still a space of fluidity in between the emerging two distinct poles. But as time goes on that space will only continue to shrink until it disappears altogether.

I propose it is more appropriate to talk in terms of a Jama’ah or Faction characterized by belief and faithfulness to Islam, and in the geopolitical sphere, to restrict ourselves to the interests of that particular Jama’ah (especially if you consider yourself as belonging to it or gravitating toward it). That is a separate discussion on exactly who or where they are, but for the purpose of this discussion I would only like to make the contributors think about a paradigm shift and move away from a conception of Umma.

[SavageCurry]

Nobody wants an Ummmah or an Islamic superstate. Thats impossible anyway. But more co-op between Muslim countries would be beneficial.

[ذو الفقار]

Nobody wants an Ummmah or an Islamic superstate. Thats impossible anyway. But more co-op between Muslim countries would be beneficial.

Why should there be co-operation between a certain number of countries if their being Muslim majority is incidental? Wouldn't geographic contiguity or cultural similarity be a better basis for regional co-operation? For example, why would Bangladesh enter into a co-op with Morocco and not with India or Nepal?

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Nobody wants an Ummmah or an Islamic superstate. Thats impossible anyway. But more co-op between Muslim countries would be beneficial.

I agree, this concept of an "Islamic Superstate" is untennable; too complex and hard to manage. A Confederacy would be the most realistic option, but even that has its roadblocks.

I used to dream of an "Islamic Superstate" and to some degree, still do, but I think it invites regressive people to seek power and try to manipulate society. When societies are too preoccupied with how long your beard is and not whether children are being clothed, fed, and sheltered; that's a society with the wrong priorities.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Not withstanding, determining who the hypocrites and "true believers" are is inherently problematic. As different camps will claim the others are the hypocrites and they're the true believer. Which just invites more fiefdoms between Muslims. Sounds like a plan to undermine Muslims rather than edify Muslims. These are things that can only said with certainty by Allah(swt) alone, especially when one is trying to examine something as nuanced as an "iota". However, there are blatant signs we can all look to see who might be blatant and obvious hypocrites.

They tend to be outwardly religious or really go out of their way to display their piety; but constantly contradict their preaching. These inconsistencies with their behavior and their idealizations of themselves demonstrate a lack of self awareness which is a hallmark of hypocrisy.


There used to be a guy here who would preach against music and movies with one mouth but then talk about Dragon Ball Z from the other. You notice this a lot among all Muslims, but with South Asian Muslims in particular. Since they've turned religion into some type of business or social totem pole.

[Firdousi]

I agree, this concept of an "Islamic Superstate" is untennable; too complex and hard to manage. A Confederacy would be the most realistic option, but even that has its roadblocks.

I used to dream of an "Islamic Superstate" and to some degree, still do, but I think it invites regressive people to seek power and try to manipulate society. When societies are too preoccupied with how long your beard is and not whether children are being clothed, fed, and sheltered; that's a society with the wrong priorities.

Why an Islamic Superstate sounds "untenable" to you, guys? Rome managed to create a vast empire and ruled over million of human beings with a centralized government for centuries. Abbasids founded a Caliphate that worked quite good for almost two centuries. The Ottomans managed to create an empire that lasted for almost seven centuries!!!. We are talking about many centuries ago, so my question is.. WHY WITH ALL THE MODERN RESOURCES AN ISLAMIC SUPERSTATE STILL SOUND CRAZY TO YOU, GUYS?????

For now, its pretty obvious pan-Islamic forces were the main losers in the Arab Spring. But I don't think this rule of military dictatorships will lost for too long. In the coming decades the Islamic world will go through a huge, violent and crazy transformations. You shouldn't rule out any option.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Why an Islamic Superstate sounds "untenable" to you, guys? Rome managed to create a vast empire and ruled over million of human beings with a centralized government for centuries. Abbasids founded a Caliphate that worked quite good for almost two centuries. The Ottomans managed to create an empire that lasted for almost seven centuries!!!. We are talking about many centuries ago, so my question is.. WHY WITH ALL THE MODERN RESOURCES AN ISLAMIC SUPERSTATE STILL SOUND CRAZY TO YOU, GUYS?????

For now, its pretty obvious pan-Islamic forces were the main losers in the Arab Spring. But I don't think this rule of military dictatorships will lost for too long. In the coming decades the Islamic world will go through a huge, violent and crazy transformations. You shouldn't rule out any option.

the world where Rome ruled is different from the world we have today. Roman's "ruled" areas but they had barely any defacto control over most of its territory because they simply lacked the man power, infrastructure and technology.

Humanity is different now, for the very reasons you cite; we have digital technology, automation, industry, people are more easily informed and as a consequence less easy to rule over especialaly without consultation. I would imagine that there were people during Rome's heyday that didn't even realize they were ruled by the emperor. These days you couldn't get away with the way Rome organize its state; you wouldn't have the man power; you'd have to manage over literally billions of people through a central administration over a vast Geography. India can barely do that, China only superficially appears to that by basically brutally squashing everyone. You'd either have to be a despot or just have a confederacy as I suggested. If you go by the despot route, then that basically defeats the entire theme of an "Islamic Superstate" you have made a megalomaniac or oligarchy, an Islamic Kim Jong Un. As you suggested, military despotism is not sustainable.


If there is any type of Islamic rulership, it should rule from behind the stage, where it navigates cultural and social forces and defines the Zeitgeist; but not outwardly declaring YO WE BE DA IzLAMiK STATE ..WE BE RUN'N DIS SHOW B*TCHES!!! HOLLAAA!!!!

Yes, the Ottoman's created an Empire, but in the process did a lot of disgusting things like kidnapping children. I'm not detracting some of the good Ottoman's did, but even despite their virtues they did some awful things that people in the Balkans and Caucus resent Muslims, even if they aren't Turks.

[کیش]

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If only one day of this world remained. Allah would lengthen that day (according to the version of Za'idah), till He raised up in it a man who belongs to me or to my family whose father's name is the same as my father's, who will fill the earth with equity and justice as it has been filled with oppression and tyranny (according to the version of Fitr). Sufyan's version says: The world will not pass away before the Arabs are ruled by a man of my family whose name will be the same as mine.

Abu Dawud said: The version of 'Umar and Abu Bakr is the same as that of Sufyan.

Abu Dawud Book 37, Hadith 4269