Its Islamic unity possible?

[SavageCurry]

Somehow I don't like the idea of so many different populations with different cultures and from different regions being ruled by one centralized government.

It might be against Islamic teachings as well:

''made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.''

[Khostai]

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.

Those empires were build on concurnig regions and subjecting the population. Do you think Romans peacefully anexed their neighbours? Or the Abbasids Caliphate just grew like the EU? No it was all made possible with war. This is not possible in todays age and time. Or it can be done if you want another millions of people die in war and you can have your Islamic super state with the remainig population.

[Khostai]

Somehow I don't like the idea of so many different populations with different cultures and from different regions being ruled by one centralized government.

It might be against Islamic teachings as well:

''made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.''

It is also a hot bed for a dicatorship. Becuase we all know who is going to be the top of this kind of super state. The arabs and Iranians. who both will undermine each other to get more power and control.

[Khostai]

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?

Yes that would be the best. That is also the main dominator for EU.

[DSM0305]

Islamic unity is possible and feasible if the system is good and fair. Now you may ask what is a fair government. I have an answer for that.

First of all, the nations should be divided by the medium their identify themselves with. This could be ethnicity, religion(sects shia, sunni ets.), language and perhaps in rare occasions political governance. We should avoid dividing it by political governance, but in some cases when the populace have just to far apart political stance, they should be divided. An example could be a very socialistic society and a more liberal.

Secondly. Now that we have divided the nations, we need a system to govern all the nations. The system that have to be implemented, must be democratic in each nation. Like it or not, but democratic system is the best way we know that can make the peoples voice heard. This will also make sure that different groups within the system(super state), doesn't fight each other.

Thirdly.
- Now we have divided the population into nations
- Each nation have a democratic system
Now you may ask, how does it make a super state, it just a individual states. Well, we need to change that, because now we need a federal system and federal laws.

Each nation/state, have state laws, that they themselves decide in their democratic process. Then there will be federal laws, that all states need to implement.

Basically the system will be something of a mixture between the EU and USA like system, of course more efficient than both of them.


So how is that a super state? well, what does a super power have in common... that right, the military! All the nations/states have one united military. Also this superstate have a lingua franca. A language learned as a second language by all the nations/states. And by second language, I mean as literally second language. Each individual state needs to have their own language and learn in their mother tongue

To sum it up:
1. Divide the population into nations/states based on what they identify themselves with(ethnicity, religion, language etc)
2. Each state/nation should have democratic system
3. There will be a state/nation laws for individual nations and federal laws for all states/nations. The federal laws would mainly be for ensuring fair trade and environmental concerns(something along the EU)
4. A language learned by all nations as second language, but they will still use and learn in their mother tongue as first language
5. All states should have one united military

This will ensure that the population happy and content, and wouldn't feel like they're being oppressed by a bigger entity.

[Firdousi]

Those empires were build on concurnig regions and subjecting the population. Do you think Romans peacefully anexed their neighbours? Or the Abbasids Caliphate just grew like the EU? No it was all made possible with war. This is not possible in todays age and time. Or it can be done if you want another millions of people die in war and you can have your Islamic super state with the remainig population.

I appreciate this new approach of yours. I hope we can have a civil relationship from now on.

No, I don't think Romans or Abbasids grew peacefully like the EU. They were extremely violent systems. Neither I said we should copy them. I was just showing some examples about centralized and strong ways to rule a territory based on common values or good political system.

Actually I believe the EU is the best example of cooperation in human history. Its the most successful project of regional integration ever. EU was founded not only on the basis of common values, but also economic and political interests. We should learn from the West and adapt it to our own ground reality. I don't want us to go back to the past but rather move on and try to improve our future.

[Firdousi]

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.

Actually Romans did have a de facto and de iure control over his territory. Romans imposed on their conquered lands their values, their citizenship and especially their law, the Roman Law. Thanks to their "roads" they were able to control and rule easily almost every inch of their territory. They didn't need to deploy a soldier in every village. They were smart enough to create a centralized political system were people were slowly assimilated into the Roman culture. Thats why places like Spain, Portugal or France today speak Roman languages.

I dont support despots and i do acknowledge that we live in a different world. Thats what I said to you in my previous comment. We should use those resources to make a better world because right now all this technology is being used in a quite negative way. Places like Facebook or Twitter are sources of anger, hatred, bigotry and propaganda. This should be stopped asap because it is harming a globalized and interconnected world badly.

In my opinion, Muslims should get rid of nation-states. This will happen sooner or later and you know it and try to focus on strong civil societies where people follow common values instead of fake identities imposed on us by the West. If we remove nation states, nationalism, which is the main source of instability and division among Muslims, will be obliterated for good.

[Firdousi]

As I have pointed out several times, the Islamic world is going through a time of transition. The old paradigm is dying the but we don't have a new one so the Islamic world is confused and in a constant state of instability and uncertainty.

As Antonio Gramsci said once "The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear."

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Actually Romans did have a de facto and de iure control over his territory. Romans imposed on their conquered lands their values, their citizenship and especially their law, the Roman Law. Thanks to their "roads" they were able to control and rule easily almost every inch of their territory. They didn't need to deploy a soldier in every village. They were smart enough to create a centralized political system were people were slowly assimilated into the Roman culture. Thats why places like Spain, Portugal or France today speak Roman languages.

I dont support despots and i do acknowledge that we live in a different world. Thats what I said to you in my previous comment. We should use those resources to make a better world because right now all this technology is being used in a quite negative way. Places like Facebook or Twitter are sources of anger, hatred, bigotry and propaganda. This should be stopped asap because it is harming a globalized and interconnected world badly.

In my opinion, Muslims should get rid of nation-states. This will happen sooner or later and you know it and try to focus on strong civil societies where people follow common values instead of fake identities imposed on us by the West. If we remove nation states, nationalism, which is the main source of instability and division among Muslims, will be obliterated for good.

There were numerous counter examples to these claims. The Vandals, The The Germanic Tribes were almost entirely independent despite being under Roman Authority. the Romans were able to control the Levant pretty well sure. Maybe certain outposts of North Africa, but they didn't really have the type of cultural zeitgeist we'd imagine. The Germanic tribes and some Balkan tribes were considerably problematic for Rome. In the end Rome gave up and as long as they just kept these tribes pacified were "tacit" rulers.

We should get rid of nation-states but not too bluntly, because that will cause a counter reaction. It should just be superficial socio-cultural zones which are called "nations" . I agree that an ushering of common values should drive the process.

We need a tactful approach about restoring the Muslim World. In fact we don't even need to call it "Islamic", Islamic is just a word, it's the principles that matter.

[Firdousi]

There were numerous counter examples to these claims. The Vandals, The The Germanic Tribes were almost entirely independent despite being under Roman Authority. the Romans were able to control the Levant pretty well sure. Maybe certain outposts of North Africa, but they didn't really have the type of cultural zeitgeist we'd imagine. The Germanic tribes and some Balkan tribes were considerably problematic for Rome. In the end Rome gave up and as long as they just kept these tribes pacified were "tacit" rulers.

We should get rid of nation-states but not too bluntly, because that will cause a counter reaction. It should just be superficial socio-cultural zones which are called "nations" . I agree that an ushering of common values should drive the process.

We need a tactful approach about restoring the Muslim World. In fact we don't even need to call it "Islamic", Islamic is just a word, it's the principles that matter.

Iblis Khan, Vandals, Alans and Goths invasions of Rome succeeded when the empire started to descend into chaos. Although its true that Germanic tribes were a constant source of instability, most of them were defeated by Rome. After the battle of Teotoburg Germanicus easily defeated the Germans but Rome decided that Germani was not worth it (huge mistake) because the place was useless, with no cities, no natural resources, no trade, no geopolitical importance. Eastwards of Germania there was absolutely nothing worth dying for so Romans went to a more defensive mode. Actually most of Germania peaceful for a long time and just started migrating into Roman territory due to the Hun pressure.

Nations will always exist, Iblis. People had "national identities" long time ago. All this Arab and Ajam goes back to many centuries ago. I am not against nations and identities. i am myself proud of my Tajik heritage. What I have come to despise its nation states who want to confine our identities within some fake borders. We have strong ties with all our neighbors. Cultural and human interaction between us should flow in the same way it did few centuries ago. Only then all this Khorasani, Loy Pashtunistan and Shia Crescent BS will be gone. Win.win.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Iblis Khan, Vandals, Alans and Goths invasions of Rome succeeded when the empire started to descend into chaos. Although its true that Germanic tribes were a constant source of instability, most of them were defeated by Rome. After the battle of Teotoburg Germanicus easily defeated the Germans but Rome decided that Germani was not worth it (huge mistake) because the place was useless, with no cities, no natural resources, no trade, no geopolitical importance. Eastwards of Germania there was absolutely nothing worth dying for so Romans went to a more defensive mode. Actually most of Germania peaceful for a long time and just started migrating into Roman territory due to the Hun pressure.

Nations will always exist, Iblis. People had "national identities" long time ago. All this Arab and Ajam goes back to many centuries ago. I am not against nations and identities. i am myself proud of my Tajik heritage. What I have come to despise its nation states who want to confine our identities within some fake borders. We have strong ties with all our neighbors. Cultural and human interaction between us should flow in the same way it did few centuries ago. Only then all this Khorasani, Loy Pashtunistan and Shia Crescent BS will be gone. Win.win.

I get the spirit of your message, but to have this "super-state" also ends up becoming a type of "nation-state" of sorts; We're very disparate as people to have one state, we can however, weaken the role of the nation state and as you remarked rely on common values to create a confederacy or block. I think that's the best we should aspire to in this current time. This way it makes people feel autonomous but also cooperative.


I don't endorse Khorasan or Iran Zameen or Loy Pashtunistan but I also recognize to just push a superstate would not be manageable. Ultimately, people should be able to manage themselves and that's only mediium to create lasting unity or else people will feel subdued and want to revolt.

[ذو الفقار]

Islamic unity, meaning uniting all Muslims, is impossible. It simply cannot be done nor is it meant to be. As I said in my previous post on this thread, we have to think now in terms of sincere believing Muslims vs. everyone else, not in terms of Muslim and non-Muslim. On my blog I have written extensively about the retreat of true Islam from being manifested by a broad Umma into a small group. It is variously called "Ghuraba" and "Fustati Iman". the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said Faith will retreat between the two sacred Mosques just as a snake retreats back into its hole. He said this Umma will be bifurcated into two camps, one that is purely Faithful and another that is purely hypocritical.

Iblis Efreetzai stated: "As different camps will claim the others are the hypocrites and they're the true believer."

Believe it or not, this is not how it will turn out. Are you not surprised how these days Muslims themselves are shamelessly criticizing Islam? Muslims themselves are openly saying that Islam is problematic, it needs to be reformed, secularism is good, too much Islam is bad, drunkards, immoral women, and all sorts of wicked people are praised as heroes and models to look up to. Those Muslims that buzz around the mosque like bees in a hive, with their long beards and rosaries, they are the trouble-makers, they are the villains, worthy of not only suspicion but derision and contempt. Music concerts are progress. Muslims take pride in how "progressive" their particular country is, as opposed to those "backward" "reactionaries" in country X, Y, Z. Muslims boast that they drink whisky and are therefore the "good guys" while the "bad guys" are those extremist women in burqas.

Now I see very clearly the bifurcation of the Umma exactly as the Prophet has said it would happen, a Camp of pure Faith and a Camp of pure hypocrisy. I don't see multiple camps all claiming they are the "true believers" thus causing confusion. Anyone who cannot see the bifurcation within Muslim society whether described as religious vs secular, extremist vs. liberal, backwards vs. modern, is truly deaf and blind.

Here is the trajectory you will continue to witness. There will be no more "middle ground", the secular/liberal will become even more secular/liberal because secular civilization is ever moving more to the left hand path, more debauchery, more immorality, more materialism and consumerism, but Fustati Iman will react and more further right, towards more piety, more orthodoxy, longer prayers, more devotion, until there is a complete disconnect. Although Fustati Nifaaq will far outnumber Fustati Iman.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The existence of Muslims that shun Islam has little to do with different rival camps of Muslims claiming they're the true believers and everyone else is deviant. We've already seen it happen and itg accounts for a predominance of the turmoil among Muslims today. There's no bifurcation, it's become a polyfurcation. The morally lapsed Muslims are not even really a "Muslim" camp, not in the sense of takfir, just a confused bunch sent to derail the discourse, patsies more or less. They have no claim of legitimacy, and everyone knows it.

On the other hand these Muslim groups claiming they're the "True Believers" exploit doctrine for their power aims which is even more destructive as it takes advantage of people's sincere beliefs and perverts them.

[Karachi]

Lol islamic unity hahaaaha. Muslims will keep killing each other, while rest of us watch and live peacefully

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

If you really felt that way you wouldn' keep coming back to this forum after being banned numerous times ....in hopes of trying to push your agenda. One would imagine someone confident in the ultimate outcome of something would be able to just sit back and wait, rather than trying so "urgently" as one of your threads was titled. Clearly you're not as sure of it as you try to portray.