What hinders the establishment of Islamic unity?

[Tuahaa]

Well dont know if anyone has mentioned this before in this thread but if you had said just 70, 80 years ago that Europe would be united under the banner of "European Union" people who have most probably laughed at you as well. Franco-German rivalry was at its highest at that point not to mention the centuries old rivalry between England and France who only united against a common enemy.

So to say that Islamic Unity is impossible is impossible is wrong. However the process has to be gradual. You cant expect one day all of a sudden muslim countries joining together. Step one should be to merge our economies together so we have to rely on each other just like the countries who founded the EU did. EU enlargement was a gradual process taking about 40, 50 years to reach its current size so we shouldnt expect the impossible, which is muslim countries joining together all of a sudden but we can expect the possible which is a potential muslim state encompassing ethnicities and languages.

That would be the logical thing to do. If the currency becomes uniform in all Muslim countries, it would force all Muslims to actually help each other out and, instead of showering poorer Muslim countries with money that might be wasted, it will encourage actual industrial growth because that would be vital for the currency to succeed.

 

[file12345]

Well those who say Muslims weren't united they are absolutely wrong.Muslims were united one way or another until the fall the ottoman empire.The Wikipedia link given previously supports it.

Though in the modern world a large Muslim empire is next to impossible.Small federations can be formed.Starting from the gulf countries.They have the highest chance of forming some sort of unity cause more than 90% of their matters are same.

Next comes the poor Arabs.(Syria,Egypt and Jordan perhaps Libya).

North African can also form a lose alliance(Though the disputes of Morocco with its Islamic Neighbors are quite complex).

Next comes South East Asia Brunei,Indonesia and Malaysia.(But then again there are severe differences here tooo).

Central Asian countries(But i guess they wont come out of Russian Influence).

And lastly comes South Asia(But No.Come on man Muslims of South Asia weren't even united on migrating to Pakistan and then the 1971 thingy.So this is impossible too)

The only people left are Iranians and Turks.They will have to settle alone i guess.lol.Interestingly both these have had large empires in the past.

On a serious note Ottoman empire no matter how weak it became was still a sign of life.Gosh i really wish the ottomans wouldn't had lost WW1.

 

[Tuahaa]

I wish the ottomans didn't involve in world war one and instead tried to organize themselves and align themselves with some other Muslim counties.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Islamic empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of these are military empires dominated by one nationality, ruling over other nationalities. Just like all other hundreds of empires in human history.

Calling that Islamic unity is rather rich.

 

[file12345]

Most of these are military empires dominated by one nationality, ruling over other nationalities. Just like all other hundreds of empires in human history.

Calling that Islamic unity is rather rich.

Most but not all.Especially the khulfa Rashidin and to an extent ottoman empire tooo.

You know one of the secrets why ottomans survived for 900 years because the subject countries virtually ruled independently only in nominal ottoman control.This was especially true for the Muslim side of the empire.

As far as Unity is concerned Not everyone is a backstabber as Arabs.North African Muslims have fought much against Italian colonization forces with ottoman help.Though ultimately they lost.

People don't realize but the lost of ottoman empire no matter how weak it became was a huge blow to Muslims practically Ottoman Turks were the last hope for modern Muslim unity and now all that is left are hypothetical scenarios which we are discussing here.

I have studied a little bit about all these things in my college life and i have come to the conclusion that only if Muslims under ottoman empire had not betrayed it perhaps the results would be different today.

My opinion in this matter is different i see that every Muslim(except Subcontinent Muslims)are as much as guilty as are Arabs.For Muslims ignored the calls of Khalifa to stir trouble in colonies.If they did perhaps the Khalifa would have been able to secure a deal with allies.

 

[SandsofTime]

Larger states with larger economies are more difficult to bully around with. In the future as in the past, small states will continue to be played by the larger powers as proxies for battles among themselves. The small states will continue to bleed in misery while the larger powers would have a laugh.

For this reason, I wouldn't mind living under some kind of economically integrated and politically unified federation of Islamic states. However, this unification shouldn't come at the cost of dogmatization of one groups ideology over others. Specifically, local cultures shouldn't be trampled upon and max freedom should be given. That means no Khilafa of old age style or any dictatorship, but a democratic representation something along the lines of United States. Also no Wahabi indoctrination either.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Most but not all.Especially the khulfa Rashidin and to an extent ottoman empire tooo.

You know one of the secrets why ottomans survived for 900 years because the subject countries virtually ruled independently only in nominal ottoman control.This was especially true for the Muslim side of the empire.

As far as Unity is concerned Not everyone is a backstabber as Arabs.North African Muslims have fought much against Italian colonization forces with ottoman help.Though ultimately they lost.

People don't realize but the lost of ottoman empire no matter how weak it became was a huge blow to Muslims practically Ottoman Turks were the last hope for modern Muslim unity and now all that is left are hypothetical scenarios which we are discussing here.

I have studied a little bit about all these things in my college life and i have come to the conclusion that only if Muslims under ottoman empire had not betrayed it perhaps the results would be different today.

My opinion in this matter is different i see that every Muslim(except Subcontinent Muslims)are as much as guilty as are Arabs.For Muslims ignored the calls of Khalifa to stir trouble in colonies.If they did perhaps the Khalifa would have been able to secure a deal with allies.

The Khulfa Rashidin is from a glorified era, full of mythology. Lets not use that as an example. Besides it was an empire built on military rule of Arabs, so not different from other empires.

Abt the Ottomans - I don't know how that was not an turkish empire built on turkish military conquests. But if you think that there was unity and the other nations under the turks did not resent them, then we'll agree to disagee.

All I'm saying is if you want to build something in the future, don't base it on something mythical.

Edited to remove bits that distract from the real argument

 

[BritishBangladeshi]

Well I think it is Saudi Arabia, firstly being because I hate these arab faggots who just spend their money on cars, luxury etc.

 

[file12345]

The Khulfa Rashidin is from an age of talking angels, full of mythology. Lets not use that as an example. Besides it was an empire built on military rule of Arabs, so not different from other empires.

Abt the Ottomans - I don't know how that was not an turkish empire built on turkish military conquests. But if you think that there was unity and the other nations under the turks did not resent them, then we'll agree to disagee.

All I'm saying is if you want to build something in the future, don't base it on something mythical.

Sir you have deeply offended me by saying the thing in the bold part.I respect every religion and its personalities believing that everyone holds his believes true.And i expect the same in return.The life's of companions of Holy Prophet (SAWW) are very well documented.

THERE IS NOTHING MYTHOLOGICAL about Khulfa rashidin and is VERY WELL documented.I know people are either busy or unwilling to study history but still i would urge you to study some history from all perspectives not just what you feel is right.

I didn't say that Ottoman was not a Turkish empire.Confederates can only be formed by equal or near equals.Since there was no one even near equal in vicinity then there has to be a dominant force to keep the unity.I would go as far as saying that ottoman empire was one of the most tolerant empires EVER in human history.Sure there were huge mistakes too.I know you would only have agreed with me if the whole of Balkans were Muslims.But unlike Christians Muslims do not generally send missionaries otherwise there would be huge difference in demography of Europe.

In the last part as far as i understand you are saying that Religion is a myth.If that's the case well then we agree to disagree.

 

[Saleem]

With regard to the ottoman empire, it was a osmanli state i.e. a state belonging to the house of osman. they were ethnic turks but hey did not identify themselves as turks -they were muslims - anecdotal evidence suggests this - people from myriad backgrounds were accepted into this group. Again the traditional concept of self identity of muslims is different from the received wisdom of european colonial empires. The "Arab nation" is a product of european imperial orientalists - the origin is by arabic speakers from mount lebanon (Jabal Lubnan) an area which incidentally was traditionally administered from Damascus as part of (Syria). Initially the osmanlis tried ottomanism but it failed - it was only when the imperial powers were able to entice renegade warlords from the populations of the osmanli state that a turkish self idenitity emerged as epitomized by Mr Mustafa [Kamal - Ataturk]. We must remember that the founder of one of the "pillars" of new "arab nation", Egypt, was founded by Mehmet Ali - Mohammad Ali who, while he was born in Albania (Kosovo?) is of unknown "ethnic" origin.

As regard the khulafa e rashidin. there is mythology surrounding some aspects about them but there are also concrete documents and credible reports. so one needs to just read with discretion.

 

[Kambojaric]

With regard to the ottoman empire, it was a osmanli state i.e. a state belonging to the house of osman. they were ethnic turks but hey did not identify themselves as turks -they were muslims - anecdotal evidence suggests this - people from myriad backgrounds were accepted into this group. Again the traditional concept of self identity of muslims is different from the received wisdom of european colonial empires.

The "Arab nation" is a product of european imperial orientalists - the origin is by arabic speakers from mount lebanon (Jabal Lubnan) an area which incidentally was traditionally administered from Damascus as part of (Syria). Initially the osmanlis tried ottomanism but it failed - it was only when the imperial powers were able to entice renegade warlords from the populations of the osmanli state that a turkish self idenitity emerged as epitomized by Mr Mustafa [Kamal - Ataturk].

The first part i agree with, In the Ottoman Empire you were either a Muslim or not e.g a Greek Muslim, Muslim Kurd, Anatolian Turk etc were all placed under the category "Muslim". The categories werent based on their ethnicity. Its true to a certain extent that Ottoman Empire was dominated by Turks but that doesnt take away the fact that if you were a Turk, Albanian, Bosnian, Arab or whatever, as long as you were Muslim you could go very very far in your career. There are boundless evidences of this, one of whom you have already mentioned in Muhammad Ali, the Albanian.

(Compared to the rest of Europe, individuals belonging to other religious minorites could also go very far e.g. the Jewish finance minister of Sultan Mehmet II, Hekim Yakup Pasa).

Could you further expand the second part of your post. Arabs existed throughout this period as we know very well, or are you referring to the failed attempt of creating a "Greater Arab Nation"?

 

[Saleem]

with regard to the Arabs, since the advent of islam, the situation is similar in many ways to the osmanlis i.e. the arabic speakers were muslims and assimilated when they became muslims. again their self identity was that of a city / district (or its equivalent in those days) - remember the name of those times "shirazi - from shiraz etc. Books studying the situation in the osmanli province of demascus (jubal lubnan district) especially referring to the formation of the imperial client state of Lebanon beginning in the 13th century AH (mid 19th century CE).

The conception of a "Arab nation" used as a pseudonym for a "arab race" originated as a result of the imperial ambitions seeking to gain influence in osmali areas by claiming to represent the interests of these "minorities" and "under privileged" segments of society and thus fragmenting the osmanli society and eventually enslaving this very population. even wikipedia might suggest the origin of arab nationalism or a google search might help.

 

[ultimateracer267]

every country has thier own issues, noone wants to be ruled by others.

 

[Kambojaric]

True, the formation of the arab world is quite intresting in the sense that arab isnt exactly a race but more of a linguistic group e.g. morrocans and yemenis are both considered "arab" but there is no doubt in it that morrocans are a mix of berbers and other indeginous peoples with the arab invading armies, on the other hand Yemines have closer ethinic links with the "black" people on the other side of the sea. Yet both are "arab". To expect such different peoples to form a nation, is very difficult as became evident later on.

 

[Saleem]

the present set up in the middle east is a entirely artificial construct: the "state" of jordan was created by the British empire in order to divide palestine - it began in a railroad car! a "king" was imported from hejaz (hashemite indeed) to "create" a "new nation". the same goes for irak - a "king" was imposed and for many years was run by a prime minister from Syria (parts of it, I think, forming the present client state of lebanon)! the whole aim was to divide the muslim community as far as possible. It is not that these people were specially clever - these are age old imperial methods used by all empires roman, chinese, mayan etc.

Also witness the UAE and other "shiekhdoms" - these are all warlords and robber barons who were offered "protection" by the British empire in order to gain strategic ports etc. for the Royal Navy to have open sea communications. (rings a bell doen't it). Initially this was because the british did not have the desire to take on a full war against the osmanlis - later it was just economically and politically suitable - they had all the facilities without the political, and direct "moral" responsibility, of using these areas. they local clients ruled as tyrants and kept the population under tight control in return for subsidies and diplomatic protection against other predatory powers in the region (for many years this as the french) [and now they subsidize the economies of the "developed world" by buying enormous quantities of weapons which they are totally unequipped to use - witness the arab israeli confict!]. All blame for the oppression of the "natives" fell on the robber barons while the empire to hold a lofty position tut -tutting etc. at the barbarity of the "natives". (sounds familiar)

Don't get me wrong I am not blaming the empires - they did what suited them. The robber barons and local collaborators are just as responsible as the imperial ambitions. We must accept that he muslims were unable to find within them the courage to follow men of integrity and honesty and accept immediate discomfort in return for future freedom - in short they were not willing to pay the price of freedom hence their long term servitude. We see the same these days - people willing to die for their "leaders" (a quaid, excepting Mr Jinnah - and even here perhaps the adulation is carried too far - sounds too much like the fuhrer). instead of following principles they follow men - and men of vanity and poor moral courage at that. Moral courage is not just doing what is right but also refraining from doing what is wrong - when one can do so without fear of censure or penalty. witness the policos of pak-land. As for the generals why do you expect them to be angels - they are products of the same system / "nation" and , as I mentioned elsewhere in this board, when the politicos chose the most ineligible candidates in the hope that they would permit the politicos continue their shenanigans - they got what they deserved.