Unity in the Islamic World

At the moment the Islamic world is very divided due to nationalistic or historic diffrences. Such thoughts were installed by the west. For example The end of the Ottoman empire saw the bringing of nationalism to the Arab nations that was brought from the west (Lawrence of Arabia). This led to the Turks to feel as their Muslim brothers had stabbed them in the back, (e.g Yemen). In turn Turkey became nationalistic and ended the Khalifate (head of all Muslims, similer to Pope) in 1924.

With all this in mind many Muslims still have the feeling of brotherhood with other Muslims as has been said in the Qur'an that all the Muslims are but a single brotherhood. Practising Muslims also have their priority to the Muslim World (Ummah-Nation). Thus when Muslims are being attcked in countries such as Palestine Chechniya and Kashmir (Just to name a few) it will come at no surprise that Mujahideen (freedom fighters) from all the world will fight in this cause. Yet the whole world via their media makes them look like evil people.

Words that need to be considered:

Mujahideen- Defender of the faith, not a bad thing. Please do not think of other people who claim to be mujahideen although they misinterpret the Qur-anic law and do attacks that are in a Haraam (unlawful) way.

Jihad- Another word that is often considred a bad word. Well its literally means struggle. So ofcourse a participant in a war will doing Jihad, although even praying is Jihad, giving to charity can be considered as a Jihad. Being a good person is even considered to be a innner Jihad.

My point being is that these are two words that the media try to twist into evil words that Muslims must now use carefully.

The unity for what, against what??

 

Recently, there is a growing tendency in muslim countries to cconstitute a unity. Because, most of them are aware of that any of them can't develop and improve their life standards by itself. So that is the case which the unity could be gained in the long-term. Otherwise, this is the fact that brotherhood of muslims is not enough to be a unity.

On the other hand, we, muslims, confess that there have been many invasions on muslim lands for centuries . it is not only we are muslims but we dont have talented armies as well. i think it is not possible to create a tecnologically adequate armies under these conditions. So, we should be enthusiastic to improve our democracy and enable the people use it for theirselves. I mean democracy not for west, democracy for us.

Briefly, in my opinion, that is the way we can  gain the unity, I mean there should be acceptable reasons for muslim contries. That is, we should give reasons each of us to constitute a unity.

 

Edited by telvin83

Originally posted by azimuth are you sure? i dont think the pope has that much power and countries who has power are the once who decide and i dont think that any country would listen to whatever the pop think, also the more religios christans are in the poor third world countries which obviously wont afford a war with anybody.

You've obviously never been to the Philippines or Mexico. They would deploy whatever forces they had in a second if the pope said so. How about Spain, or Italy? Those people are also fanatical Catholics.

I could have sworn I've seen seen a lot of Egyptians here. Hmm. Guess I was mistaken.

Some more questions...

How did the conquered Arabs and western Persians feel about being under Turkish dominion (Seljuks, Ottomans). I have heard that Turkey of the present is not in good standing with other Muslim countries.

Also, I have been told that Egypt was once the head of the Arabic world and that it is no longer. How did this come to be?

Originally posted by azimuth yea if you read my replay just check the last bit, i said most of religios christans are in countries who are  cant afford going to war philipines and mexico are one of them, and i dont think that they will ""deploy whatever forces they had in second if the pope said so"" and i think that you are too emotional about what the Pops orders, and before people start going to kill and getting killed for the Pop, they at least should do what he says about having partners and marriage and condom usage as an example.

Just for the record, I am not Catholic. In my time in these countries, I have seen the religious fanatacism a large part of the population has, and believe me, I do not exaggerate when I say they will pick up a kitchen knife against a tank if the pope so ordered.
You remember the kidnapping of the religious officials (I forget which rank) in Iraq some time ago and the pope demanded their release? Why would members of a fanatical group heed the demands of a leader of their enemy? It is because they knew and feared this power the pope had. Anyway, let's get back to the topic.

Originally posted by azimuth i dont think they conquered Arabs and western Persia they grew as a power and when they are already there there was not any significant Arabic state to mention most of the islamic lands were ander Tukish and non Arabs so they didnt really conquer. and iam not sure but i think  at the early ruling periods People considered them selfs muslims and treated all almost equaly

Really? I was under the impression that the Turks entered these lands forcefully. I know the took Baghdad by force, and invaded Egypt many times.

Originally posted by azimuth yea turkey is not in a perfect relation with Arabic countries but i think it has good relation with other islamic countries and it starting to change to the better  its all politics nothing to do with religion. and egypt is still the head of the Arabic world , its the largest population and it is the strongest so far.

Interesting. However, why is it that Turkey is/was not on good terms with other Islamic countries?

[

Edited by aakhonba

l

Edited by aakhonba

 

s

Edited by aakhonba

My first thread already mentions that the diffrences are historic and nationalist thus the friction Turkey and the Arab nations is not due to Islam.

A Caliph is a must in the Sharia (Islamic Law) due to the ruling that for every day that a Muslim live without a Caliph then they are in sin.

The Ottomans did take Muslim lands:Correct (Although Hijaz was given to the Turks)

The Ottomans were not the perfect example of a Muslim nation so comparisions on the mistakes of the Ottomans, espeasly the later period when westernisation started is not really valid.

The unity between the Muslims is a connection less superficial then any racial conection. As a religious conection is a link on the way one leads their life by choise, unlike a connection that you have by birth (although this does have an importance). This unity will not be for a alternate motive as you may think Telvin.

Ottomans used the sectial unity to unite all Muslims easily like Seljuks. They became officially Sunnites to have stronger political and social power in middle east, and to hold on those lands by unifying with the local population, Arabs (Islamism). But when they realized they cannot unite Arabs even in terms of religion in the later Ottoman period, they used nationalism and nation state mentalities to unite the Turkish population.

Muslims arent like Christians. Christians have a common historical and original past (Rome, all IE, Germanic and Hellenic people etc.). But middle east is like a fashion platform, it has people from even different races. And we have no common origins.

Islamic unity is impossible. That has been tried hundreds of times in history but couldnt succeed. Islamic world owns nations from lots of different origins, cultures and sects. And middle east is like the prototype of differences btw Islamic nations. We have Semites (mostly Arabs), the local civilization of most of middle east and mesopotamia, the defender and expanders of Sunnite Islam. We have Iranians, Persians who are IE and who have a totally different historical background, religional past in middle east. And they are mostly Shiites. And we have Turks, Turkmens, Azeris, people from Altaic origins, mostly Sunnite but lots of different points on Islam, their different sects (Bektashi Kizilbash, Alevi etc.) and their ancient religious past. Three main nations of middle east, and of Islam. They cannot unify, that is certain.

A Caliph is a Sunnite figure of Islam, and Sheriah cant be a possible way of unifying Muslims. Do you want us to be the same with Iran or any other Islamic states? I dont think so, we cant recommit our past mistakes.