Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The New Middle East

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>
Author
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The New Middle East
    Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 17:13
Turkish state: comprised of the majority Turkish areas of Turkey, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and the Muslim parts of Georgia - Ajaria and Abkhazia.
 

Levant Arab state: Comprised of Lebanon, the Arab majority areas of the West Bank, the Cheba Farms, the Golan Heights, Jordan, Syria, and the Sunni Arab parts of Iraq.

 

Peninsular Arab state: comprised of the Sunni areas of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.

 

Mesopotamian Shia Arab state: comprised of the Shia areas of southern Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula.

 

Egyptian Arab state: comprised of the Gaza Strip, Egypt, Arab parts of northern Sudan, and the Arab-majority areas of Chad.

 

Arab-Berber state: comprised of Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and Western Sahara

 

Kurdish state: comprised of Turkish Kurdistan, Syrian Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iranian Kurdistan.

 

Azeri state: comprised of Azerbaijan, and southern Azerbaijan (Azeri-majority areas of northern Iran).

 

Persian state: comprised of Persian-majority areas of Iran, i.e. Esfahan, Kerman, Yazd, Khorasan, Fars, etc., and other smaller non-Persian populations, i.e. Khuzestan, Lorestan, Mazandaran, etc.

 

Afghan (Pashtun) state: comprised of the Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan, the Pashtun areas of Pakistan (Federally Administered Tribal Areas, North West Frontier Province, Baluchistan), and Iranian Baluchistan.

 

Tajik state: comprised of Tajikistan, Tajik areas of northern Afghanistan (especially the Panjshir Valley), Tajik areas of southwestern Afghanistan (Herat), and the Tajik areas of Uzbekistan.

 

Pakistan: comprised of West Panjab, Sindh, and Kashmir

 

Western Turkistan state: Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmen and Uzbek areas of Iran and Afghanistan.

 

This is all hypothetical of course, but do you all feel that this would help lessen the conflicts and rivalries in the Middle East? The current borders were drawn up by Western European colonial powers who drew lines in the sand and separated families and tribes creating new conflicts and capitalizing on old ones.
 
And of course, in Islam, remember that "there shall be no borders between Muslims."
 
*btw: I know there are some discrepancies here, i.e. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ajaria, Abkhazia, North Africa, and Central Asia are not in the Middle East, please overlook this.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 17:43
One could just imagine the effects your land distribution would have in the middle east. The effect it would have on our members is something for Historical Amusement.

Moved.
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 18:10
The only solution for the Middle East is for all the Muslim lands to be reunified again. All the other divisions are just false and don't lead to a solution, but just to new problems.

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: "My nation is a unique nation, their lands are one, their war is one and their peace is one".

Even if disunity exists today, it is mostly by the force of the rulers who are Western puppets. It is not because divisions amongst the people themselves. When the aid from the West slows down and those puppet governments can no longer protect themselves from their peoples, then the Muslims will return back to their natural state, unified together.

Just go to any Middle Eastern country, and look at the military situation there. The soldiers are there to protect the rulers from the people, who reject them. Egypt is USA's second largest recipient of foriegn aid, and almost all of it is used to point guns at the civilian population, not at the external enemies of the Egyptian people. Walk down the streets of Cairo and see the countless soldiers standing in gun towers, overlooking the civilian population. Or look at the huge number of troops stationed outside mosques every friday afternoon (when the congregational prayer happens), and you'll see the signs of the Muslim's desire for unity is everywhere.

The USA speaks about democracy in Middle East, but in reality would never want it. Because if the people there had a real choice, they'd reject everything that's in America's interests. Therefore it's quite suitable for the Middle East to be under authoritarian dictatorships.
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 20:27

Qutuz,

That is a very noble cause, to unify the Ummah, however I disagree with you in that it will bring about any lasting peace. Due to various factors outside of Islam, such as nationalism, tribal rivalries, historical distrust, economic resources, religious interpretation etc., it is not a very plausible solution. A better solution is the one I have proposed, in which the borders are defined along linguistic, ethnic, and cultural divides.

Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Nov-2006 at 22:57
That is a very noble cause, to unify the Ummah, however I disagree with you in that it will bring about any lasting peace.


Well, we wouldn't do it on the basis of it bringing peace, we'd do it on the basis of following our religion and its commandments. The results come from Allah (the almighty) not from our efforts.

Due to various factors outside of Islam, such as nationalism, tribal rivalries


These are in fact the same thing (known as asabiyah in Islamic texts) and they are in fact victims of unity. So as Muslims work to unify, such  weak and backward ways of thinking like nationalism and tribalism will vanish, as they did before. Muslims lived for the past 1350 years without nationalism/tribalism.

So this point is invalid. Also its been obvious over the past 50-80 years that the nationalist states have been in existence in the Muslim lands, that the rulers there have had to work very hard to incite the "nationalist fervour" in the people. Once their influence is gone, so too would the rotten nationalism.

historical distrust


Between who?

Sunnah and Shi'a? When I speak about unification of the Muslims into one land, it obviously wouldn't include the Shi'a, as it didn't under the Ottoman state either. They had their own state in Persia, as they do today.

economic resources


Come on, these abound in the Islamic lands.

religious interpretation etc.


This is a fairly recent invention, and is mostly the work of the rulers who now dominate our scholarly insitutions (like al-azhar dominated by the egyptian government, and promoting divisive ideas). So again, invalid point. Such perceived problems would disappear with the corrupt rulers who invent them.
Back to Top
shayan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote shayan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 10:40
I don't like it... Iran should stay one... the same as it is today... with Persians, Azeris and Kurds,,, afterall we are all from one origin and very much mixed... specially Azeris and Persians are mixed....
Iran parast
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 11:14
Looks like some of you like to divide the lands on ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural lines. I'm getting blurred vision just thinking about it.
Qutuz, since you are a proponent of an Islamic empire why did you exclude the Shi'a? Or don't you consider them muslims? How did you come about such a decision? Whose ideology of Sharia would you govern this empire with? Don't tell from just regulations of the Quran, cause I know your understanding of it is based on heresay from various unfounded hadith. Would you also have a Caliph?
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Suspended
Suspended

Suspended

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1929
  Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 12:40
You have not metioned Israel- In your new middle east, what would happen to that nation?
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 12:59
Very good observation.
    

Edited by Seko - 10-Nov-2006 at 12:59
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
  Quote mamikon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 13:11
I think he is only concerned about muslims...in his warped idea of the ME there are no jews or christians

Edited by mamikon - 10-Nov-2006 at 13:12
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 13:46
Seko,

Qutuz, since you are a proponent of an Islamic empire why did you exclude the Shi'a?


As I mentioned for the last probably 500 years they had their own seperate state anyway, due to the fact their beliefs diverged too far from the mainstream of the Muslim Ummah (ie. Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jum'ah). Therefore bringing them into the rule of Islam is not a priority, but it would happen I guess. Like the Ottomans, they preferred to expand westward, but would also move into Safawi territory whenever they caused too much problems.

Or don't you consider them muslims? How did you come about such a decision?


I consider them like you. People who've fallen into a distorted vision of the deen due to a lack of knowledge about it.

Whose ideology of Sharia would you govern this empire with? Don't tell from just regulations of the Quran, cause I know your understanding of it is based on heresay from various unfounded hadith.


Personally, I follow the Shafi' madhab, so if it were me personally, I'd implement the Shafi' fiqh (what you mean is fiqh not ideology). But it wouldn't really matter which of the 4 codes of fiqh were followed as all of them are equally valid. For instance under the Ottomans Hanafi Fiqh was implemented, and that's perfectly fine. Not the great conundrum you (and others) claim it to be.

Would you also have a Caliph?


Of course, this is, as I've explained to you in other threads (as well as provided you with ample evidence) compulsory in Islam.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 13:53
You seem to be remain obstinate and stubborn insisting that the Caliph is Islamic after refutation of your claims via the Quran. But you can believe in any form of Islam you like, that is your right.

I could give you a hundred contradictions from the hadith of Bukhari and Malik but you would still stick to your schools of thought. Had I not seen such contradictions then maybe I would have been just one of the sheep too.
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 13:55
Earl,

You have not metioned Israel- In your new middle east, what would happen to that nation?


To 99% of the Middle East, Israel is not really considered to be a valid entity. It was implanted into the region against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people and it sits there like an outpost of a foriegn and unnatural presence in a region in which it doesn't belong.

The analogy of Israel is like that of an oil rig in the middle of the ocean. Whilst her manufacturers visit her and maintain her and have a need for her services in the middle of the ocean, she will stand, but as soon as they neglect her for a short time, the overwhelming current of the oceans will wash her away.

mamikon,

I think he is only concerned about muslims...in his warped idea of the ME there are no jews or christians


Muslims have had no problem living with Jews and Christians in the Middle East for 1400 years. The problem began when the Western nations began mass importing large amounts of foriegn Jews into the region and set up and artificial state in a region in which they were previously less than 2% of the population. Can you imagine a people who are less than 2% of your country's population being handed over your state and you become a refugee overnight? Whilst they begin to flood into your country to try and saturate the population?
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:01
after refutation of your claims via the Quran


You didn't refute anything. all your argument consisted of, was a denial of the hadith (which almost every single member of the Sunnah community unanimously accept) and therefore a claim it doesn't exist as it's only in the hadith, which you deny.

Even though I brought you a verse in which Allah (swt) clearly speaks about a Khaleefah, and Imam Qurturbi (one of the most respected scholars of Qur'an in our history, unanimously agreed upon by all sides of the Sunnah spectrum, sufis, salafis, ikhwanis, tablighis whoever) who said this verse refers to the Islamic duty to establish a Caliphate, yet you still rejected it. All I can gather from your posts so far, is that you do a lot of rejecting.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:12
My dear fellow 'muslim' you were given numerous chances to either accept or refute your claim about your so-called Caliph being mentioned in the Quran. Instead you give my hadith. I did not make the claim. You did. And you failed to provide the exact verses from the Quran. Your statement about this is as clear as day. Its on record. You can realize your mistake and take back your false claim or stick to insisting on what you were taught by jurists and scholars from your sources. What you decide is certainly your choice.
    
    

Edited by Seko - 10-Nov-2006 at 14:13
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:24

Okay, so all the countries who are to be broken up will just sit back and let that happen? No, even if all of them were for the sake of argument, "artificial", they are tangible entities on the ground. Their existance, gives them a certain legitamacy, and any attempt to break them will be resisted.

Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:54
Originally posted by Earl Aster

You have not metioned Israel- In your new middle east, what would happen to that nation?
 
I didn't mention Israel because it is not an Islamic country.
 
If you read the post thoroughly, I stated that the "Arab-majority areas of the West Bank" would go to the new Levant Arabs state, and the Gaza Strip would be ceded to the Egyptian Arab state.
 
I was inferring here that all of modern-day Israel, along with some large Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and Jewish West Jerusalem would become part of Israel.
 
And I didn't say as much, but I thought that I had also implied that there would be PEACE WITH ISRAEL! The Arabs and Islamic world MUST MAKE PEACE WITH ISRAEL and recognize her right to exist.Smile
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 14:58
Originally posted by mamikon

I think he is only concerned about muslims...in his warped idea of the ME there are no jews or christians
 
Uhhhh ... How about an astounding NO!
 
If I wanted that, then why did I state that ONLY THE ARAB-MAJORITY AREAS of the West Bank would be ceded to the new Levant Arab state and the Gaza Strip would be ceded to the new Egyptian Arab state, huh????
 
Obviously, this implies that Israel would continue to exist and not only in her current borders, but she would be able to retain the Jewish-majority areas of the West Bank and Jerusalem.
 
Back to Top
The Grim Reaper View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 08-Nov-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 136
  Quote The Grim Reaper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 15:11
Originally posted by Sparten

Okay, so all the countries who are to be broken up will just sit back and let that happen? No, even if all of them were for the sake of argument, "artificial", they are tangible entities on the ground. Their existance, gives them a certain legitamacy, and any attempt to break them will be resisted.

 
I think I stated that this was all "hypothetical" and it is based on the premise the borders were defined by external powers and hence, could be just as easily redefined by external powers.
Back to Top
Qutuz View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 19-Oct-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 85
  Quote Qutuz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Nov-2006 at 17:41
Seko,

I am continuing in the abolition of Caliphate thread.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 5>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.