NationStates Jolt Archive

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

Yes. Very good. You want a great alliance of righteous Muslim nations to crush Israel, the US and the West. We know. Good for you.

Yes. Very good. You want a great alliance of righteous Muslim nations to crush Israel, the US and the West. We know. Good for you.

No, I was asking if people thought a unitary Islamic would be good for the Arabs, there's no need to be racist or against their religion because you don't share it.

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.

No, I was asking if people thought a unitary Islamic would be good for the Arabs, there's no need to be racist or against their religion because you don't share it.

Muslims are the most rascist people on earth, lok what they do to negoes in darfur,

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.

My God - it's an idiot

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?


That is Usama Bin Laden's expressely stated goal. Would it be good for Muslims? If living under strict Sharia law is good for them then yes. If it's good to have women stoned to death because they were raped, then yes. If it's good to have all the Israelis killed and the areas of Europe that were once occupied by Muslims taken again, then yes.

What is wrong with banding together in a secular union rather than an Islamic one? That might not be nearly the nightmare that a new Caliphate would be.

If you study history as you say you do, you should know that those who fail to learn from said study are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Think on that a bit.

Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

Yeah, but who gets to be the caliph? The caliphs were not decided in a democratic way. Caliphs typically engaged in internecine wars and assassinations etc to get to and keep themselves in power.

It is difficult to see a return to those days. Why woud the entrenched power elites in the different Arab states give up their power?

Maybe if the "Mahdi" comes back and establishes a caliphate. But then sunnis who form the majority of Arabs, don't believe in the Mahdi.

Btw, You should look into the Kilafat movement of 1919. It is an interesting phenomenon.

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

Do you know why there are Sunnis and Shiite's?

Disagreement on who gets to be caliphs.

Do you know that there are Abbasids and Corduba Caliphates?

Secession and what not.

So in the end they could TRY to make this work, alas, old tribal grudges, sect differences among others would certainly make this difficult.

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.

Bwhahahahah third post huh! Say you're.....not.....American are you?


Really though I don't wether to laugh of cry, do you not comprehend ultimate conclusion of engageing in a nukular war?

kill the infidels

Muslims are the most rascist people on earth, lok what they do to negoes in darfur,

Heheh and it continues! So Muslims are the most racist people, yet you feel nothing about using the word negro? What are you stuck in the 30's or summit?

My God - it's an idiot

we should nuke you

we should nuke you

But I live next door to you

Yes. Very good. You want a great alliance of righteous Muslim nations to crush Israel, the US and the West. We know. Good for you.

Nuke islam

Heheh and it continues! So Muslims are the most racist people, yet you feel nothing about using the word negro? What are you stuck in the 30's or summit?

I was thinking about that too, but I thought it was too obvious.

And why must some of the muslim defenders act like something that came out on an 80's cartoon show?

Nuke islam

Heh shit for brains huh? Now we have Mulsims worldwide, so I guess in order to nuke islam, then we would have to nuke everywhere that Mulsims were. Damn me goodbye world, it aint been so bad.

So Muslims are the most racist people, yet you feel nothing about using the word negro? What are you stuck in the 30's or summit?

The word Negro is about as racist as the word Caucasian.

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.

Muslims are the most rascist people on earth, lok what they do to negoes in darfur,

kill the infidels

Nuke islam

Wow... new trolls certainly lack eloquence. They don't even try and hide their bigotry under a guise any more.

Wow... new trolls certainly lack eloquence. They don't even try and hide their bigotry under a guise any more.

They're either trolls, or bigots. They can't be both.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

Caliphate=theocracy. Imo, theocracy doesn't work very well - usually, it is so reactionary that most social and scientifical progress becomes hindered, although I have to admit that the First Caliphate saw a huge developement in science and culture.

Maybe, a loose trade union, on the model of the EEC, could be ideal.

The word Negro is about as racist as the word Caucasian.

Ohhh really? I suggest you try using it to your actual black man, yeah go ahead and do just that.

Yeah, but who gets to be the caliph? The caliphs were not decided in a democratic way. Caliphs typically engaged in internecine wars and assassinations etc to get to and keep themselves in power.

It is difficult to see a return to those days. Why woud the entrenched power elites in the different Arab states give up their power?

Maybe if the "Mahdi" comes back and establishes a caliphate. But then sunnis who form the majority of Arabs, don't believe in the Mahdi.

Btw, You should look into the Kilafat movement of 1919. It is an interesting phenomenon.

The caliph would be the descendant of Muhammad I spose, but I was not referring to it that specifically.

Wow... new trolls certainly lack eloquence. They don't even try and hide their bigotry under a guise any more.

Tell me about it, look how they ambushed this thread.

They're either trolls, or bigots. They can't be both.

They can be both. It's not hard.

What eloquence! Nuke islam, kill arabs, such thought provoking replies!

Far be it for me to expect sensible replies, albeit ones a big more intelligent than saying all Arabs still live in sand huts.

Granted, I don't live in the Middle East and most of my knowledge about the politics there comes from TV programs like Dateline, Foreign Correspondent and Cutting Edge - but it seems to me like most Arabs aren't particularly keen on changing the world, they just want their own governments to work properly and democratically.

So a Caliphate would lose any competition against simply clean, transparent and competent democratic national governments in the Middle East. The latter would also be a much more realistic goal to work towards.

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.

Hey, I thought we Europeans were the enemy, and you were to incite secessions and wars in the Balkans if we try to unite. Oh, wait, already done...:p

What eloquence! Nuke islam, kill arabs, such thought provoking replies!

Far be it for me to expect sensible replies, albeit ones a big more intelligent than saying all Arabs still live in sand huts.

Heh how does one make a hut out of sand?

Caliphate=theocracy. Imo, theocracy doesn't work very well - usually, it is so reactionary that most social and scientifical progress becomes hindered, although I have to admit that the First Caliphate saw a huge developement in science and culture.

Maybe, a loose trade union, on the model of the EEC, could be ideal.

Indeed, algebra and numeracy.

Caliphate=theocracy. Imo, theocracy doesn't work very well - usually, it is so reactionary that most social and scientifical progress becomes hindered, although I have to admit that the First Caliphate saw a huge developement in science and culture.

Maybe, a loose trade union, on the model of the EEC, could be ideal.
Theocracy works fine if the leaders are forward thinking, but often they are just old and angry and the past going away.

They're either trolls, or bigots. They can't be both.

They can however, be idiots. Trolls and bigots both come in that flavor.

Heh how does one make a hut out of sand?
they add something called concrete to the sand. ;)

a unified... Governing body would be difficult to form. unless they can either manage to put aside their differences or one group totally wipes out the other.

The only other way would be each group would run their own faction and they would then work together as a unifed body.

Ohhh really? I suggest you try using it to your actual black man, yeah go ahead and do just that.

I don't give a fuck what they think. Negroid and Caucasoid are both equally offensive terms, and either Negro isn't racist or Caucasian is.

Right, from now on, I'm punching out anybody who calls me Caucasian.

Indeed, algebra and numeracy.

Algebra came from Babylon.

Which is where present day Iraq would be. Are you saying Iraqis aren't Arabian?

Which is where present day Iraq would be. Are you saying Iraqis aren't Arabian?

I'm saying that algebra didn't come from the Caliphate.

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

I doubt it. Look at the intrafaith warfare going on in Darfur and Iraq, with different factions of Muslims slaughtering other factions of Muslims. If they ever united, then this might be possible... but at the moment, in the most simplistic terms, you have a massive internal power struggle going on as well as the disruption caused by extremists waging war against non-Muslims.

The base of it, sure. No argument from me over that. The word Algebra, however, and it's present day form are from said Caliphate.

I don't give a fuck what they think. Negroid and Caucasoid are both equally offensive terms, and either Negro isn't racist or Caucasian is.

Right, from now on, I'm punching out anybody who calls me Caucasian.

ohhh I see, sweet, then you'll be out tonight fighting the police?

I love your persuasive arguments though, they really show what an intelgent chap you are. However I am having problems with how the fact that you 'don't give a fuck what they think' shows how objectivly correct you are and how objectivly incorrect 'they' are?

Wow... new trolls certainly lack eloquence. They don't even try and hide their bigotry under a guise any more.

Make that NEW TROLL.

Using multiple puppets to prop up your argument is BAD FORM.

Short Answer: Theocracy=Bad, mkay?

Long Answer: It's a terrible idea. Firstly, a theocracy would screw over the rights of women and homosexuals (and probably non-Muslims). Secondly, there's no heir to Mohammed so the Shi'a won't join in, and there's a huge theological and political disparity between the Sunni countries: compare the fierce secularism of Turkey to the fanatical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Thirdly, I doubt that relatively rich countries like Dubai would want to end up subsidising the more empoverished Muslim nations so they'd be out.

Short Answer: Theocracy=Bad, mkay?

Long Answer: It's a terrible idea. Firstly, a theocracy would screw over the rights of women and homosexuals (and probably non-Muslims). Secondly, there's no heir to Mohammed so the Shi'a won't join in, and there's a huge theological and political disparity between the Sunni countries: compare the fierce secularism of Turkey to the fanatical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Thirdly, I doubt that relatively rich countries like Dubai would want to end up subsidising the more empoverished Muslim nations so they'd be out.

I agree, the seperation of religion and state is a must. Shit I'm a religious person myself, and yet I would rather see an Atheist Prime Minister.

Make that NEW TROLL.

Using multiple puppets to prop up your argument is BAD FORM.

and is this new troll now dubbed "Kat's Personal Scratching Post"? :D

I don't give a fuck what they think. Negroid and Caucasoid are both equally offensive terms, and either Negro isn't racist or Caucasian is.

Right, from now on, I'm punching out anybody who calls me Caucasian.

How unnecessarily violent.

Sure both terms are equally as racist but to say you're going to punch someone for calling you "Caucasian" doesn't really help matters.

Make that NEW TROLL.

Using multiple puppets to prop up your argument is BAD FORM.

Troll, trolls... they're like gremlins. It starts off with one then rapidly multiplies.

they add something called concrete to the sand. ;)



Ohhh thats cheating that is. Say I wonder if that is where the expression cheating Arab come from?

I agree, the seperation of religion and state is a must. Shit I'm a religious person myself, and yet I would rather see an Atheist Prime Minister.

I don't mind if the PM's religious as long as they don't abuse their position. *cough*Blair*cough*

I don't mind if the PM's religious as long as they don't abuse their position. *cough*Blair*cough*

Yeah which is why I say i'd prefer an Atheist. At leats that way any laws regarding religoin will be equal, and all faith would be on an equal footing.

Better keep them divided. There's hardly any power on this globe that could take on a unified Arab world, honestly. I think that'll do to the world what the unification of Germany did to Europe (WW1 & 2). Look at the demographic, ideologic and economic (oil) resources such a nation could tap into, plus comes the initial euphoric boost about unification.

I fear that day. The world would never be the same again (although Asia and America would perhaps go mostly unharmed)

I think that'll do to the world what the unification of Germany did to Europe (WW1 & 2).

Germany and the Arab world are two COMPLETELY different things.

Troll, trolls... they're like gremlins. It starts off with one then rapidly multiplies.

Hear that, people? Don't feed the trolls, especially after midnight! :D

Hear that, people? Don't feed the trolls, especially after midnight! :D

And never NEVER get them wet.

They are the enemy, if they try to united we should nuke them.I see.

And never NEVER get them wet.

Right, forgot about that. :p

Maybe, a loose trade union, on the model of the EEC, could be ideal.YEAH.. or a confederation.
and why not a federation, something like "the United States of Islam" or the "United Muslim States"

YEAH.. or a confederation.
and why not a federation, something like "the United States of Islam" or the "United Muslim States"

They had one of those. It was called the United Arab Republic. It consisted of Egypt and Syria. It failed miserably.

I don't give a fuck what they think. Negroid and Caucasoid are both equally offensive terms, and either Negro isn't racist or Caucasian is.

Right, from now on, I'm punching out anybody who calls me Caucasian.I'm saying that algebra didn't come from the Caliphate.I think you invented Algebra :D

and why not a federation, something like "the United States of Islam" or the "United Muslim States"

Because they're not united: Lebanon hates Syria, Iraq hates Iran...

Because they're not united: Lebanon hates Syria, Iraq hates Iran...
Tennessee hates New York, Texas hates California....

They had one of those. It was called the United Arab Republic. It consisted of Egypt and Syria. It failed miserably.Egypt and Syria?
Thats like saying the USA should be made of the West Coast plus Texas.

Better keep them divided. There's hardly any power on this globe that could take on a unified Arab world, honestly. I think that'll do to the world what the unification of Germany did to Europe (WW1 & 2). Look at the demographic, ideologic and economic (oil) resources such a nation could tap into, plus comes the initial euphoric boost about unification.

I fear that day. The world would never be the same again (although Asia and America would perhaps go mostly unharmed)

I'm not convinced. The Middle East's wealth is severely dependent on oil and fossil fuels so their economic power isn't sustainable. The combined GNP of every Arab country in the Middle East, excluding revenue from fossil fuels, is less than that of Finland (population: 5 million). Combined with the poor state of research in Middle Eastern Universities, I can't see a United Middle East (now there's an oxymoron) being able to match the US or the EU.

Granted, I don't live in the Middle East and most of my knowledge about the politics there comes from TV programs like Dateline, Foreign Correspondent and Cutting Edge - but it seems to me like most Arabs aren't particularly keen on changing the world, they just want their own governments to work properly and democratically.

So a Caliphate would lose any competition against simply clean, transparent and competent democratic national governments in the Middle East. The latter would also be a much more realistic goal to work towards.

You are right. I believe the average Muslim in the middle east and beyond just wants to live a regular life. There is a percentage however that are spoilers. Only real freedom will stop this I believe. With that said real freedom is very difficult to come by in the middle east because of the religion. If the religion was reformed in a way to allow for differing opinion then that would be the biggest step to solving the problems today.

Egypt and Syria?
Thats like saying the USA should be made of the West Coast plus Texas.

Egypt + Syria = miserable failure
Egypt + Syria + Iran + Iraq + SA + Jordan + Lebanon + everyone else = greatest success story evar!

Wonderful logic.

Tennessee hates New York, Texas hates California....

Do you honestly think they're comparable? Has Tennessee been occupied and de facto ruled by New York for 29 years, with the occupation ending only a few years ago? Have Texas and California fought a bloody eight year war within the last few decades?

Do you honestly think they're comparable? Has Tennessee been occupied and de facto by New York for 29 years, with the occupation ending only a few years ago? Have Texas and California fought a bloody eight year war within the last few decades?
And why do you think those things happened? Idealogical and philosophical differences on a grand scale. That is the main problem in the Middle East, the theocracies arn't compatible because of the two branches of Islam.

Because they're not united...that should be their problem.

I say we should stay away from their affairs, we don't need to have anyone (like the CIA) trying to "help things out"..
Better keep them divided. There's hardly any power on this globe that could take on a unified Arab world, honestly. I think that'll do to the world what the unification of Germany did to Europe (WW1 & 2). Look at the demographic, ideologic and economic (oil) resources such a nation could tap into, plus comes the initial euphoric boost about unification.

I fear that day. The world would never be the same again (although Asia and America would perhaps go mostly unharmed)hmm.. Germany re-unified lately.. are you saying we are in danger?

unification made the USA a big resourceful Country.. should the World fight the USA until the USA dis-assembles?

And why do you think those things happened? Idealogical and philosophical differences on a grand scale. That is the main problem in the Middle East, the theocracies arn't compatible because of the two branches of Islam.

Wait, so are you agreeing that a pan-Islamic state wouldn't work? :confused:

Oh, and the Iran-Iraq war was largely over oil.

Because they're not united: Lebanon hates Syria, Iraq hates Iran...

Hey, if Europe could do it, anyone can.

Hey, if Europe could do it, anyone can.

Europe didn't do it. I believe there is still a Germany, France, Italy, UK...

that should be their problem.

They're not united and they don't want to be united: I don't see a problem.

Wait, so are you agreeing that a pan-Islamic state wouldn't work? :confused:I think he is saying "its up to them to try it" ... "good luck."

as opposite to "Oh my God, we must nuke them"

whats up with all the trollish people on this thread??

and they're all new people......did all these people join NSG while I was sleeping last night??

They're not united .true

they don't want to be united.RLI massive mind reading powers strike again :D

Hey, if Europe could do it, anyone can.

Europe isn't a state, it's a loose conglomerate of nations with broadly similar interests. The divide between Catholics and Protestants in Europe is nothing like the Sunni Shi'a split in the Middle East, and every member of the EU is democracic, which makes it easier to make alliances and treaties.

whats up with all the trollish people on this thread??

and they're all new people......did all these people join NSG while I was sleeping last night??

No, it's just one person with too much time on their hands and will have more once the Kat has shredded her new post. :)

RLI massive mind reading powers strike again :D

Tell you what, why don't you go to Lebanon and suggest that they unite with Syria; then go to Iraq and suggest that they unite with Iran. After you've had your limbs reattached, come back here and tell me what they think. ;)

Europe didn't do it. I believe there is still a Germany, France, Italy, UK...

Yes and they're all part of something called the EU. :headbang:


I for 1 look foreword to a unified ME. Last time it happened, the world saw a civilization not seen sense the hight of Rome.

whats up with all the trollish people on this thread??

and they're all new people......did all these people join NSG while I was sleeping last night??

One person joined and then mitosis did its work.

I'm not convinced. The Middle East's wealth is severely dependent on oil and fossil fuels so their economic power isn't sustainable. The combined GNP of every Arab country in the Middle East, excluding revenue from fossil fuels, is less than that of Finland (population: 5 million). Combined with the poor state of research in Middle Eastern Universities, I can't see a United Middle East (now there's an oxymoron) being able to match the US or the EU.

Well, the UAE (especially Dubai) is gearing up to change to service industry as well as becoming one of the world's most important trading node.

I guess they do know that the world's dependency on oil isn't going to last and if more Arab states uses their oil based economy to support building new infrastructures for service based industry, it could prove to be a force to be reckoned with.

Yes and they're all part of something called the EU. :headbang:

The EU is a trade and customs union at best. It's not a state. It's not a nation. It's an organisation.

The Middle East already has one of those. It's called the Arab League. It's activities usually involve telling small European nations to arrest it's citizens who insult Islam.

I for 1 look foreword to a unified ME. Last time it happened, the world saw a civilization not seen sense the hight of Rome.

What, the Ottoman Empire? We should be thanking our lucky stars for a man named Jan III Sobieski.

Tell you what, why don't you go to Lebanon and suggest that they unite with Syria; then go to Iraq and suggest that they unite with Iran.RLI sends a western(white) man.. to ask (tru an interpreter) a dozen Iraqis (inside the green zone) what do they think about pan-arab Unification.

RLI fantastic polling methods are a sure way to know what hundreds of millions think.. almost as fantastic as his massive mind reading super powers :D

RLI sends a western(white) man.. to ask (tru an interpreter) a dozen Iraqis (inside the green zone) what do they think about pan-arab Unification.

RLI fantastic polling methods are a sure way to know what hundreds of millions think.. almost as fantastic as his massive mind reading super powers :D

:confused:

Well, the UAE (especially Dubai) is gearing up to change to service industry as well as becoming one of the world's most important trading node.

I guess they do know that the world's dependency on oil isn't going to last and if more Arab states uses their oil based economy to support building new infrastructures for service based industry, it could prove to be a force to be reckoned with.

The problem is that many Arab states are dictatorships of one kind or another, and most of the oil revenues go directly into the pockets of a few very rich people, the obscene wealth of the Saudi monarchy being the best example. After oil peaks, the price is going to rise dramatically and so oil revenues will continue to keep the rulers rich, what do they care if the rest of the economy goes down the drain? They'll still be swimming in petrodollars.

yet you feel nothing about using the word negro? What are you stuck in the 30's or summit?

Four words for you: United Negro College Fund.

I for 1 look foreword to a unified ME. Last time it happened, the world saw a civilization not seen sense the hight of Rome.

Yes, and Europe saw it rather too close for comfort.

The last time that the Arab people united was when they decided to wipe out Isreal, and have yet to acomplish that goal. I hope they never unite because they would be the driving force behind a huge war. That would be bad

:sniper:

Tennessee hates New York, Texas hates California....

??They do? news to me.

The base of it, sure. No argument from me over that. The word Algebra, however, and it's present day form are from said Caliphate.

Actually, not quite true. While the Caliphate disseminated both Algebra and what we call Arabic numerals, and named them, they didn't create them. Both were actually developed in northern India.

However, the First Caliphate was responsible for some dramatic improvements in our understanding of Geometry, Engineering, Medicine, most of the early modern theories of history and historic analysis, and early social engineering concepts.

Unfortunately, any new such pan-Arab state could not be a true Caliphate. As far as I know, no direct descendents of either Ali or the Prophet are alive.

The problem is that many Arab states are dictatorships of one kind or another, and most of the oil revenues go directly into the pockets of a few very rich people, the obscene wealth of the Saudi monarchy being the best example. After oil peaks, the price is going to rise dramatically and so oil revenues will continue to keep the rulers rich, what do they care if the rest of the economy goes down the drain? They'll still be swimming in petrodollars.

Yes, that is true. It's is based on old tribe monarchism, which of course, don't want the caliphate system to return anyways.

So, on the topic, it's really hard to return the caliphate system, the Muslim world is now too fragmented to have one singular leader (you should know that the caliphate concept is a leader of all Muslims in the world, sort of like a Pope with executive powers).

I'd guess that many of the ME nations would want a Caliphate - they just disagree on who should be in charge. Violently!

Meh. Bring back the Ottomans. They managed to be the lesser of a great many evils for a few centuries.

Meh. Bring back the Ottomans. They managed to be the lesser of a great many evils for a few centuries.

Actually, they probably WERE the evil. What with the invasion of Europe and all.

Actually, they probably WERE the evil. What with the invasion of Europe and all.

Those invasions probably had some impact on weakening the powers of the Roman Catholic Church at that time, so,....

Meh. Bring back the Ottomans. They managed to be the lesser of a great many evils for a few centuries.

man, the ottomans committed genocide against the armenians in world war I. So much for managing to be the lesser of the great many evils

Those invasions probably had some impact on weakening the powers of the Roman Catholic Church at that time, so,....

So one religion gets weaker, while the other conquers Europe? Yeah, that's real great.

Yeah, Caliphate...

Then we can all get to experience some of this:

Since my reporting of the massacre at the al Hamari village, many readers at home have asked how anyone can know that al Qaeda actually performed the massacre. The question is a very good one, and one that I posed from the first hour to Iraqis and Americans while trying to ascertain facts about the killings.

No one can claim with certainty that it was al Qaeda, but the Iraqis here seem convinced of it. At a meeting today in Baqubah one Iraqi official I spoke with framed the al Qaeda infiltration and influence in the province. Although he spoke freely before a group of Iraqi and American commanders, including Staff Major General Abdul Kareem al Robai who commands Iraqi forces in Diyala, and LTC Fred Johnson, the deputy commander of 3-2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team, the Iraqi official asked that I withhold his identity from publication. His opinion, shared by others present, is that al Qaeda came to Baqubah and united many of the otherwise independent criminal gangs.

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

Link ('http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm')

Oh of course, we forgot, all Muslims and Arabic people are terrorists. How silly of us.


Good job, you showed a single extremist terrorist group is bad. While showing that they oppose both the Sunni and Shia populations. That really proves your point :rolleyes:

The truth hurts, doesn't it?
No, other people's blatant and obvious stupidity hurts my head.
You, sirrah, are giving me a migraine.

Oh of course, we forgot, all Muslims and Arabic people are terrorists. How silly of us.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Sure if the Muslims could manage it, remorming the Caliphate would be a great thing and could make them a power to be reckoned with. But I don't see it ever happening, it is a glorious modern age in which nationalism reigns with many in the Middle East. No one would want to chance their nation losing power by being dicated to by a caliph from outside its borders. And who would rule and where? Sunni or Shiite? There are reasons for the division in Islam after all and I just don't see them able to put their differences aside to unite.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

:rolleyes:

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

they are not all terrorists! Most of their religion actually promotes peace, it is just that a small part can be translated wrong. It is just like people reading the bible back in 1090, they thought the bible said "go and kill some infidels!". It is like that except in modern times, and with another religion. There are also a lot of religious nutcases who believe everything about their religion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

man, the ottomans committed genocide against the armenians in world war I. So much for managing to be the lesser of the great many evils
1. I said "for a few centuries." Obviously that does not encompass the entire history of the Ottoman Empire.

2.The Three Pashas bore as much similarity to the Sultans as Hitler did to Charlemagne.
Actually, they probably WERE the evil. What with the invasion of Europe and all.

I was referring to the religious tolerance and peace in the Middle East, and the Ottoman invasions of Europe were far less brutal and destructive than the European invasions of the Americas, Africa and Asia.

they are not all terrorists! Most of their religion actually promotes peace, it is just that a small part can be translated wrong. It is just like people reading the bible back in 1090, they thought the bible said "go and kill some infidels!". It is like that except in modern times, and with another religion. There are also a lot of religious nutcases who believe everything about their religion is right, and everyone else is wrong.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/07.07.05.WhatsInAName-X.gif

If all Muslims were religious radicals that had no problem killing people, there would be alot less of you bigoted buffoons here bitching about how they are all terrorists. One would think some asshat slandering Islam, Allah, and Mohammad would be first on the target list.

There is still a transnational Islamic Identiy via the Churches / Sects of Islam, and the whole of Islam through their common laws and culture, it is not just middle eastern though it is global. The nations that exist in that area have their own common histories as far as a united empire, there are organizations, that work to form transnational cooperation in the area.

If all Muslims were religious radicals that had no problem killing people, there would be alot less of you bigoted buffoons here bitching about how they are all terrorists. One would think some asshat slandering the name of Islam, Allah, and Mohammad would be first on the target list.

All the Muslims who want the restoration of the Caliphate are by definition terrorists.

They, by their own admission, want to take over the world, and subjugate any non-Muslim.

If all Muslims were religious radicals that had no problem killing people, there would be alot less of you bigoted buffoons here bitching about how they are all terrorists. One would think some asshat slandering Islam, Allah, and Mohammad would be first on the target list.

Oh, and I'm not slandering Islam, Allah, or Mohammed.

The links I gave you were to direct reports from Iraq, not funded by any news organization (i.e., not Fox News, which you seem to read a lot now).

If all Muslims were religious radicals that had no problem killing people, there would be alot less of you bigoted buffoons here bitching about how they are all terrorists. One would think some asshat slandering Islam, Allah, and Mohammad would be first on the target list.

The phrase "you win the thread" is thrown around a lot these days, and I don't wish to cheapen your awesomeness with such an overused cliche, but man, you fucking win this thread.

All the Muslims who want the restoration of the Caliphate are by definition terrorists.

They, by their own admission, want to take over the world, and subjugate any non-Muslim.

Really, I thought being a terrorist was about being a non-uniformed irregular warrior who attacks civilian targets with the goal of spreading widespread fear for a political goal.

But I guess for you, just having a political goal is enough. THOUGHTCRIME!

Oh, and I'm not slandering Islam, Allah, or Mohammed.

The links I gave you were to direct reports from Iraq, not funded by any news organization (i.e., not Fox News, which you seem to read a lot now).
Congratulations, you found a news post about al Quaeda, a terrorist group that the very article you posted says is attacking both Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Then you go and translate a single part of it to say "This is why all Muslims are terrorists!!" Not only are you a bigot who is slandering Islam, Allah, and Mohammad, you make every intelligent person of the same religion, ethnicity, and speaking the same language as you look bad.

Oh, and I'm not slandering Islam, Allah, or Mohammed.

The links I gave you were to direct reports from Iraq, not funded by any news organization (i.e., not Fox News, which you seem to read a lot now).

I believe you earlier said that all Muslims were terrorists so I wouldn't mind knowing how you aren't slandering the religion?

Really, I thought being a terrorist was about being a non-uniformed irregular warrior who attacks civilian targets with the goal of spreading widespread fear for a political goal.

But I guess for you, just having a political goal is enough. THOUGHTCRIME!

They say it, recruit from it, and act on it. Good enough for me to shoot them where I find them.

All the Muslims who want the restoration of the Caliphate are by definition terrorists.

They, by their own admission, want to take over the world, and subjugate any non-Muslim.
Oh of course, every Muslim is a member of al Quaeda, a terrorist group that the article you quoted says is attacking both major sects of Islam with equal prejudice.

Really, I thought being a terrorist was about being a non-uniformed irregular warrior who attacks civilian targets with the goal of spreading widespread fear for a political goal.

But I guess for you, just having a political goal is enough. THOUGHTCRIME!

No, no. Terrorism is an ideology with a concrete number of followers (referred to as evil-doers) that we must fight to the end and be prepared to sacrifice anything and do away with archaic laws not fit for situations and events the Founding Fathers could never have foreseen because the destruction of two buildings and four airplanes is the worse thing to happen to this country ever. EVER!

They say it, recruit from it, and act on it.

Well you know, they recruit from the population of males, therefore men are all terrorists.

Good enough for me to shoot them where I find them.

Yeah, well that's a real high standard there.

Oh of course, every Muslim is a member of al Quaeda, a terrorist group that the article you quoted says is attacking both major sects of Islam with equal prejudice.

Haven't said every Muslim is a member of al-Qaeda.

What I HAVE said is that every Muslim who wants to restore the Caliphate is a supporter of terror, or an actual terrorist.

Make sure you read please.

I love your persuasive arguments though, they really show what an intelgent chap you are.

Heh... and you look very intelligent. How ironic ;)

What I HAVE said is that every Muslim who wants to restore the Caliphate is a supporter of terror, or an actual terrorist.

No, you said they were a terrorist. Not a supporter. A terrorist.

You also said "by definition."

I can only assume you're pulling that definition the same place you pull most of your trolling argument points - your own bloody asshole.

Haven't said every Muslim is a member of al-Qaeda.

What I HAVE said is that every Muslim who wants to restore the Caliphate is a supporter of terror, or an actual terrorist.

Make sure you read please.
You agreed when I said "Oh of course, all Muslims and Arabic people are terrorists"

Maybe you should read your own asinine, racist tripe?

No, you said they were a terrorist. Not a supporter. A terrorist.

You also said "by definition."

I can only assume you're pulling that definition the same place you pull most of your trolling argument points - your own bloody asshole.

Supporters should be shot as well.

Not every Muslim wants the Caliphate.

A terrorist by definition of the CIA, or US state department is a

Subnational who is a militant.

An unlawful combatant is someone who is a person who is not a legal combatant in regards to the rules of the war they are taking part in.

The popular term of terrorist is anyone who conducts attacks against people for a cause and is not affiliated with a governmental organization such as an intelligence service or military service which may link a nation to an attack.

Terrrorism is about recognition of the force conducting the terror act.

Terror attacks are established to attack the will of the people, and show them as defenceless.

In iraq and afghanastan in many cases they are not 'terrorist' attacks they are part of a resistance against invading NATO forces, and the topling of the legitimate (somewhat) governments in those areas by use of force in an offensive occupational war.

The way in which someone is deemed a terrorist is often how one deems the group they are assosiated with. While some organizations may veiw themselves one way, such as the Tamil Tigres in SriLanka, other governments may veiw them as terrorists, even though the other government in Sri Lanka views them as an actual entitty, in a type of civil war.

Terrorists are militants for a cause. Regardless of the semantics cast on it to aid war propaganda and lynching of innocent people.

I can only assume you're pulling that definition the same place you pull most of your trolling argument points - your own bloody asshole.

What's trolling about the truth of those who want to see the Caliphate restored?

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

You're going to tell me I made all of that up?

You're going to tell me I made all of that up?
Are you going to tell us you havn't insinuated in this very thread that all Muslims and Arabic people are terrorists? Not only insinuated but agreed when the point was addressed as absurd?

What's trolling about the truth of those who want to see the Caliphate restored?


http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm

You're going to tell me I made all of that up?

Wowie, a nice big blog that has jack shit to do with the fact that you apparently don't know the definition of a terrorist! Care to try again?

Supporters should be shot as well.


Irrelevant. A supporter is not the same as a terrorist any more than someone who supports the US invasion is the same as a soldier.


Not every Muslim wants the Caliphate.

Irrelevant. Not everyone who wants a Caliphate is a "terrorist by definition." If you get tired of getting pwned just let me know.

Wowie, a nice big blog that has jack shit to do with the fact that you apparently don't know the definition of a terrorist! Care to try again?

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate..
http://anthropik.com/wp-uploads/human-elephant-skeletons.jpg

It probably wouldn't work. Look, Sunnis and Shiites can't share a country without murdering each other, why would an alliance which would include several more sects of Islam work any better.

Look, Sunnis and Shiites can't share a country without murdering each other
It was the same for Catholics and Protestants not too long ago.

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...
Maybe you should inform the FBI about the al Queada cell hiding out in Virginia :rolleyes:

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Well, that's you gone through your usual list of irrelevant tripe. First the article that, once examined, refutes your own point.

Then the blog-posting.

Then the anecdotal evidence.

Round about now you should be going offline because you've got better things to do. Ta-ta.

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Irrelevant to the fact that wanting the Caliphate is not "by definition" terrorism.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Irrelevant.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Also irrelevant.

All the Muslims who want the restoration of the Caliphate are by definition terrorists.

They, by their own admission, want to take over the world, and subjugate any non-Muslim.

Not really. Support for a New Caliphate is largely a response to poverty, the abject failure of Arab Nationalism, and a general lack of self-esteem on a national level. In the same way that some Western conservatives look back on the first half of the twentieth century as a golden age of morality and self-responsibility while ignoring it's many faults and inequalities, so too do disenchanted Muslims look back to the golden age of the Caliphate when the Middle East was an economic, intellectual, and military powerhouse. The whole Dar al-Harb thing doesn't come into it for most of them, they've simply convinced themselves that their current problems are a result of turning away from Islam.

Naive, yes. Malevolent, no.

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Do you think that a tour of duty in a war-zone is a good way to meet a representative sample of Muslims?

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Are you remotely observing from prison?

Because, y'know, if you shoot any terrorist when you find them, and you've met so many Muslims that are all trying fervently and violently to bring back the Caliphate, and all of those are terrorists... You must have shot a lot of Muslims. Or are you a "soldier valiantly protecting our nation from terror?" Cos... even given the possibility that you've met a lot of insurgents in Iraq (which I doubt, but am will to posit the idea of), I think its pretty much accepted that the ubermilitant Iraqis are not by any means a good cross section of the sociopoliticotheocratic enigma that is Islam.

And I've met a lot of Muslims, too. In fact, most of the people I work with are Muslims, and y'know what? They don't give a damn about the Caliphate any more than you and I care about FDR. Its good history, a basis for a civilization, but they want to go back to it like the Irish want to be ruled by Brehon Law.

And I've met a lot of Muslims, too. In fact, most of the people I work with are Muslims, and y'know what? They don't give a damn about the Caliphate any more than you and I care about FDR. Its good history, a basis for a civilization, but they want to go back to it like the Irish want to be ruled by Brehon Law.Don't get these nutjobs started on FDR...

Is that something I'll only learn with experience?

Damn my newb-ery! DAMN!

Is that something I'll only learn with experience?

Damn my newb-ery! DAMN!

It's all right; you'll learn, and then you'll want to kill yourself.

It frustrates me to watch the devolution in these threads. They start with semi-legitimate questions, views, or issues, and almost inevitably turn into people having to smack down morons.

Instead of saying, "Hey, look, I think the martyr mentality frighteningly prevalent in modern, disenfranchised (not sure if that's the right word) Islam makes for a major security concern. I think that in the interests of peace, keeping a seperation between these majorly volatile factions is perhaps the safest and sanest option until the Western viewpoint can at least co-exist with the Mid-Eastern one," they say, "I don't like them, they're different and they have guns. And even if they don't have guns, we should shoot them before they get them. THEY LOOK FUNNY! KILL THEM ALL! AMERICA RULES, ISLAM SUCKS! YOU HATE AMERICA IF YOU DON'T HATE THE PEOPLE WE TELL YOU TO HATE! AAAARRRGHHH!"

Seriously! C'mon! I wish I was exaggerating even a little.

In uni at the moment I have just begun a new unit I chose in Ancient History, and rather than going and doing something mainstream like more Roman or Greek history, I took the opportunity to learn about the history of Islamic civilization, mainly wars including the Byzantine-Arab War and conquests of Syria and Persia, in what became the Islamic Caliphate.

This topic is obviously very relevant to current affairs these days and some would say relates to the Middle East today, as discussion went in our tutor, but my question today is: Do you think the Arab states today should or would form a unified Islamic Calliphate/Ummah nationstate? Obviously Nasser's dream of a nationalist pan-Arab unit went up in the smoke of those six days in june, but what are you opinions on this?

The middle east (and world) would possibly benefit greatly from the stability of a 'caliphate,' as it would allow countries there the opportunity to become developed and peaceful.

On the other hand, the middle easterners might not take advantage of their opportunities, in which case such a set up would only be an engine for further religious barbarism and tribalist garbage.

Well lets get back on topic

First of all, it's not really a requirement to be a descendent of Muhammed to be a caliph. Abu Bakr was not related by blood to Muhammed, but would have been Muhammed's father in law.

Secondly, it would be very difficult to form a united muslim world, as all the governments are corrupt and the officials are pocketing the wealth and it would be harder for them to do so in a government that is actually supposed to serve the people.

However, unity could be imposed by another (outside) force, perhaps a revolution in one of those countries. It would be necessary for that government to take out the other muslim governments. Then they could be named "caliph". Because the problem with uniting the islamic world is not so much the people, but the leaders, those leaders that are thinking only of themselves and don't give a sh** about their people. As well, it would be pretty nasty if the caliph was one of those wahabi types. To return to the glory of the past, the islamic world needs more education, not less. As well, backwards customs need to be disposed of. Libraries need to built, and treated as respectfully as mosques. Schools need to built, and boys and girls should receive the same of amount and quality of education. And of course there would be a lot of other changes to make. A new caliphate could bring in a lot of change, but ultimately, i don't think Europe and the U.S. would allow it. They wouldn't want someone else controlling all that oil would they?

So one religion gets weaker, while the other conquers Europe? Yeah, that's real great.

Would you rather stayed either illiterate or study latin and be called a heretic for saying what's in your mind instead?

I didn't say that the Turkish conquest is any less evil, than say, the Spanish Inquisition (oooh, the Reconquista didn't just slaughter Muslims in Spain but also Jews), but it provides a leverage for more rational minded people to come to power.

And, the Caliphate isn't always necessary evil. Subjugation and elimination you say? If that were the truth, you won't see any people of Jewish ancestry.

Truth : Yes, the Caliphate concept is used again and again by conservative muslim hardliners to remind them of the "good 'ol times", but again, just because some german half a century ago perversed the concept of nationalism, it doesn't mean that the concept is evil.

but again, just because some german half a century ago perversed the concept of nationalism, it doesn't mean that the concept is evil.

You're right. It's evil all on its own.

You're right. It's evil all on its own.

If you're so bent on categorizing, then, what may I ask, what do you think that is the equivalent to "all and good and covered with candy" in this world?

If you're so bent on categorizing, then, what may I ask, what do you think that is the equivalent to "all and good and covered with candy" in this world?

There are things that are absolutely horrible about the state of society. Even the so called "positives" of these things fail to come anywhere close to outweighing the good. These things include, but are not limited to, nationalism, conservativism/reactionaryism, fundamentalism, traditional masculinity and all types of bigotry. Those who subscribe to these ideas have either thought incompletely or have flawed characters.

However, there is nothing in this world, no idea, that is absolutely good. It is just those particular things that nothing good ultimately comes from.

Ok I read most of this thread but I dont have time to take in everything you all said so I may be repeating:

FIRSTLY: Please explain to me how mocking religion is racist?

1)Religion IS an opinion (or an organised collection of them), dont tell me im wrong it IS an opinion FACT. End of. hands down. FACT. (I CAN explain why but we would have to start up a new thread)

2)"Race" (a term I despise) is determined by genetic predispotsition.

3) I would like to point out to the inevitable "fucktards"* who may post after me. That racism is when you are prescribing unnessarcary hatred toward a persons genetic characteristics. Anyone who is not a shit WILL agree that individuals do NOT choose their genetic makeup and thus
ridiculing their "race" is silly because you ridiculing them for something that they cannot change regardless of their emotion towards.

4) If religion is an opinion, I think everyone who is not categorically stupid is likely to agree that opinion are CHOSEN by the individual.

5) With all the freedom of speech and other blasphemouse hippy bullshit us ungodly democratic countries revel in, we are not only allowed to voice any opinion we have, no matter what thoughtless vacuum it originated from, but we are allowed to counteract the opinions we are presented with by means of CRITICISM.

6) All those devil-worshippingly liberal ideas I mentioned before add up to what us infidels of the free world call DEMOCRACY.

7) SO to cut a long post short we can conclude that:

-Criticizing religion is something I have an inherent right to do as a supporter of democracy.

-The antithesis of this is branding me a social outcast for critising the opinion of others with whom I disagree is an infringment on both my freedom of speech and the democracy country as a whole adheres to, we call this "fascism".

--------------------------
SECONDLY

So with most of that out of the way (there could be more but it is defracting from the main issue). Here come my opinion:

The best thing the muslims can do is what Europe did, stuff their religion back into the medieval shithole they dug it up from and form a variety of small to medium sized secular states.

Its dumbass boneafide obvious to me, religion is STUPID, Europe does its best to keep it in check and geuss where the bestest most democratic, liberal, free thinking, socially progessive, technolgically advanced place to live is.

....wait for it....


thats right EUROPE!!!! wow who saw that coming? I mean yeah wearing a towel on your head while waiving an AK-47 in a shit stained desert fucking rocks, you dont even have to shave! and anyone you dont like gets decapitated, but yeah those crazy europeans liked their freedom of speech better lol, crazy huh?

However, there is nothing in this world, no idea, that is absolutely good. It is just those particular things that nothing good ultimately comes from.

This I concur.

Didn't the whole Sunni/Shia thing start because of a disagreement over who should be Caliph? Doesn't bode well for a renewed Caliphate...

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...

Why don't you come and meet my future sister in law and her family? Her father is a doctor, her mother is a family planning advocate. Both travel around the world to set up schools and hospitals. My future sister in law is studying to be a doctor (in Nevis, the lucky skunk). My brother trains engineers at a local auto parts manufacturer. Sound like, good, all-American folks, right? People doing their best to make the world a better place, etc?

Ready for the mind-fuck? They're all Muslims. These wonderful, peaceful, generous folks follow a religion you demonize. And since my brother played football in college, I'm not sure making 'All Muslims want to bring the Caliphate back' comments would be such a bright idea around him.

Didn't the whole Sunni/Shia thing start because of a disagreement over who should be Caliph? Doesn't bode well for a renewed Caliphate...

Yes it was, of followers of Ali and Hussein.

Not to mention the Abassid and the Corduba caliphates.

The Ottoman Turks themselves proclaimed caliphate-hood, though genealogically speaking it's highly doubtable.

Supporters should be shot as well.

Not every Muslim wants the Caliphate.

No, but you want to sterilize all Muslims so why the copout?

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Tell that to my many Muslim friends. :rolleyes:

No, but you (Remote Observer) want to sterilize all Muslims... Genocide..

DCD style

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/07.07.05.WhatsInAName-X.gif

Lol, look it's one of those disgruntled conservative crying because Labor is 'politically correct', lolololol

Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

When is this supposed to not crack all reading it up..?

Genocide..

DCD style

No. Genocide DCD style would involve having all Muslims in the world sodomized by AIDS carriers.

Muslims are the most rascist people on earth, lok what they do to negoes in darfur,

Both sides of that conflict are "negroes". In fact, both sides are Muslim too. Therefore your comment is both incorrect and idiotic.

Indeed, algebra and numeracy.

Both would be wrong.

Both sides of that conflict are "negroes". In fact, both sides are Muslim too. Therefore your comment is both incorrect and idiotic.

Actually, that's incorrect. Most northern Sudanese are Muslim Arabs. Most southern Sudanese are black animists and Christians (mostly the former).

Actually, that's incorrect. Most northern Sudanese are Muslim Arabs. Most southern Sudanese are black animists and Christians (mostly the former).

The current war in Sudan isn't between the North and the South, and yes, it is a black on black conflict. Even the UN defines the Janjaweed militia (the "Arabs") as "Arabic speaking African tribes". They are black.

Here is a picture of one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Darfur_report_-_Page_4_Image_1.jpg

Oh, look, he is black.

They are black.

Some of the better posts, for anyone who hasn't the time to read the whole thread:

Short Answer: Theocracy=Bad, mkay?

Long Answer: It's a terrible idea. Firstly, a theocracy would screw over the rights of women and homosexuals (and probably non-Muslims). Secondly, there's no heir to Mohammed so the Shi'a won't join in, and there's a huge theological and political disparity between the Sunni countries: compare the fierce secularism of Turkey to the fanatical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia. Thirdly, I doubt that relatively rich countries like Dubai would want to end up subsidising the more empoverished Muslim nations so they'd be out.

Better keep them divided. There's hardly any power on this globe that could take on a unified Arab world, honestly. I think that'll do to the world what the unification of Germany did to Europe (WW1 & 2). Look at the demographic, ideologic and economic (oil) resources such a nation could tap into, plus comes the initial euphoric boost about unification.

I fear that day. The world would never be the same again (although Asia and America would perhaps go mostly unharmed)

Actually, not quite true. While the Caliphate disseminated both Algebra and what we call Arabic numerals, and named them, they didn't create them. Both were actually developed in northern India.

However, the First Caliphate was responsible for some dramatic improvements in our understanding of Geometry, Engineering, Medicine, most of the early modern theories of history and historic analysis, and early social engineering concepts.

Unfortunately, any new such pan-Arab state could not be a true Caliphate. As far as I know, no direct descendents of either Ali or the Prophet are alive.

Not really. Support for a New Caliphate is largely a response to poverty, the abject failure of Arab Nationalism, and a general lack of self-esteem on a national level. In the same way that some Western conservatives look back on the first half of the twentieth century as a golden age of morality and self-responsibility while ignoring it's many faults and inequalities, so too do disenchanted Muslims look back to the golden age of the Caliphate when the Middle East was an economic, intellectual, and military powerhouse. The whole Dar al-Harb thing doesn't come into it for most of them, they've simply convinced themselves that their current problems are a result of turning away from Islam.

Naive, yes. Malevolent, no.

*...*

And I've met a lot of Muslims, too. In fact, most of the people I work with are Muslims, and y'know what? They don't give a damn about the Caliphate any more than you and I care about FDR. Its good history, a basis for a civilization, but they want to go back to it like the Irish want to be ruled by Brehon Law.
Wow, I've met far more Muslims than you will ever meet in your life.

Most of them fervently and violently trying to bring about the Caliphate.

Apparently, you think that radical Islam is like the songs you sang at summer camp...
Why don't you come and meet my future sister in law and her family? Her father is a doctor, her mother is a family planning advocate. Both travel around the world to set up schools and hospitals. My future sister in law is studying to be a doctor (in Nevis, the lucky skunk). My brother trains engineers at a local auto parts manufacturer. Sound like, good, all-American folks, right? People doing their best to make the world a better place, etc?

Ready for the mind-fuck? They're all Muslims. These wonderful, peaceful, generous folks follow a religion you demonize. And since my brother played football in college, I'm not sure making 'All Muslims want to bring the Caliphate back' comments would be such a bright idea around him.

The current war in Sudan isn't between the North and the South, and yes, it is a black on black conflict. Even the UN defines the Janjaweed militia (the "Arabs") as "Arabic speaking African tribes". They are black.

Here is a picture of one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Darfur_report_-_Page_4_Image_1.jpg

Oh, look, he is black.

They are black.

I stand corrected.

Wow, saying the Dafur genocide is the fault of Islam because those involved in have a vague to non-existent ethnic link to the Arabs, hooray for flawed logic.

Wow, saying the Dafur genocide is the fault of Islam because those involved in have a vague to non-existent ethnic link to the Arabs, hooray for flawed logic.

Mind saying who you are accusing of having that belief, just to be clear?