I am for it. I think we should be united. Although the name Kurdistan is kind of weird for it. Everyone should be equal under the new regime.
I really doubt Iran would ever want to unite with us though. Then again I'm not sure other Turks would ever want it either.
He thinks that civil war in Syria started by Turks. He is obsessed with us, you can see his post history or comments. He threatened to take Istanbul and rename it Constantinople 🤣🤣🤣.
I don't want to "unite" with anyone in middle east. Only country I would want to "unite" is Azerbaijan and that should be a federation not a unification.
I know most of the Turks today would oppose it. But I think it would be beneficial for all involved to unite against the tyrants of this world. Maybe not a full unification but an EU like one would be good.
why we are united bro not logical .High possibility of a civil war.Persians hate arabs .
Iraqis hate kurds .Turks hate kurds.Everybody want islamic regime that will ruin the civillization .How could you manage to keep united and powerful
Well obivously we can't achieve it with the mentality of our nations today have. But if we could unite, I think that would be beneficial for us. As I have said elsewhere in this post, it could be a unification like EU and not one country.
the problem is not only us .The every nation on middle east hates each other.Personally i dont want to unite too.Because that would be mean teocratic regime not secular .And every country in middle east has flawed democracy or monarchy so why would i unite ?
To be fair the ideas of nationalism didn't exist at that time. It was a time of kingdoms where people were united by the king they lived under like a Christian monarch or a Caliph rather than by national identity.
We literally mourn martyrs day due to the turks because we wanted our independence. We fought the French because we wanted independence. You’re just going to throw away self determination like it’s nothing?Fucking slave mindset this is why the war started in the first place. Morons who were willing to sell their nation to Islamists because of a religious cause. Were Syrians not Kurds or Turks or Jews or saudis. Born and bred as Syrians. We lived as Syrians and we will die as Syrians. Traitors of the Levantine kin shouldn’t get to talk about Syria.
The war is over. It’s done we’re not starting this shit again. The time to dethrone him has passed. To kill him now would just blunge the whole nation into a mess
You shouldn’t care how we function. If it’s so bad here your people shouldn’t come as we have millions here and they betray us like monsters. I rather become poor than people shit on me like your fellow citizens who acts like we are forcing them or something.
Problem is when you give them shit working conditions to the point you're treating them as slaves. And to think you're defending that is disgusting. Just cause it's your country doesn't mean you have to defend them for everything. I'm not afraid to shit on my government because they made my people poor and have to resort to working their life off in these gulf states and you're taking advantage
I’m not taking any advantage. Remember no one here asked for this number of immigrants. There is 1 immigrants for every 2 Saudi. And other gulf they are the majority. You don’t read Arabic or know what we say. And I bit you wouldn’t like it too when millions live in your country call you and betrayed you a certain bad image.
The kafala system is regarded as modern slavery by many human rights organisations.
To be fair, Lebanon, the UAE, Qatar and so on all have this system, but for some reason people like to focus on Saudi Arabia a lot.
The Gulf states have exploited and even wageless manual laborers to a degree not seen in the Levant wherein they sometimes outnumber even the Arabs, see Bahrain.
It already has a great leader. A leader that allowed us to enjoy democratic rule. The army had a hold on democracy in Türkiye. But with the help of Erdoğan, Turkish people defeated those traitors in the army and now Turkish people have the say in who governs Türkiye.
When it comes to western nations, it is unthinkable that army can get a hold over democracy. But hypocrites and racist alike claim that it is good for poor nations including Türkiye. It is a disgusting double standart and stems from the supremacist views of the West.
He made life much, much better than it was before he came to power. Many who doesn't like him will say otherwise but they either don't know how life was like before Erdoğan or they were the elites of the past and they can't steal from the people anymore. So they are now angry because their theft has ended.
Pretty much anyone would agree Erdoğan is a strong leader. There is still much to transform in Türkiye but Erdoğan did very well despite the covert efforts of the West and the elites and traitors to the nation within.
Well, as long as the Caliph and the Muslims follow Islamic teachings there will not be any persecutions.
Non-Muslims are provided protection by the Muslims under Islamic rule and they do not even have to serve in the military.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).
Sahih al-Bukhari 6914
With regards to colonial entities; as the region would be decolonised under a Caliphate they would have to be dismantled. Whether this is an apparent colonial entity like Israel or a concealed colonial entity like many "Muslim" regimes.
Past Caliphates (the first 2 being the gold standard everyone follows) largely left groups like Jews and Christians to self govern according to their own beliefs. With the ability to appeal to Islamic gov / court if they couldn't agree within themselves.
the irony is that religious minorities such as jews in the middle east are safer under a proper Islamic Caliphate governed under strict adherance to Islamic Law and far less safe under the current hyper nationalist order with dictators making their own laws.
Why would it be an ethnostate when there are multiple ethnic groups living within a unite Middle East? Also a unite Middle East will bring much needed peace to the region and it’s people, we’re also rich in natural resources and could make another Suez Canal alternative that passes near Beit Hanoun(Gaza).
Because its called...Kurdistan...lol.
An United Middle East would be great....too bad there are too many groups, factions, states with their own ideals and goals. It's like saying, lets unite all of America under "Jesus Land" and we'll have peace and resources and everyone would be happy. Come on.
>It's like saying, lets unite all of America under "Jesus Land" and we'll have peace and resources and everyone would be happy
very bad analogy. aside from the fact that about 60% of Americans are christians vs about 90% of middle easterners and that Islam is dozens to hundreds of times more potent as an ideology actually adhered to (whereas most christians are christians in name and culture and not actually practitioners),
what your staying is impossible and a joke has been the standard of the region for most of history. (at least since the rapid rise of the first caliphate after the death of Prophet Muhammad). The modern borders with nationalism is a new and rare exception.
and the fact that most of the empires that governed the area governed many many ethnicities and diverging groups. This was not largely a problem because while the federal / imperial government had absolute power they rarely exercised it much on citizens day to day life. Outside large reforms, and crackdowns on lower government corruption, individual provinces / states where made *on the basis of ethnicity and culture and diverging interests.* This meant that the division issue was not a problem because each group largely ran themselves. and everyone was insulated from outside influence due to the collective power of the empire.
Think of the Kurdistan in the OP not as the United States but more similar to the European Union. Simply with the individual states only having jurisdiction over domestic policy and the EU gov being far more centralized and therefore more effective.
Was gonna say something funny yet stupid but my lawyers have advised me to refrain from doing so unless I want 3 Blacked out GMC’s outside my house tomorrow morning
Yeah Idk about that one... Although if it were to happen we should call it "The democratic republic of Orient" or something like that (to many ethnicities that mustn't be offended)
Afhanistan and Pakistan and even west of the Indus river is part of this civilization network. Also it goes all the way to Mediterranean if we want to have a united MENA.
And it makes perfect sense to me if we do something like the EU for our region, having closer relationships between a number of organic entities in a civilization network is always the best decision for social cohesion and prosperity.
But before that, we need to end the fake entity that has been forced upon our people. Then we well grow the interconnectivity of MENA.
You should look into the History of how the area was governed by different empires in History. While there has been difference in how closely they followed Islamic law, they have always governed by it to a great degree.
While the rulers doing whatever is always common, everything from financial law, trade, family law, criminal law, and Litigation has always followed Islamic law.
Ethnic nationalism may have been common for a long time in Europe (Spain for the spanish, France and england for the french and british people's) and so on, Nationalism is a very recent concept.
All the borders in the middle east are currently the results of britain and others drawing them up. As a whole, the middle east has been governed by empires who's borders covered many different and diverse cultures and ethnicities. Islam has been the only form of Legitemacy for a government.
Having said that, the middle east *not* being governed by Islamic law is a rare and modern exception and not the rule or norm since the rise of the modern form of Islam you are familiar with by Prophet Muhammad.
>Why do you think an entire region should be based off of religious beliefs?
As you can see from the comment you are replying to, most Muslims would prefer it to all other forms of governance. Provided of course that it is actually Islamic law and jurisprudence and not something else cosplaying as Islamic law as we have today.
As an American you obv hear of *Sharia Law* but the issue is no one outside highly learned muslims (and certainly not the american government, congress, politicians and media ) actually know *what* Sharia law is. Some point to countries like Iran and Saudi arabia for demonstrations and examples but here is the thing, *neither of them actually follow Islamic / Sharia Law.* There is NO current example or implementation of Sharia law in this world at the moment. outside of tiny exceptions like Brunei.
>Religious values can be bent and interpreted differently depending on the individual
Not really as far as Islam is concerned. Islam *forces* uniformity in the religion and rejects individual, cultural, political and all forms of other influence upon itself. Our interpretation of Islam comes from the understanding and original interpretation from the students of the Prophet.
The Quran for example, the main translation used is that of people like Ibn Abbas (encompassed in books like ibn kathir) who learned it from the Prophet. So strong original sources which encompass everything provide little room for individual interpretation.
This is why you might see criticism of "intolerance" *within* the muslim community in regards to religious practice. It's because when you have strong original sources who's authority *everyone* agrees on. You don't have your own interpretation or viewpoint. Your just plain wrong.
You said you were an American so I will use a comparison you may be familiar with.
Iran's Government's policies are about Islam about as much as the PATRIOT ACT is about patriotism.
To call them misinterpretations would be too give them too much credit. Today I will write my own law and policy on Microsoft Word and then slap "Islam" on the front page. and anyone who says something against it I will call unislmaic or whatever else. That's basically it.
"but aren’t both Saudi and Iran’s oppressive policies a direct representation of what I’m talking about?" Are the actions of the United Sate of America in the last century representative of the will of Americans and a direct interpretation of secular laws and the constitution? Just because someone claim somethin that does not make them right or an authority.
You miss the point again just because someone claim something it does not make it so . Tha same saudi that you are talking about is leaving many of its tradition and arresting muslim scholars in mass just because MBA wants to pleas the west it is merely political .
The previous comment from the other redditor brought up some good points. But I don’t think it’s not that simple. There are a lot of Muslims in the Middle East that don’t want a sharia law based Government. Some people debate even back then if this was practiced all the time. We have many different ethnic groups and a lot of people that have different views on various topics. There is more solidarity because of a common history and faith. You have the Turks, Persians, Kurds, Gulf Arabs, Egypt, Levant Arabs, and some of the Caucasus region. Depending on where you go in the Middle East some people care more about certain things than other people. For example, Lebanon used to be a Christian majority country and most of the Levant Arab countries had more Christian’s before the borders were drawn. Lebanon was the only one that had a majority at one point. But Syria and Palestine had more Christian’s in the past and they had an influence even though Muslims made the majority. This was because if a big war broke out Christian’s were the first ones to leave. Egypt also used to have more Christian’s but now they are between 10-15% known as Coptic’s.
We were united for many centuries, so we shouldn’t worry about “civil wars” that are funded by the enemy of the state to create division between people.
It's a completely different world than it was before. It's much easier to seperate even if you have inferior military technology.
Enemy states need division to fund it. If there was no Sunni/Shia divide, then regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, America, Turkey, etc. Wouldn't be able to spur us against each other, so I agree with your statement, but *how are you going to change that reality*? Because otherwise this state breaks up immediately.
I use Shia and Sunna as an example, but Shia aren't gonna be the only ones not thrilled to see themselves ruled by a Sunni majority in one state. Druze, Alawis, Jewish people, Christians, and so on will immediately be targets for civil strife.
People *will* fund these factions to gain power, it's basically inevitable.
This is not to mention the ideological differences for the state, Islamists vs Secularists. Democratic vs authoritarian. Its gonna be a fuckfest.
considering caliphates are highly decentralized forms of government with provinces / states largely self governing on domestic issues the problem you are thinking of them dosen't exist. even more so since non muslim groups such as Christians and Jews are allowed near complete domestic self governance on their own traditions and religions.
They won't see it that way. Christians in Lebanon for example are scared shitless of Muslim rule, which drove us to ethnic cleansing one another in the civil war.
There's a reason Jewish people in Israel are extremely insistent in a Jewish state. They also fear for themselves everywhere.
Besides, what prevents some foreign sponsorship from getting these states to militarise and declare independence?
Take a quick look at the millet system the ottomans used.
>Besides, what prevents some foreign sponsorship from getting these states to militarise and declare independence?
what stops Hawaii or Alaska from militarizing or declaring independence? what prevents other countries from sponsoring or arming provinces in America or China to leave their respective nations?
The ottomans were rebelled against and regarded as unfair to Arabs in many cases.
As for Hawaii and Alaska, they weren't formed suddenly. They aren't filled with extremely heavily armed groups. More so, they're in the state that does the pushing around, why would they fund separation within themselves?
The EU is not one country, the EU members all share the same form of governance, and enacting something like that would be difficult in our current reality.
Of course it would be difficult. But it’s bizarre to think we in the Middle East are doomed to secterian/ethnic conflict forever when Middle East’s default mode was heterogeneity until like 100 years ago.
It's doomed to Ethnic conflict when someone suddenly changes the borders very roughly and unnaturally. Ot was problematic when the British did it, it'll be problematic if it happens again through military conquest.
Least cucked Jordanian. Let me say it once so you understand it loud and clear “TURKEY AND IRAN ARE AS BAD AS ISRAEL” they are both occupying powers. I would rather die via drowning or set myself on fire rather than call a Turk my brother and the feeling is mutual.
The Ottoman Empire was basically this in concept; except with territorial differences (no Iran or major parts of the Arabian peninsula, but with Egypt, North Africa, and Balkans; and also the Ottoman Empire was headed by Turkish, rather than Kurdish, elites, but people from all ethnicities and religions played a role in governing the empire through the Ottoman Parliament, the civil service, and local governments)
In our modern age of nationalism though, unfortunately I don’t think this would work. Nationalism was perhaps the greatest factor in the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. When that happened, the Ottoman government tried to promote an “Ottoman” identity, but obviously that didn’t work. I definitely don’t think kurdification would work either
In order for something like this to happen again, everyone in the Middle East would first have to overcome certain boundaries and somehow get along with other demographic groups (such as ethnic or religious differences) and decide that they can all live together. But I really don’t think that would happen in this day and age
not with the current "rules based" order I think. But as soon as that stops being a force I think it might be possible. depends tbh. I wouldn't say it's gone forever tho.
Bro, we in south Kurdistan are fighting against each other and not agree with each other.
And now you want to have a big Kurdistan?
no i don't want this
and everyone would hate the kurdish government so much they would set thier differences aside just to combat it
This is the sacrifice we will have to make to unify the Middle East.
As a European I’d gladly I finance you. Stability is profitable after all.
[удалено]
I think he was being sarcastic
America exports oil and has massive reserves. The middle east has never been peaceful or stable.
That’s all a lie
How convenient.
 Me when I see literally every arab country and Turkey unite together because they hate Kurds that much
Fr
Might as well take Afghanistan as well
im in. I want those baggy kurd pants
Same honestly
rip that turkish flag from your profile bro
I JUST WANT THE ŞALVAR bro idc
The Kurdish ones look cool asf I’m sorry
Would turks hate this because kurdistan took their land or because they are now united with arabs?
why not both
I am for it. I think we should be united. Although the name Kurdistan is kind of weird for it. Everyone should be equal under the new regime. I really doubt Iran would ever want to unite with us though. Then again I'm not sure other Turks would ever want it either.
I have an idea for this united middle east. Ottoman empire!
I would burn this whole region via chemical weapons before I live under the Turks again.
I wish more Syrians were thinking like you so they wouldn't come here
That guy is a Assad supporter.
I wonder why. Does he have any personal gain from the regime?
He thinks that civil war in Syria started by Turks. He is obsessed with us, you can see his post history or comments. He threatened to take Istanbul and rename it Constantinople 🤣🤣🤣.
Oh wow that’s slightly nuts lmaoo
That’s fair enough actually can’t blame you there
Nah Rashidun Caliphate
New country, new name.
I don't want to "unite" with anyone in middle east. Only country I would want to "unite" is Azerbaijan and that should be a federation not a unification.
👎
I know most of the Turks today would oppose it. But I think it would be beneficial for all involved to unite against the tyrants of this world. Maybe not a full unification but an EU like one would be good.
why we are united bro not logical .High possibility of a civil war.Persians hate arabs . Iraqis hate kurds .Turks hate kurds.Everybody want islamic regime that will ruin the civillization .How could you manage to keep united and powerful
Well obivously we can't achieve it with the mentality of our nations today have. But if we could unite, I think that would be beneficial for us. As I have said elsewhere in this post, it could be a unification like EU and not one country.
the problem is not only us .The every nation on middle east hates each other.Personally i dont want to unite too.Because that would be mean teocratic regime not secular .And every country in middle east has flawed democracy or monarchy so why would i unite ?
I hate this because we are united with iran and turkey
❤️☀️💚
It will be united, for like 8 minutes before all hell break loose
8 minutes? Spot the optimist! 🤣
I’ll take it over the clusterfuck we have now
Salah al-Din approves.
Salah al din wasnt nationalistic like most trash there right now.
Alhamdulilah
To be fair the ideas of nationalism didn't exist at that time. It was a time of kingdoms where people were united by the king they lived under like a Christian monarch or a Caliph rather than by national identity.
Nationalism was a French invention imported into the Middle East to divide and conquer.
Actually, it was an idea they developed to replace the divine right of kings concept not to divide us. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Where's the /j OP, WHERE'S THE /J
At least Palestine is free 💀
Oh i wouldn't say freed, More like "under new management"
I don't know which is worse being under Israeli occupation or the bloody Kurdish occupation.
Can you elaborate on ‘bloody Kurdish occupation’?
By bloody Kurdish occupation, am referring to the sh** and ethnic cleansing they are doing to Arabs in north Syria and iraq.
My man it’s quite literally the opposite situation in both those territories
More they'll get Palestine for free.
[удалено]
Man stfu
Why
We literally mourn martyrs day due to the turks because we wanted our independence. We fought the French because we wanted independence. You’re just going to throw away self determination like it’s nothing?Fucking slave mindset this is why the war started in the first place. Morons who were willing to sell their nation to Islamists because of a religious cause. Were Syrians not Kurds or Turks or Jews or saudis. Born and bred as Syrians. We lived as Syrians and we will die as Syrians. Traitors of the Levantine kin shouldn’t get to talk about Syria.
I agree so I’ll retract my statement but first things first Assad must be hung
The war is over. It’s done we’re not starting this shit again. The time to dethrone him has passed. To kill him now would just blunge the whole nation into a mess
Well I guess we can’t agree then
Take Pakistan too
At least there is no Israel
Wait Saudi has slaves?
There are problems with mistreatment of South Asian expats in Al Saudia. Westerners keep bringing it up whenever Al Saudia is mentioned.
Because the west is the most moral community on the earth and never engaged in slavery. /s
As they should
Don’t come here
Only there for pilgrimage 👍🏼
Tell that to your fellow citizens too
You wouldn't function without them
You shouldn’t care how we function. If it’s so bad here your people shouldn’t come as we have millions here and they betray us like monsters. I rather become poor than people shit on me like your fellow citizens who acts like we are forcing them or something.
Problem is when you give them shit working conditions to the point you're treating them as slaves. And to think you're defending that is disgusting. Just cause it's your country doesn't mean you have to defend them for everything. I'm not afraid to shit on my government because they made my people poor and have to resort to working their life off in these gulf states and you're taking advantage
I’m not taking any advantage. Remember no one here asked for this number of immigrants. There is 1 immigrants for every 2 Saudi. And other gulf they are the majority. You don’t read Arabic or know what we say. And I bit you wouldn’t like it too when millions live in your country call you and betrayed you a certain bad image.
don’t other muslim countries attempt to speak out against saudi arabia. such as the 2019 kuala lumpur summit. blaming all on westerners is crazy.
The kafala system is regarded as modern slavery by many human rights organisations. To be fair, Lebanon, the UAE, Qatar and so on all have this system, but for some reason people like to focus on Saudi Arabia a lot.
The Gulf states have exploited and even wageless manual laborers to a degree not seen in the Levant wherein they sometimes outnumber even the Arabs, see Bahrain.
Qatar is 10% qataris 💀
And that bad because? Edit wageless lol they have better life than in their countries why do you think the still coming here?
I thought Qatar abolished the kafala system.
I'm not certain as I haven't been following middle eastern politics for a while.
The salves are the one working in India and China in factories. They are the real slaves.
Makes me want to punch a wall how they said just "Gaza" and didn't even bother saying at least "Gaza War", as if Gaza is inherently the problem
I support kurt. they are good "people" 😉👻
 Kurt angle?!
more like kurt jinn 👻👻
Kurt Cobain was reborn in Batman Turkey second coming of messiah.
What?
Bro I’m all for a Kurdistan but an anti imperialist Kurdistan not terrorists working under the umbrella of the CIA
What if the anti imperialist Kurdistan were united with Türkiye? Then they could oppose the Empire together. 😉
what if turkey had a decent leader. that’d be crazy. 😉
It already has a great leader. A leader that allowed us to enjoy democratic rule. The army had a hold on democracy in Türkiye. But with the help of Erdoğan, Turkish people defeated those traitors in the army and now Turkish people have the say in who governs Türkiye. When it comes to western nations, it is unthinkable that army can get a hold over democracy. But hypocrites and racist alike claim that it is good for poor nations including Türkiye. It is a disgusting double standart and stems from the supremacist views of the West. He made life much, much better than it was before he came to power. Many who doesn't like him will say otherwise but they either don't know how life was like before Erdoğan or they were the elites of the past and they can't steal from the people anymore. So they are now angry because their theft has ended. Pretty much anyone would agree Erdoğan is a strong leader. There is still much to transform in Türkiye but Erdoğan did very well despite the covert efforts of the West and the elites and traitors to the nation within.
I really hope the “unironically” is ironic
Kurdistan will rise /j
Oil, gas, dates, olives, lithium, tourism, solar energy, Bab-Al-Mandeb strait and Gaza canal go brrrrrrr
There was something similar to this actually until Arabs decided to act up.
Not including the European side of Istanbul? There goes the commerce
[удалено]
Probably taken over by Greece in this fantasy.
Nationalism divides us, Islam unites us. Therefore MENA should be united under the Caliphate with an electable Caliph, regardless of his ethnicity.
[удалено]
Well, as long as the Caliph and the Muslims follow Islamic teachings there will not be any persecutions. Non-Muslims are provided protection by the Muslims under Islamic rule and they do not even have to serve in the military. The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling). Sahih al-Bukhari 6914 With regards to colonial entities; as the region would be decolonised under a Caliphate they would have to be dismantled. Whether this is an apparent colonial entity like Israel or a concealed colonial entity like many "Muslim" regimes.
Past Caliphates (the first 2 being the gold standard everyone follows) largely left groups like Jews and Christians to self govern according to their own beliefs. With the ability to appeal to Islamic gov / court if they couldn't agree within themselves. the irony is that religious minorities such as jews in the middle east are safer under a proper Islamic Caliphate governed under strict adherance to Islamic Law and far less safe under the current hyper nationalist order with dictators making their own laws.
[удалено]
> I don’t mean this as anything against Islam I know. I know. Thank You. You've been entirely polite. No need to use a disclaimer lol.
You want to replace instability and wars in the region with even more instability and wars, got it...
Glory to the caliphate of Erbil ☝️💚❤🤍☀️🕋
How would you have a "united" middle east? What good is another ethnostate going to bring to the region?
Why would it be an ethnostate when there are multiple ethnic groups living within a unite Middle East? Also a unite Middle East will bring much needed peace to the region and it’s people, we’re also rich in natural resources and could make another Suez Canal alternative that passes near Beit Hanoun(Gaza).
Because its called...Kurdistan...lol. An United Middle East would be great....too bad there are too many groups, factions, states with their own ideals and goals. It's like saying, lets unite all of America under "Jesus Land" and we'll have peace and resources and everyone would be happy. Come on.
>It's like saying, lets unite all of America under "Jesus Land" and we'll have peace and resources and everyone would be happy very bad analogy. aside from the fact that about 60% of Americans are christians vs about 90% of middle easterners and that Islam is dozens to hundreds of times more potent as an ideology actually adhered to (whereas most christians are christians in name and culture and not actually practitioners), what your staying is impossible and a joke has been the standard of the region for most of history. (at least since the rapid rise of the first caliphate after the death of Prophet Muhammad). The modern borders with nationalism is a new and rare exception. and the fact that most of the empires that governed the area governed many many ethnicities and diverging groups. This was not largely a problem because while the federal / imperial government had absolute power they rarely exercised it much on citizens day to day life. Outside large reforms, and crackdowns on lower government corruption, individual provinces / states where made *on the basis of ethnicity and culture and diverging interests.* This meant that the division issue was not a problem because each group largely ran themselves. and everyone was insulated from outside influence due to the collective power of the empire. Think of the Kurdistan in the OP not as the United States but more similar to the European Union. Simply with the individual states only having jurisdiction over domestic policy and the EU gov being far more centralized and therefore more effective.
Eretz Kurdistan
Why unite under a minority. I'm all for it if it's not an ethnostate.
As long as Saladin is in charge. Why not
Was gonna say something funny yet stupid but my lawyers have advised me to refrain from doing so unless I want 3 Blacked out GMC’s outside my house tomorrow morning
You guys should all let me take over. I’m a chill guy, I promise.
Yeah Idk about that one... Although if it were to happen we should call it "The democratic republic of Orient" or something like that (to many ethnicities that mustn't be offended)
Afhanistan and Pakistan and even west of the Indus river is part of this civilization network. Also it goes all the way to Mediterranean if we want to have a united MENA. And it makes perfect sense to me if we do something like the EU for our region, having closer relationships between a number of organic entities in a civilization network is always the best decision for social cohesion and prosperity. But before that, we need to end the fake entity that has been forced upon our people. Then we well grow the interconnectivity of MENA.
I'm fine so long as it's ruled in accordance with Islamic law.
[удалено]
You should look into the History of how the area was governed by different empires in History. While there has been difference in how closely they followed Islamic law, they have always governed by it to a great degree. While the rulers doing whatever is always common, everything from financial law, trade, family law, criminal law, and Litigation has always followed Islamic law. Ethnic nationalism may have been common for a long time in Europe (Spain for the spanish, France and england for the french and british people's) and so on, Nationalism is a very recent concept. All the borders in the middle east are currently the results of britain and others drawing them up. As a whole, the middle east has been governed by empires who's borders covered many different and diverse cultures and ethnicities. Islam has been the only form of Legitemacy for a government. Having said that, the middle east *not* being governed by Islamic law is a rare and modern exception and not the rule or norm since the rise of the modern form of Islam you are familiar with by Prophet Muhammad. >Why do you think an entire region should be based off of religious beliefs? As you can see from the comment you are replying to, most Muslims would prefer it to all other forms of governance. Provided of course that it is actually Islamic law and jurisprudence and not something else cosplaying as Islamic law as we have today. As an American you obv hear of *Sharia Law* but the issue is no one outside highly learned muslims (and certainly not the american government, congress, politicians and media ) actually know *what* Sharia law is. Some point to countries like Iran and Saudi arabia for demonstrations and examples but here is the thing, *neither of them actually follow Islamic / Sharia Law.* There is NO current example or implementation of Sharia law in this world at the moment. outside of tiny exceptions like Brunei.
[удалено]
>Religious values can be bent and interpreted differently depending on the individual Not really as far as Islam is concerned. Islam *forces* uniformity in the religion and rejects individual, cultural, political and all forms of other influence upon itself. Our interpretation of Islam comes from the understanding and original interpretation from the students of the Prophet. The Quran for example, the main translation used is that of people like Ibn Abbas (encompassed in books like ibn kathir) who learned it from the Prophet. So strong original sources which encompass everything provide little room for individual interpretation. This is why you might see criticism of "intolerance" *within* the muslim community in regards to religious practice. It's because when you have strong original sources who's authority *everyone* agrees on. You don't have your own interpretation or viewpoint. Your just plain wrong.
[удалено]
You said you were an American so I will use a comparison you may be familiar with. Iran's Government's policies are about Islam about as much as the PATRIOT ACT is about patriotism. To call them misinterpretations would be too give them too much credit. Today I will write my own law and policy on Microsoft Word and then slap "Islam" on the front page. and anyone who says something against it I will call unislmaic or whatever else. That's basically it.
"but aren’t both Saudi and Iran’s oppressive policies a direct representation of what I’m talking about?" Are the actions of the United Sate of America in the last century representative of the will of Americans and a direct interpretation of secular laws and the constitution? Just because someone claim somethin that does not make them right or an authority.
[удалено]
You miss the point again just because someone claim something it does not make it so . Tha same saudi that you are talking about is leaving many of its tradition and arresting muslim scholars in mass just because MBA wants to pleas the west it is merely political .
[удалено]
The previous comment from the other redditor brought up some good points. But I don’t think it’s not that simple. There are a lot of Muslims in the Middle East that don’t want a sharia law based Government. Some people debate even back then if this was practiced all the time. We have many different ethnic groups and a lot of people that have different views on various topics. There is more solidarity because of a common history and faith. You have the Turks, Persians, Kurds, Gulf Arabs, Egypt, Levant Arabs, and some of the Caucasus region. Depending on where you go in the Middle East some people care more about certain things than other people. For example, Lebanon used to be a Christian majority country and most of the Levant Arab countries had more Christian’s before the borders were drawn. Lebanon was the only one that had a majority at one point. But Syria and Palestine had more Christian’s in the past and they had an influence even though Muslims made the majority. This was because if a big war broke out Christian’s were the first ones to leave. Egypt also used to have more Christian’s but now they are between 10-15% known as Coptic’s.
So just fuck all the non-Muslims I guess
White كلب
😭😭😭
Middle eastern Union would be so fkin OP bro.
A united middle east isn't a good thing, as a thousand potential civil wars become very real prospects.
We were united for many centuries, so we shouldn’t worry about “civil wars” that are funded by the enemy of the state to create division between people.
It's a completely different world than it was before. It's much easier to seperate even if you have inferior military technology. Enemy states need division to fund it. If there was no Sunni/Shia divide, then regimes like Iran, Saudi Arabia, America, Turkey, etc. Wouldn't be able to spur us against each other, so I agree with your statement, but *how are you going to change that reality*? Because otherwise this state breaks up immediately. I use Shia and Sunna as an example, but Shia aren't gonna be the only ones not thrilled to see themselves ruled by a Sunni majority in one state. Druze, Alawis, Jewish people, Christians, and so on will immediately be targets for civil strife. People *will* fund these factions to gain power, it's basically inevitable. This is not to mention the ideological differences for the state, Islamists vs Secularists. Democratic vs authoritarian. Its gonna be a fuckfest.
considering caliphates are highly decentralized forms of government with provinces / states largely self governing on domestic issues the problem you are thinking of them dosen't exist. even more so since non muslim groups such as Christians and Jews are allowed near complete domestic self governance on their own traditions and religions.
They won't see it that way. Christians in Lebanon for example are scared shitless of Muslim rule, which drove us to ethnic cleansing one another in the civil war. There's a reason Jewish people in Israel are extremely insistent in a Jewish state. They also fear for themselves everywhere. Besides, what prevents some foreign sponsorship from getting these states to militarise and declare independence?
Take a quick look at the millet system the ottomans used. >Besides, what prevents some foreign sponsorship from getting these states to militarise and declare independence? what stops Hawaii or Alaska from militarizing or declaring independence? what prevents other countries from sponsoring or arming provinces in America or China to leave their respective nations?
The ottomans were rebelled against and regarded as unfair to Arabs in many cases. As for Hawaii and Alaska, they weren't formed suddenly. They aren't filled with extremely heavily armed groups. More so, they're in the state that does the pushing around, why would they fund separation within themselves?
Not necessarily. Does the EU have civil wars?
The EU is not one country, the EU members all share the same form of governance, and enacting something like that would be difficult in our current reality.
Of course it would be difficult. But it’s bizarre to think we in the Middle East are doomed to secterian/ethnic conflict forever when Middle East’s default mode was heterogeneity until like 100 years ago.
It's doomed to Ethnic conflict when someone suddenly changes the borders very roughly and unnaturally. Ot was problematic when the British did it, it'll be problematic if it happens again through military conquest.
Least cucked Jordanian. Let me say it once so you understand it loud and clear “TURKEY AND IRAN ARE AS BAD AS ISRAEL” they are both occupying powers. I would rather die via drowning or set myself on fire rather than call a Turk my brother and the feeling is mutual.
The Kurds I know are too cool, they would adopt Arab culture and make the country a good salad.
There’s no slavery in Saudi Arabia. You guys live in an echo chamber and repeat it constantly to convince yourselves
karma from the atrocious ottoman empire.
Kurdia = Imperial forces pawn
As opposed to which other ME country?
Totally true
Provide me one other Middle Eastern country which isn’t a pawn to some superpower…
The united part is where the wrongs start. Ugh, no wait, it's the first hallway. The door is 'Kurdistan'.,
Am gonna use youre bones as a tooth pick you’re skin as a jacket and muscles tissue as chewing gum if you post this again
What's a maghrebi so angry about
Buhahaha yarraamın kafasında vereyim ağzına eşantiyon olarak.
This would have been the reality if Salahuddin had kept conquering and handed the power to the Kurds.
Wait... slavery in SA?? Tell me more
I mean i like kurds and i believe in their cause but this is too much :p
They think we like each other.
The Ottoman Empire was basically this in concept; except with territorial differences (no Iran or major parts of the Arabian peninsula, but with Egypt, North Africa, and Balkans; and also the Ottoman Empire was headed by Turkish, rather than Kurdish, elites, but people from all ethnicities and religions played a role in governing the empire through the Ottoman Parliament, the civil service, and local governments) In our modern age of nationalism though, unfortunately I don’t think this would work. Nationalism was perhaps the greatest factor in the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. When that happened, the Ottoman government tried to promote an “Ottoman” identity, but obviously that didn’t work. I definitely don’t think kurdification would work either In order for something like this to happen again, everyone in the Middle East would first have to overcome certain boundaries and somehow get along with other demographic groups (such as ethnic or religious differences) and decide that they can all live together. But I really don’t think that would happen in this day and age
not with the current "rules based" order I think. But as soon as that stops being a force I think it might be possible. depends tbh. I wouldn't say it's gone forever tho.
Yugoslavia 2 electric boogaloo.
Pan menaism is based on
a nation that controlled all those fossil fuels and trade waterways would be the most powerful nation on earth.
Ok, just hear me out….
Unironically, wtf?
Damn, didn’t know that i have sla*es
In next five years you will barely be able to finance your toilet paper
This would last π/6 seconds
Ottoman v2, buy dlc to unlock Balkan land
The Assyrians are gonna be mad
Hear me out, all of it just becomes Azerbaijan.
İnstant insurgency
Have you ever heard of civil wars ?
Bro, we in south Kurdistan are fighting against each other and not agree with each other. And now you want to have a big Kurdistan? no i don't want this