Military Review

Foggy future of the Islamic project

The Muslim world is once again faced with the choice of a model of organization of social organization

Recently, fears related to the large-scale Islamization of many regions of the world, including Russia, and the implementation of the project of the so-called Islamic state or Islamic government have become increasingly frequent. The events in Egypt not only put on the agenda the question of the future future of the countries of the “Arab spring”, but also identified a serious theoretical problem of the Islamic project. Is it possible in connection with the resignation of President Mohammed Mursi to talk about a temporary crisis of government or the problem lies in the fact that, like in Algeria (and earlier in Sudan), having come to power, the Islamic party will not be able to offer a worthy alternative to the authoritarian the government itself will go the way of usurpation of power, repeating all the mistakes of the previous government?

State structures in the countries of the Arab East underwent significant changes, the essence of which throughout the twentieth century was the modernization of traditional forms of government under the influence of Western models of development, not only democratic but also totalitarian. However, the introduction of elements of democracy did not lead to the formation of a Western-style parliamentary democracy. At the same time, often radical changes in state institutions of governance and democratic norms of modern constitutions continued to be accompanied by centuries-old cultural-religious and political traditions of power, and ideological slogans and programs of political leaders and leading parties sometimes hid the limits of their real power capabilities.

In the 2005 year, when the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the official ban of its organization, won a major victory in the parliamentary elections, having won more than 1 / 5 seats, their program appeared. The main emphasis in it was placed on the need to reform the state system of the country, which should be based on the Islamic model and sharia (for which it was supposed to carry out constitutional and political reforms to ensure the primacy of sharia law). At the same time, the state itself in the political system was obliged to play a limited role, and its functions were limited to controlling the development of society in accordance with Islamic laws. But in the field of economics, according to the ideologists of the Muslim Brotherhood, the state should dominate, fulfilling the regulatory function, and follow the principles of the Islamic economic system, and this, they believe, is a kind of intermediate option between the socialist economy (with its state regulation) and market (whose goal is to maximize profits).

Does such a program fit the classic Sunni concept of an Islamic state - the caliphate? (Immediately make a reservation that the Shi'i concept of the Imamate represents a different theoretical construction, different from the Sunni one.)

Islam and secularism

Issues of state organization have always stood before Muslim theologians, historians, lawyers and philosophers, and they were associated primarily with the fact that Islam during its centuries-old development was not able to develop clear regulatory ideas related to issues of state, government and relations between the state and personality. Tying the sociopolitical and religious aspects together in the person of Mohammed was, on the one hand, solving the problem of the relationship between the religious and secular, but on the other - gave rise to political contradictions that will manifest themselves in the subsequent stage of the development of Arab statehood.

Foggy future of the Islamic project

In the Qur'an, as a source of Muslim law governing the relationship of people, prescriptions regarding the structure and activities of the Muslim state are very limited and actually amount to three provisions: to consult and make decisions based on the general opinion, to rule and resolve disputes "by right and justice" and the need for the faithful to obey the Messenger of Allah and those with power and authority in the affairs of the community. Such limited prescriptions predetermined the decisive role of legal doctrine in the development of the theory of the state, giving it room for interpretation of these provisions, which later resulted in a considerable variety of schools on these issues, which were transformed throughout stories Islam and differently manifested in specific political conditions.

In the 9th – 11th centuries, the formation of a feudal society and the state in its Muslim form was completed. The caliphate gradually disintegrates, and against the background of this decay, the secular and spiritual spheres of life are separated more clearly than before, and secular power is separated. After 945, the caliph was left with only religious authority, the real power passed to secular rulers - the sultans. The term "Sultan" in the X century received the meaning of the sole secular ruler, in contrast to the spiritual lord - Imam.

This was largely due to the inclusion of elements of non-religious origin, primarily Persian bureaucratic traditions, into the Muslim state organization. Representatives of such traditions, not only in life, but also in their theoretical constructs, carried out views that had nothing to do with religious precepts. “It would have been difficult to find in the Koran,” writes V.V. Barthold, “a confirmation of the view expressed already in the 11th century, according to which the official stands below the sovereign, but above the subjects”.

In the future, many philosophers and political thinkers tried to combine the ideal of a single power with the already real secular power allocation. In the Middle Ages, when there were small and medium-sized states, the merger of secular and spiritual power remained an ideal, almost unattainable. The Amirs of the Middle East lived secular politics, Muslim Qadi and fakikhs regularly sanctified their political and class interests, only occasionally trying to bring the character of political power closer to the Islamic ideal in its “sacred” form.

In the XVII – XVIII centuries, the Ottoman authorities already initiated the revival of the merger of the secular and spiritual. The Islamization of power begins from above, the sultans take the title of caliph and strongly emphasize the role of the ulama and faqih in government. A religious and administrative hierarchy, headed by Sheikh Al-Islam, is being created, which greatly increased the role of the clergy in the state and society and at the same time contributed to the further separation of secular and spiritual in political power, the separation of religion from politics.

In the first half of the 20th century, the distinction between secular and spiritual was perceived not only by politicians, but also by Muslim ideologists as a given, during this period completely secular states were created and secular culture was stimulated. However, if secularization took place, then secularism is still rejected by the majority of the Muslim population. In other words, historically, the transformation of the state took place, as it were, in addition to Islam, while society could not exist outside of religion, and Islam continued to perform the functions of the main regulator of social relations.

In the 70 of the twentieth century, many Muslim political movements were revived. New, conservative in essence, but skillfully combining Muslim political traditions with Western principles and ideas reworked in the Muslim spirit, appear. In an effort to restore the norms of "correct" Islam, plans and attempts to restore a single power that does not discriminate between spiritual and secular began to occupy a large place. At the same time, the restoration of a single power meant the power of the caliph, who primarily possessed spiritual power.

The caliphate was thus considered (in particular, by the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna), rather not as a form of government, but as the essence of power in a single Muslim community. The state must have an Islamic order and meet three main principles: the Qur'an should form the basis of the constitution, governing should be carried out through an advisory meeting (shura), executive bodies be limited to the teachings of Islam and the desire of the community. At the same time, attempts were made to give the concept a specific outline, up to the formulation of an action program aimed at its implementation. But the spiritual revolution was put forward as a top priority, understood primarily as a radical restructuring of the education system and propaganda with the aim of deeper spreading of Muslim culture and strengthening the role of Sharia in public life.

Model of the Islamic State: ideology or reality

The model of the ideal Muslim society for centuries was the community of Mohammed. Theoretically, the political and social structure of the Muslim society should reproduce exactly this model. However, as history shows, in practice the ideal model existed only in the consciousness of Muslims, in real life, it began to be modified immediately after the death of the Prophet Muhammad. This was primarily explained by the fact that Muhammad took on a complex of social functions (the researchers of early Islam call at least eight such functions, the main one being the mission of the Messenger of Allah), which even his first successors, the righteous caliphs, did not fully fulfill. Subsequently, as the Muslim community developed and the Caliphate was formed, the main problem was that the functions of the head of state and “people of religion” were constantly changing, often dramatically.

If the first caliphs personified supreme political, military and spiritual power, then in the Abbasid caliphate the power of the caliphs was not theocratic in the full sense of the word: they did not recognize the exceptional ability of contact with the deity and the transfer of power was a political act without the ceremony of transferring grace. They did not have the right to make changes to the Shari'ah or the exclusive right to interpret it (it already belonged to the faqihs), and their legislative acts were recognized only by administrative orders. From the middle of the 9th century, the caliph generally loses political power and the reins of government over the main part of Muslim dominions and gradually becomes only the spiritual head of the Muslim world. By the middle of the 10th century, mercenaries from the Turks, on which the caliphs began to rely, acquired more and more power in Baghdad, themselves elevated the caliphs to the throne and removed them, intervened in their activities. At the same time, the Muslim world is faced with the need to simultaneously recognize three dynasties of caliphs - the Abbasids, the Fatimids, and the Umayyads of Spain. At the same time, the struggle for power in the community often took on the most violent forms. Thus, from the 72 caliphs, starting with the first righteous caliph - Abu Bakr and before Mohammed XII, seven caliphs were killed as a result of a direct attack, five were poisoned, twelve died as a result of insurrection or at the hands of an opponent.

The new type of Muslim state that emerged, the highest embodiment of which was the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt, differed in its structure from the Abbasid caliphate. The power in it belonged to a military group, whose members were Turks, Kurds or people from the Caucasus. All administration was carried out by this layer. Sultan seized power by force, but the caliph officially appointed him to this post, then notable people of the community recognized him in a solemn procedure, thereby legitimizing his power.

In the Ottoman Empire, in which already in the first half of the 16th century, a significant part of the Muslim world turned out, in the initial period the religious beliefs of the sultans were a mixture of Sufism and other traditions. Only after the Ottomans captured Syria and began to feel the opposition of the Shiite state of the Safavids, they began to pay more attention to Sunni. The Ottoman Sultan Selim I, after the conquest of Egypt in 1517, ordered to transport the Caliph to Istanbul. The banner and cloak of the prophet, relics, the possession of which symbolized the status of the sultans as defenders of the holy places of Mecca and Medina, and, consequently, of Islam as a whole, were also moved there. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520 – 1566) already had the title of master of the faithful, at the same time the subjects of the Ottoman Empire called him Suleiman the Legislator, since it completed the formation of a code of laws of the state, which operated practically unchanged until the middle of the XIX century. At the same time, Suleiman relied on two main pillars of Ottoman statehood: the institution of administrative and military administration, which had a secular character and was formed from people who were not necessarily Muslim in origin, and the Muslim institution was a religious legislative and educational institution. Judges and lawyers, God’s words, mosques of Khatib and imams, teachers of educational institutions constituted the class that was responsible for maintaining and functioning of the entire structure of education and religious institutions, as well as legal proceedings throughout the empire. Sultan was simultaneously the patron of the Islamic world, the defender of his faith and the executor of his sacred law, given from God and sent through the prophet. But the sultan did not have the power to change or ignore the principles of Shari'ah, guided by which he had to take into account the opinion of Muslim jurists and theologians.

In the Turkish Republic, Sharia (as well as the caliphate itself) was officially abolished in 1924 and replaced by European legislation. The disputes began no longer about what the caliphate should be, but whether it is necessary or not to restore it, but politicians who did not have a common opinion about what the state should be, for whose construction they lead, began to develop the theory of power in the Islamic state. the fight. They also had very different ideas about how to achieve the final goal, with the help of what forms of struggle, through what stages it is necessary to go through in the process of creating an Islamic state. Moreover, Islamic movements were formed in the framework of existing states that had already been established, from which they perceived the historical style of using power, strategic attitudes and national ideas. However, in the specific political conditions of individual Arab countries, each concept began to play the role of force, which guides the population under the influence of Islam in the ideological struggle of various political forces; the concept of Muslim rule began to be involved in political confrontation, often having a serious impact on state-building and the system of state bodies (as exemplified by the new “Islamist” constitution of Egypt, which was approved by a referendum in December 2012, can serve as an example).

At present, the Muslim world is again faced with the choice of a model of organization of a social structure, which is connected with the historical and civilizational foundation of society and cultural, ideological and religious attitudes that dominate society, predetermining the form of behavior of various social groups and the model of their self-organization. However, Islam, without answering the question of how Sharia law is combined with modern norms of Western democracy, is not yet able to offer such a holistic model.

One can agree with Bernard Lewis, who considers the activity of the Islamists to be aimless and amorphous. In his opinion, the struggle is being waged against two enemies - secularism and modernization. The war against secularism is conscious and obvious, but the war against modernization is mostly unconscious and not obvious, as it is directed against the very process of change that took place in the Islamic world before, as a result of which the political structures of Muslim states were transformed. This judgment can serve as evidence in favor of the doom of the Islamists, because their main task is unattainable. But, on the other hand, the struggle against modernization is an endless process, which in turn turns into a response hypertrophy of one’s own values. Therefore, the eternal striving for modernization will equally always support the Islamists in their desire to offer it their Islamic alternative.

In any case, the coming to power of the Islamists is not identical to the creation of an Islamic state. Their victory almost inevitably, although not immediately, leads to the erosion of the very idea of ​​Islamism, demonstrates the instability of the Islamic political structure, its institutions, which is primarily due to the vague theoretical positions of the very concept and interpretation of the Islamic state in the modern world. However, in a particular political situation, those militant religious organizations that do not care about theoretical subtleties are often the most successful. In other words, a militant who came to an Islamic organization is not at all interested in a topic for a dissertation.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. homosum20
    homosum20 24 July 2013 15: 14
    With such a foundation of secular (legislative) and religious (ideological) power, as soon as they reach the real power, the Siberian fur animal will come to all of them. Power is essentially one. And if their founder did not take this into account, the worse for the followers. And to those who brought them to their AUG.
  2. Gato
    Gato 24 July 2013 15: 43
    In other words, the militant who came to the Islamic organization is not interested in a topic for a dissertation at all.

    That's it. Actually, the Islamic state does not fundamentally differ from the so-called democratic European. There the imam is the president for life, what's the difference? Sharia law is by and large no worse than other constitutions and the Criminal Code.
    If we continue the analogies with the European state, the rise of Islamic extremists to power is almost the same as the seizure of power by the Nazis / Nazis.
    The consequences of such political perversions are quite predictable.
  3. faraon
    faraon 24 July 2013 15: 51
    An excellent article +, it completely reflects the essence of the Islamic ideology. And it is no secret that having come to power (read through war, seizing power, etc. etc.), the whole world will slide into the Stone Age, as the author of the article has precisely noticed.
    "At present, the Muslim world is again faced with the choice of a model for organizing a social structure, which is associated with the historical and civilizational foundation of society and the cultural, ideological and religious attitudes prevailing in society, which predetermine the form of behavior of various social groups and the model of their self-organization. However, Islam does not answer to the question of how Sharia law is combined with the modern norms of Western democracy, he is not yet able to offer such a holistic model. "
  4. Humpty
    Humpty 24 July 2013 16: 00
    I may be naive, but the misanthropic ideology has no Islamism, at least there should be no future.
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 24 July 2013 16: 52
      You are right, you are not only naive, but also uneducated. You are talking about a religion that has 1,5 billion followers on the basis of illiterate reasoning in the provocative media, the corrupt ones of which are common knowledge. What makes you think that ISLAM is a "human-hating" ideology? Then they may object that Christianity is permissiveness, fallen in the sin of liberalism, where even churchmen already give the go-ahead for same-sex marriages, where adultery is almost not considered a sin. UNDERSTAND ANY RELIGION, ISLAM, CHRISTIANITY, BUDDHISM, ETC. , CONDEMNS CRIMES, AND CALLS TO PEACE. Yes, there are individuals who commit crimes under the banner of ISLAM. But aren't there criminals who are adherents of other religions? (Although a TRUE BELIEF will never become a criminal) Breivik was not an Islamist? Or did the crusaders in their time commit little atrocities? Hourly Hitler, who killed at least 50 million was not a "hidden Islamist"? I could post a photo no less "spectacular" of yours, I just consider it beneath my dignity to be engaged in denigrating the religion of other people. On the contrary, I sincerely respect and honor other religions on a par with ISLAM and, in general, very much respect religious people, regardless of nationality. Let's respect each other, for you will be respected yourself.
      1. Very old
        Very old 24 July 2013 17: 22
        RAUF, religion is a very difficult question. And I would not discuss it at VO. But you know that Christianity has already passed the period of hegemony (which the Spanish Inquisition alone is worth), even we, the patient Russia, had incidents. But there comes a time of sobering, reflection. But it’s stupid to divide Muslims into those who are committed to ALI and those who do not accept it. We Christians still argue about how to be baptized.
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 24 July 2013 18: 07
          Dear Valentine! I completely agree with you. Religion is the PERSONAL concept. A person believes (or disbelieves) according to his convictions, worldview. It's like an inner world, a corner where outsiders are prohibited from access, where the soul is open wide open only for itself. And suddenly someone appears and completely carelessly declares that I DO NOT like YOUR SOUL, because some one has done something 10000 km away from here. Let me, where is I or another, whose state of mind and way of thinking are similar to mine? I or another friend of mine did not kill, rob, or blow up anyone. I do not judge by you, my "accuser," about other people whose state of mind and way of thinking are similar to yours. Sometimes you read monstrously illiterate comments, the authors of which do not even have elementary concepts about the Qur'an. Let it be known to them that ISLAM IS VERY RESPECTIVE FOR JESUS ​​(THE PROPHET OF ISA) AND FOR MOSES (THE PROPHET OF MUSA), as well as for CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAS SEMAWI DIN - RELIGIONS SENT FROM HEAVEN A. Raspri, (the sizes of which are monstrously inflated by the ordered media) between different currents of ISLAM, this reflects not the religion, but the level of society of a particular country. For example, who has heard of religious strife between the Turks, although there are also Sunnis and Shiites here? For them, this is a passed stage somewhere in the Middle Ages, as well as for Protestants and Catholics, while in Pakistan and Iraq, alas, unfortunately, it is still relevant.
          1. Very old
            Very old 24 July 2013 20: 32
            Thanks for your understanding, Rauf. I am Orthodox Christian. But I am ashamed of the division - denominations, sects, And in Islam we see almost the same
            1. xetai9977
              xetai9977 24 July 2013 20: 45
              Sects are always evil! And its founders least of all think about religion, but always pursue their own selfish goals.
        2. does it
          does it 24 July 2013 20: 09
          Quote: Very old
          RAUF, religion is a very difficult question. And I would not discuss it at VO.

          Isn't religion a weapon?
          1. Very old
            Very old 24 July 2013 20: 34
            YES! And very formidable. In dirty hands is very dangerous.
      2. biglow
        biglow 24 July 2013 17: 25
        the debate about religions is very inconvenient and quickly leads to a storm of emotions, but nevertheless, in Islam, many movements and the followers of these movements violently prove their truth by killing each other, which has long been absent either in Christianity or in Buddhism and the Jews also learned how to get along between themselves.
        So all the same, what is happening in the Islamic world is still the level of development of this religion, which other religions have already passed.
        1. does it
          does it 24 July 2013 20: 14
          Quote: biglow
          the debate about religions is very inconvenient and quickly leads to a storm of emotions, but nevertheless, in Islam, many movements and the followers of these movements violently prove their truth by killing each other, which has long been absent either in Christianity or in Buddhism and the Jews also learned how to get along between themselves.
          In all religions it is! simply, many do not put dirty linen on public display. Others stubbornly do not want to notice it.
        2. Very old
          Very old 24 July 2013 20: 39
          biglow- Ulster. Catholics and Protestants. And for the FLAG on the avatar - thanks. Do not talk about the Jews, they have a big brawl in Israel. Orthadoxes against reformers Wow!
          1. biglow
            biglow 24 July 2013 21: 19
            Quote: Old very
            biglow- Ulster. Catholics and Protestants. And for the FLAG on the avatar - thanks. Do not talk about the Jews, they have a big brawl in Israel. Orthadoxes against reformers Wow!

            in Ulster, the issue is exclusively political and not religious in nature. When Britain did not intervene in the life of the communities, they lived peacefully and calmly. In Israel, there are disagreements between different movements, but they do not kill each other like Shiites and Sunnis. In Islam, there are about 70 religious movements, and these are only large ones.
            1. Very old
              Very old 24 July 2013 21: 32
              Russian version of Wikipedia. All about sects in the Russian Orthodox Church. Although I was interested in this issue BEFORE the universal Internet. Joy did not experience. Almost every village has its own understanding of the gospel
            2. xetai9977
              xetai9977 24 July 2013 21: 36
              bİGLOW "IN ISLAM about 70 currents ..."
              Nothing like this! The largest Sunnis and Shiites are the remaining sects. Similarly, Christians are Baptists, 50 foremen, Adventists, Molokans, etc. Dear, let's end this pointless conversation.
      3. Humpty
        Humpty 24 July 2013 18: 11
        Quote: xetai9977
        You are right, you are not only naive, but also uneducated. On the contrary, I sincerely respect and respect other religions on a par with ISLAM and generally very respect religious people regardless of nationality. Let's respect each other, for you will be respected by yourself.

        I'm about religions and I'm not going to argue. My neighbors, as it were, Muslims have grown beards, they go to the mosque, pray. Dressing gowns were put on themselves, non-traditional for their people, they greet. At the same time, for their systematic non-payment of comm. services it is impossible to carry out major repairs at home, sometimes borrowed for vodka, do not give. Probably the "wrong" debt for vodka is not necessary.
        About education, I ask you do not. Although the parish school did not finish, but unlearned in other places.
        Islam is written in the photo, but I wrote about Islamism.
        Sincerely .
        1. Yeraz
          Yeraz 24 July 2013 19: 28
          Quote: Humpty
          My neighbors, as it were, Muslims grew beards, they go to the mosque, pray.

          Quote: Humpty
          sometimes borrowed for vodka,

          Your second commentary showed that they are not Muslims.
        2. xetai9977
          xetai9977 24 July 2013 20: 24
          Alexander, and you, on the basis of the fact that someone put on a robe and does not pay for a communal apartment, concluded that Islam and "misanthropy" are identical? And I ask you to remember, a Muslim who goes to the mosque and vodka are INCOMPATIBLE.
          1. Very old
            Very old 24 July 2013 20: 49
            Once again, RAUFU - history knows all Christianity and all Islam. Our argument is pointless. It is important for me that a person has in his soul
            1. xetai9977
              xetai9977 24 July 2013 21: 10
              Valentine, and I am talking about the same thing. An absolutely pointless conversation. They just call you (or your religion) a "man-hater". This is not the case, I repeat, religion is a very thin string, and you should not touch it. As it is written in the holy books, "do not take the name of the Lord in vain"
          2. does it
            does it 25 July 2013 08: 08
            Quote: xetai9977
            And please remember, a Muslim who goes to a mosque and vodka is INCOMPATIBLE.

            Even as they drink, among my friends there are Muslims who faith does not interfere with being friends with the green serpent.
      4. TUNISIA
        TUNISIA 24 July 2013 21: 32
        "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." This was not said by me, but one clever German, and almost the whole world agrees with him with rare exceptions.
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 24 July 2013 21: 40
          Do not engage in provocation! .And one even smarter said "Everyone speaks according to the level of their intelligence." I have already written about Hitler, Breivik and other "Islamic terrorists"
          1. TUNISIA
            TUNISIA 24 July 2013 21: 43
            You do not doubt the level of my intelligence, especially since I warned in advance about the authorship of these words and that it does not belong to me, but I agree with the statement!
            1. xetai9977
              xetai9977 24 July 2013 21: 54
              An intelligent person will not offend other people's religious feelings. This is called a beat. You can think anything you like, but not everything you think is said out loud.
              1. TUNISIA
                TUNISIA 24 July 2013 22: 28
                What are you saying! This is whose religious feelings I touched and WHAT, most importantly ?! Have you definitely read what I have written above? Or stupidly engaged in walking on my profile and chopping down cons in all my posts three to four months ago due to the fact that I dared to express the words of a German leader about Islam?
            2. ayyildiz
              ayyildiz 24 July 2013 22: 05
              Quote: TUNISIA
              especially since I warned in advance about the authorship of these words and that it does not belong to me, but I agree with the statement!

              A lot of Christian terrorists eat, if you look at Christians, many more people were killed than Muslims! Now think
              1. TUNISIA
                TUNISIA 26 July 2013 01: 01
                Do you live in Russia? According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Russian language here, with us, is the state language. Learn it before you talk to me!
        2. ayyildiz
          ayyildiz 24 July 2013 21: 56
          You know Tunisia in a country where a lot of Muslim citizens can’t write such things! Such conversations will not translate to anything good!
      5. ratuld
        ratuld 25 July 2013 07: 43
        Well, you're so cute so plastatsya then?
        Already breathtaking.
        World domination of the Jewish paradigm of the world order ended in 1933.
        The Anglo-Saxons moved and financed Adolf Aloizovich.
        Adolf Aloizovich ran away from the leash.
        He was gently removed.
        Now the Coens are thinking how to fool the population further.
        Judaism ends with the first lines of the sezers of Yetzirazogar. Sick.
        Christianity does not cause anything but pity and a sensation of golem obscurantism.
        Islam has already been blown away in the world of Jews.
        Move the fag.
        Maybe govnomesy somehow help the poor lads.
  5. Very old
    Very old 24 July 2013 17: 28
    M.SAPRONOVA, sensitive issues must be delicately addressed. In our city: Russian husband, Tatar wife. She is a Bashkir, he is an Udmurt. Do not share them!
  6. lemal
    lemal 24 July 2013 18: 39
    Here I have the surname Mullashev, I’m baptized myself, although my father is Muslim. I don’t know what Sunni or Shiite is! Not long ago, Allah akbar wrote 2 times for fun, so I was almost expelled from the site! such nonsense.
    1. Very old
      Very old 24 July 2013 20: 54
      If you feel right, DO NOT BE ashamed. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I am not ashamed of this. So, Mullashev!
  7. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 24 July 2013 19: 16
    All the same, you need to separate the flies from the cutlets ... Before you fight with religion and for religion, you need to turn on the brains (which uneducated people don’t have, and on this and that side, they’re shouting, either kill the infidels or kill the Islamists).

    Any caliphate is a form of globalization. The form of supremacy of a handful of PEOPLE (not Allah, the struggle of God and people for power - even the most stupid people will not think about it, but they are poorly educated in such speeches) who hide behind Islam in order to achieve wealth, power, creation for their children.

    1) Sunnism and its extreme form of Wahhabism imply the power of the Saudi monarchs. Submission to all the peoples of the world. Interpretations of the Koran come only from their den. Internationalism is declared: Muslim Ummah (nation). But in practice, look at the society of Qatar, the Saudis and other countries ... Is there multinationality there? NETU. There, Arabs are the highest form of people. These are Nazi countries. Why are the Taliban fighting for them? Afghanistan is a poor country, receives money from oil, guess at once, whose songs they will sing? Sunnism claims that Muhammad and his descendants of the Saudi Arabs are the highest form of power and people. Arabs cunningly pick up the keys to the cities of opponents: they are looking for traitors. Are you Kyrgyz You have money, go kill the unfaithful Kyrgyz, I'll give you more. This is how Wahhabi extremists appear. They betray their nation and go to the service of the Arab monarch.

    2) Shiism is a form of opposition to the centralism of the Saudis among Muslims. Clever Peripheral Arabs were able to understand that, under the pretext of fighting for Allah, the Sunnis took away their local authority and offered them an election. Shiites in the form of a democratic branch of Islam represent. The idea was well picked up by the Persians, who had lost their great culture. Persia realized that it was turning into one of the regions, and not into an empire, so it seized on Shiism. Turks are pseudo-Sunnis. For the most part, Sufism is closer to them. They did not recognize the power of the Arabs and ruled for a long time in the Ottoman Empire. This nation will never become a true Sunni country. These are the Turks. Erdogan politically betrayed the Türks and the Turkic idea.

    3) The idea of ​​a great caliphate is easily broken not by confrontation with Islam, but by its leadership. You cannot fight the hearts of billions. But you can head. This gives harijism. This is a dead branch of religion. Which says: the supreme power can be not only among Saudi Arabs, but any nation. Unlike Sunnism, this branch gives true internationalism. When all the peoples of Islam are recognized equal and each has its own ruler (which is now observed all over the world). The closest to it in ideology are Muslims of Russia. When everything gets along within the framework of traditional Islam (Islamic values ​​outside the context of power). It is necessary to remove the word traditional Islam and give the world Harijism. Russia should patronize every nominally Islamic state and be a beacon. Then the conditional Kyrgyz will not fight for Arab money for the Arab country of the caliphate. He will fight for his country, for the Kyrgyz, for his allies and will not experience Of soulful discomfort from the fact that he fights against those who shout "Allah akbar" and are Muslim. Because it will be clear that he is also a worthy traditional Muslim and is no further than an Arab from Allah. And that the fight is not against Islam, but against the Arab.

    In general, even if Jews cannot reach such a simple truth, uniting Muslims against themselves, I cannot know who finally can understand and voice and finally make Caliphate not destroy the world. Or is it beneficial to them? I can not understand...
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 24 July 2013 20: 43
      KG PATRIOT You at least first study the pre-topic that you are going to write about.
      "Sunnism claims that ... Arabs are the highest form of people." This is not true. For Islam, nationality is not important. There is a Muslim, and it does not matter what nationality he is.
      "Shiism is a form of opposition to the centralism of the Saudis among Muslims" Think of this ... The Saudis are the dynasty ruling in Saudi Arabia. Their lineage dates back to the 15th century. And Shiism is a trend in Islam. It arose in the 8th century. And please explain how Erdogan "betrayed the Turks"
      1. KG_patriot_last
        KG_patriot_last 24 July 2013 20: 58
        I’m not going to argue with the Turk who knows about Arab culture and politics better. Prove to non-Turks that you are better wink
        1. xetai9977
          xetai9977 24 July 2013 21: 03
          We are no worse and no better than other nations. We respect everyone and hope for reciprocity.
  8. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 24 July 2013 19: 31
    Russian imperialism in form was also part of the globalization of the peoples of the world. Just like today's Western strategy. But unlike the western one, the Russian one was still more effective. The Yenisei Kyrgyz had several descendants: Tuvinians, Altai, Khakass - all these peoples were "humanized". Indeed, they have almost disappeared - culture and language multiplied by zero for many centuries. In general, like the culture of the Kyrgyz, the Arabs multiplied by zero. The tongue is still holding on.
    And what about the west? For many centuries, they did not succeed. On the contrary, now their former colonies impose their culture, their concepts and dominate them. Soon they will probably become part of the caliphate.
    It is not clear who will lead the Turks and their culture in the new century. Or so we will hang between 2 cultures ... And also Westerners appeared with hulks, hamburgers and beers ... Globalization is his mother's leg.

    In general, the one who offers the peoples of the world the safety of their cultures will win the new world war.
  9. Yeraz
    Yeraz 24 July 2013 19: 39
    Quote: KG_patriot_last
    Then the conditional Kyrgyz will not fight for Arab money for the Arab country of the caliphate.

    People are fighting not for the Arab country of the caliphate, but for the Islamic country of the caliphate. By your logic, what do people accept the Arab religion of Islam?
    Is democracy or communism better than sharia norms? Nothing. People dream of a state with Islamic norms. The fact that some people play on this topic is another matter.
    1. angolaforever
      angolaforever 25 July 2013 14: 55
      Islam brings death and war to the world. They have written in the Qur'an that anyone who dies in a war with infidels will go to heaven. Or let them refuse this item or should this religion be banned.
      1. tilovaykrisa
        tilovaykrisa 25 July 2013 14: 59
        Listen to you so it is necessary to kill all the Tatars, where so much aggression? Do you also know Catholicism is not a gift, how many souls were sent to heaven by Catholics? Islam is still far from them, it is not necessary to ban Islam, but to fight against sectarianism in the form of Wahhabism and other things, and to do this in the first outline with the help and preferably the hands of those who preach Islam.
        1. angolaforever
          angolaforever 25 July 2013 17: 48
          And what about Catholicism? We are talking about the current realities, and not the past, we remember and take revenge. Every suicide bomber believes that he will go to heaven, every action movie, too, that’s why. Therefore, Islam is dangerous for the world, the solution may be a refusal or other interpretation of this meaning from the Koran to collect some of the coolest and most respected Islamic preachers from around the world. Then the ban and the destruction of sects that do not accept this decision. Only then can Islam exist as a peaceful and non-threatening religion.
      2. xetai9977
        xetai9977 25 July 2013 17: 57
        Here's how, and the Muslims started 2 world wars too? In general, how many wars do you remember that Muslims would start? And about the "prohibition of Islam", and before you tried, but did not achieve anything. Remember the Crusades (and the atrocities of the Crusaders too)
        1. angolaforever
          angolaforever 25 July 2013 18: 34
          Firstly, world wars were fought not by Islamic countries, but by the political and military elites of developed countries among themselves for resources and influence. And here you are to them at all? Secondly, all these wars are recognized as unjust and humanity is trying to build a world as close as possible to the ideal and fair, but Islam is like a black spot. I don’t understand, are you trying to justify and give the green light to Islamic crimes with the help of the past? Or why constant excursions into history?
          1. xetai9977
            xetai9977 25 July 2013 21: 06
            Well, where did you see the justification for the crimes in my comments? And secondly, why are these crimes necessarily "Islamic"? I then, by the simplicity of my soul, assumed that crimes were committed by criminals, not "Christians", "Muslims", "Buddhists." You say "Islam brings wars to the world." To the objection that it was not Islam that started both world wars, you are already hitting scholasticism. A crime is a crime, and it does not matter who commits it, Christian or Muslim, he is a criminal. And in your opinion, it turns out that Islam and wars, crimes are identical. In any case, this is how your comments are perceived.
            1. angolaforever
              angolaforever 26 July 2013 10: 54
              I don’t understand why this pun is. I directly said that Islam carries evil into the world, because the Qur'an says that anyone who fights against infidels will go to heaven. No world religion today has the promise of a paradise for murder. These are relics of the Stone Age. In the process of the development of people, Christianity for the most part went into more modern Protestantism, and Islam, which was in the 9th century, remained so, not corresponding to reality. No faith has so much intolerance of other faiths. And this is in the 21st century, when many people with the development of science have a hard time imagining God and explaining his existence for themselves.
  10. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 24 July 2013 20: 02
    Millions of Turks are busy with the idea of ​​a caliphate. Share with the power with the Semites brothers - this is their highest chic. It does not occur to them that the Jews and Arabs are brothers. What, for the sake of which they sacrifice their lives: Muhammad, Jesus and Moses are Arabs and Jews. And that Islam - this is their culture in its purest form, a code of laws, morality, a criminal code and so on. That the peoples who generated Abrahamism live no more than 500 km from the epicenter of events. They want one thing: power over the world. Previously, they interfered with Rome, Greece, Egypt, Persia. Now no one bothers them. Now these three have remained and are fighting among themselves. Who pulls the strings: everyone points to Jews, and Arabs are mistaken for a backward people ...

    No matter how you hate China and India, these are great nations. The only ones who managed to preserve their culture, increase the people, language and economy. The USSR almost managed to become the center of atheism. I did not survive.

    That's who the Turks need to learn from. Instead, hang out between and continue to degrade. Who will be able to throw a cry from the Turks? Again hoping for the Mongols? Until now, the Mongols are more Turkic than all the other Turks who shredded ... They think they are fighting communism, democracy, and so on ... But they are not embarrassed that they need to fight for the Turks, for the Turkic culture, language. They want to speak Arabic, pray in Arabic, live in Arabic. Well, good luck fighting communism and democracy with the help of the Arab culture of Islam.

    But it used to be thought. Now, unfortunately, you can’t change anything, you can only head and change at least a bit of their worldview in favor of the Türks. For the nation of Turks and blood.
    1. Yeraz
      Yeraz 24 July 2013 20: 56
      KG-Patriot and who are you by religion?
      They are fighting for the Turkic culture, but do you think the people in power are all interested in this ?? Are the surrounding states thinking interested in the fact that the vast territory of the Turks with huge reserves of everything has begun to unite?
      how much kipash was raised against the Kazakhs, only because they will move to the Latin alphabet after some years.
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 24 July 2013 20: 59
      kg-patriot Your statements are not based on anything. Where is the statement that “millions of Turks are busy with the idea of ​​a caliphate.” And what does it have to do with the Turks? And where did you get the idea that "the Turks are degrading." In my opinion, rather the opposite.
      1. ratuld
        ratuld 25 July 2013 07: 49
        Dear !!!
        Throw yourself a fool.
        What are TURKS ???
        Speak directly - do not be shy!
        Jews and all.
        There are no "Jews" "Arabs" "Palestinians" "Bedouins" "Turks" "Chechens" and so on.
        There are genetic nuclear haplogroups of the male population that determine both race and nationality and kinship and origin.
        All of the above-mentioned so-called nationalities have a completely definite genetic name - JEWISH.
        Hapldogroups J1 and J2
  11. The comment was deleted.
  12. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 24 July 2013 21: 29
    All great states were distinguished by religious tolerance, as they were multinational. The whole experience of Christianity, and it has more time for development, says that the state must be separated from religion in order to be effective. Moreover, it will curtsy in any direction towards religion in order to motivate its existence among these people.
  13. Very old
    Very old 24 July 2013 21: 43
    Stop swearing. We are not going to do this. And have GOD in your soul, respect the believer. The Japanese would have laughed at us - he is not a Muslim, not a Jew, not a Christian - and this is not worse than all of us. I understand and respect!
    1. xetai9977
      xetai9977 24 July 2013 22: 06
      Golden words, Valentine. You +. From me
  14. ratuld
    ratuld 25 July 2013 07: 53
    All major "religions" of the world have one thing - the so-called Judeo-Christian foundation.
    That is, everything is conceived and implemented by one people in one place.
    Well, thank God !!!
    Live as you want !!!
    Thank God I do not belong to you.
    Fool your head yourself and your children.
    Leave others alone !!!
  15. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 25 July 2013 11: 21
    My friends, it’s time to be guided by the concept: There are no good or bad peoples, there are good or bad representatives of it, The same can be said about Religion and Faith! Believe what you want, but at the same time remain a MAN !!!!!
  16. EdwardTich68
    EdwardTich68 26 July 2013 01: 14
    There is no "Islamic world" but there are medieval clan-tribal semi-state formations
    filled with hordes of illiterate, unemployed obscurantists. They are currently used as cannon fodder by American and European Jewish capital. am (HOLIDAYS OF CHRIST SELLERS)
    TUNISIA 26 July 2013 01: 26
    Quote: xetai9977
    "Islam brings wars to the world"

    Enough to build someone who doesn't understand himself! Don't you understand what this is about? Type in a search engine the phrase: "extremism in the Koran." There they will write everything down for you. Then just take it and check it. Find something like that in the Bible, you are our pacified !!!