Leadership of the Muslim world - wherefrom?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

In his book “The Clash of Civilisation”, Samuel Huntingdon identifies that the biggest obstacle to the transformation of the Muslim world into a major power block is that there is no country capable of leading it, should it be united.

Huntingdon proposed that there ware only 3 states that have the potential to lead a united Muslim world, but they all have serious problems that renders them unsuitable.

Turkey

Turkey is the first nation that he proposed. Being in NATO, it has arguably the most powerful conventional military force in the Muslim world, as well as being stable and accepted as a friendly nation by all major world powers. Its past history as the leader of the Muslim world leans in its favour as well.

Counterbalancing this, is the fact that during the last few decades of Turkey’s leadership of the Muslim world, its Arab subjects were mistreated and as such there residual political resentment towards Turkey, which would make many arab countries unwilling to come under Turkish influence again.

Iran

Iran was the second nation that he proposed. It’s vast and underdeveloped oil reserves give it incredible economic potential, it has a budding nuclear programme, strong armed forces and an economy that has proven to be surprisingly robust (ie hasn’t collapsed completely) despite not being able to trade with the world’s biggest economy. Iran has also managed to tread a truly independent path since its revolution.

Counting against Iran is the fact that being Shia, it would probably not be acceptable to the Sunni world as a source of leadership.

Pakistan

Pakistan was the final country Huntingdon proposed. Primarily due to its friendship with all Muslim countries, the similarity of its relgious beliefs in the form of Islam practised to the rest of the Muslim world, and its military strength he viewed it as being a strong candidacy.

But he rejected it as being a truly valid leader, on the basis that the Sunni/Shia schism in Pakistani society was too strong a source of instability to enable it to lead.

Huntingdon’s conclusion was that the Muslim world would remain, for the next 200 years at leats, so weakened by its inability to find a a suitable leader that it will be forced into alliance with China to balance out the power of the West and restore equilibrium to international geopolitics.

So what do you think? Is the future that bleak for finding a source of leadership for the Ummah?

2

IMO, Turkey's biggest block to assume a leadership position is their own averseness to Islam as a guiding principle. Ata Turk and his followers tried to plurge Islam from their government as he deemed it as the biggest factor hindering Turkey. The present day leadership (military) of Turkey will want to remain secular and thus to lead a muslim bloc of any kind will be oxymoronic for them.

Iran represents a minority faction.

Pakistan has the desire to lead, as she makes non-stop tries to put her 2 cents in all causes dear to muslims around the world. The military is sharp and the weaponary is top-notch. But the abject poverty in a large part of the country, population explosion and the constant struggle for the country to define its own role will hold her back. Pakistani leadership can't make up its mind whether they want to be a progressive Islamic democracy or whether they want to be a more theocratic shura based country. Years of non-democratic rule and a majority of illiterate populace doesn't help either in providing direction to the leaders.

I think the defacto leader of Islamic world in the present world is Saudi Arabia, simply because of its geography, oil resources and the fact that it controls the two holiest places in the Islamic world. Unfortunately their rulers have little following amongst the rest of the Islamic population, and therefore they lack any kind of credibility.

3

:k: ditto…

4

The very idea that somehow the Muslim countries have to be physically united with common government & justice system so on and so forth is first step in the wrong direction. The stress should be on unity & a capaign to look out for each other ... and when you are done building this bond, then you can work towards some sort of unity.

5

there is no meaning for the word muslim it is used liberally.
is there any miltary alliance like nato or european union
it is just a religen practised in different countries.

6

Re: Leadership of the Muslim world - wherefrom?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
.....
Huntingdon's conclusion was that the Muslim world .....

[/QUOTE]

SH is the biggest loony serving up tu&d to the willing audience in Mullah-AyaTullah nexus. He has no idea about the culture prevalent in Muslim countries.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
.. it will be forced into alliance with China to balance out the power of the West
[/QUOTE]

Chinese are not stupid. They are already part of the West (and so is Pakistan). Far-Eastern people can't stand beardos even for a single moment.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
.. Is the future that bleak for finding a source of leadership for the Ummah?
[/QUOTE]

As long as they are looking for someone from Comie, leftie, socialist, or Marxist Mullah-Ayatullah cabal. NO! That means never. Also Ummah means humanity not a bunch of self-righteous beardos.

Pakistan is not the leader but "an equal opportunity A$$ kicker" of the anarchists of the Muslim and non-Muslim world.