The Only Way to World Peace is an Islamic Union

[Kompromat]

Even if all the Muslim countries unite, it will still be economically, demographically & militarily weaker than India-China-Russia combine.

They can't 'combine'

 

[Hiptullha]

Even if all the Muslim countries unite, it will still be economically, demographically & militarily weaker than India-China-Russia combine.

Which means nothing as there are little chances of war taking place. Trying to harass or antagonize any such union would be very foolish since it would make up an extremely powerful ally.

 

[VCheng]

They can't 'combine'

Neither can the Muslim countries, to be honest.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

I specified earlier that EU is not run by Christianity but is a club of Christian countries.

Even the US constitution clearly states that the US is not built on Christianity, even though we all know how big of a role Christianity has in the US.

Big? As in what.

 

[kalu_miah]

Even if all the Muslim countries unite, it will still be economically, demographically & militarily weaker than India-China-Russia combine.

India, China and Russia will never combine. BRICS is a temporary anti West bloc. There is nothing in common, ethnicity or culture. ASEAN+3 will side with any united Muslim bloc for energy reasons and Russia will pull towards EU eventually.

 

[Kompromat]

Neither can the Muslim countries, to be honest.

Did i say so?

Big? As in what.

Try getting electing in the Republican states without being affiliated to a Church.

 

[chhota bheem]

Because the countries in OIC are toothless and simply servants of greater countries.

So changing the same will make them strong ?

The best option is to work on OIC and make it strong instead of making a new union.

 

[VCheng]

Did i say so?

You did not, but I did say so, and I seem to be quite correct in saying so.

 

[The SC]

Who gives a crap about what a religious figure says in the EU, the EU is secular and doesn't have an official religion. Turkey can join the EU if it wants to and the EU should accept them, I don't see why Turkey couldn't.

Well, the main reason they have said in the beginning was that turkey needed further developments, but when you see them accepting Greece, Portugal, Poland and others recently who were much less developed than Turkey, it reaffirms the Christian underlying of the EU, and confirms what was in the news for years about refusing Turkey mainly because of it Muslim nature. Turkey today is more religious than at those times with much more Hijabi girls than ever.

 

[nvKyleBrown]

Islamic union is not the way for World peace.

Peace starts with tolerance.
And tolerance dosnt have place for.
1)My God is the only God
2)My religion is the only true religion
3)My race is the greatest race and others are inferior

We can have union of countries for betterment of the people.

You can think those things, but not kill people over it. You can think whatever you want. And so can your neighbor. That's the important part - not what you think, but your commitment to not kill your neighbor over what he thinks.

As long as Muslims are easy prey for the game ''devide and rule'',nothing will change.

I don't think anyone is playing that game. Muslims are doing it to themselves, by themselves. No outside assistance required. Everyone else is trying to get them to quit (so we can go back to making money and not getting killed by your wackos).

 

[Hiptullha]

So changing the same will make them strong ?

The best option is to work on OIC and make it strong instead of making a new union.

I'm just pointing out that the only reason the OIC is not considered very powerful is because it's too dependent on greater countries.

I don't think anyone is playing that game. Muslims are doing it to themselves, by themselves.

Assad would have crushed the FSA before Uncle Sam and 'Murican freedom stepped in.

Well, the main reason they have said in the beginning was that turkey needed further developments, but when you see them accepting Greece, Portugal, Poland and others recently who were much less developed than Turkey, it reaffirms the Christian underlying of the EU, and confirms what was in the news for years about refusing Turkey mainly because of it Muslim nature. Turkey today is more religious than at those times with much more Hijabi girls than ever.

They are close to accepting Bosnia and Albania, two predominantly Muslim countries.

 

[nvKyleBrown]

Did i say so?
Try getting electing in the Republican states without being affiliated to a Church.

Are you suggesting that Christians should not be allowed to run for office, or that Christians should not be allowed to vote for Christians? Would you want the same rule for other religions as well?

The fact that they are Christian is incidental. They are not forcing anyone else to become Christian, banning immigrants based on religion, or such. You can preach Islam in the US to non-Muslims, its a constitutionally protected right. Can a Christian preach Christianity to non-Christians in any Muslim country?

Separation of Church and State was originally promulgated by Christians themselves though. The Catholic Church effectively ruled Europe, but dissenting Christians felt that Christianity was a conscious decision, rather than something one could be born into - you had to decide to follow Christ. That being the case, the Church operating as the state and forcing conversions or membership made no sense, and they advocated for separation. Didn't come about till well after the Reformation (the Lutherans were no better than the Catholics on this matter, at the time).

From Wikipedia, about 16th century Anabaptist beliefs that are still influential today:

• Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice – the authority of the Scriptures
• Freedom of religion – liberty of conscience
• Separation of church and state
• Pacifism or nonresistance
• Separation or nonconformity to the world
• Voluntary church membership and believer's baptism
• Evangelistic zeal
• Priesthood of all believers

 

[The SC]

If there ever will be an Islamic union, it would be quite formidable and to "gang up" on it, the two major powers right now would need to unite together and separate differences. And what makes you think a union would not try to find cordial relations with its' neighbors and potential rivals?

Well said, but there will be no possibilities of ganging up on it, since it already possesses the largest oil and gaz resources of the world , it will than have total control on them and set the prices accordingly in one of its capitals not in London or New York. With the same profit margins they ask for for their "finished" products.
This is the the smallest part of it all, since the Muslim countries Union will be a global one, it might consist of four part, each one is the equivalent of a European-like Union in concept; The North African/African one, The middle East one, The Turkic one and the Asian one, all of them with some built in Coordination mechanism consisting of an internal part for coordinating the particular Union and an external one for coordination of the four of them as one entity. This is no small task but if the will is there , it should be possible, Another mechanism will be the classical diplomatic and economic one with the rest of the world, since this Union will not be hegemonic but rather a self protection and self reliance oriented one. Since benefiting its mass of 1.6 billion people will automatically benefit the rest of the world population in a way or another.

 

[Kompromat]

Are you suggesting that Christians should not be allowed to run for office, or that Christians should not be allowed to vote for Christians? Would you want the same rule for other religions as well?

The fact that they are Christian is incidental. They are not forcing anyone else to become Christian, banning immigrants based on religion, or such. You can preach Islam in the US to non-Muslims, its a constitutionally protected right. Can a Christian preach Christianity to non-Christians in any Muslim country?

Separation of Church and State was originally promulgated by Christians themselves though. The Catholic Church effectively ruled Europe, but dissenting Christians felt that Christianity was a conscious decision, rather than something one could be born into - you had to decide to follow Christ. That being the case, the Church operating as the state and forcing conversions or membership made no sense, and they advocated for separation. Didn't come about till well after the Reformation (the Lutherans were no better than the Catholics on this matter, at the time).

From Wikipedia, about 16th century Anabaptist beliefs that are still influential today:

• Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice – the authority of the Scriptures
• Freedom of religion – liberty of conscience
• Separation of church and state
• Pacifism or nonresistance
• Separation or nonconformity to the world
• Voluntary church membership and believer's baptism
• Evangelistic zeal
• Priesthood of all believers

Not at all.

I'm just suggesting that being a politician in America has a lot to do with being a Christian, which is completely okay.

 

[The SC]

They are close to accepting Bosnia and Albania, two predominantly Muslim countries.

It is a question of culture too, both Bosnia and Albania have some kind of European culture, while Turkey has mostly an oriental type of culture.