Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "Why there is no Arab superstate" video.

  1. The idea that the Muslim empires were singular with strong central authority is a myth. One reason the crusades were successful was that Islamic rule was highly fractured. The rulers of cities like Aleppo, Damascus, and Antioch might or might not help each other. They were really separate independent entities. During Ottoman Rule, Egypt was independent, even though it was supposedly "Ottoman". IMO, the main reason there is no Muslim "super state", is that the governing philosophies, institutions, and beliefs in the Muslim world are primitive. Saudi Arabia is a medieval monarchy, for instance. Muslim countries devolve into single man rule, like the rule of princes in the Middle Ages. There is no tradition of Parliaments, Assemblies, or other institutions based on voting. Democracy is alien to Muslims. Egypt and Pakistan have democratic institutions because of their brief rule by Britain. But, they are weak. The people, having no tradition of democracy, are comfortable with one man rule, and strive for that. What makes it worse is that the Koran endorses autocracy, not democracy. To many Muslims, democracy is alien and unacceptable. I doubt the Muslim world will change much in the next 100 years. In 2122, people will still be writing articles, asking "Why is the Muslim world poor?", "Why is the Muslim world undemocratic?", "Why can't modern high tech businesses succeed in Muslim countries?" The same questions that are asked now.
    3
  2. Muslims hate each other. That is why their is no Muslim superstate. Read the Crusades. Why were the crusaders able to invade and take over? Simple, the Muslim rulers hated each other, and could not unite their efforts. The ruler of Damascus hated the ruler of Aleppo who hated the ruler of Tyre who hated..... Muslim rule was a joke. It made the disunited medieval rulers of Christian Europe, who always killing each other, look family like in comparison. Muslims have been fighting and killing each other since the death of Muhammed. They must spend too much time under the sun.
    1
  3.  @fasoooli2751  IMO, all books of religion are frauds. They each claim to have the only truth. They each condemn those who don't accept. Religions, at their core, are about hate and rejection. Christians killed "heretics". Muslims still kill "apostates". Religion has been the basis for more killing throughout history than anything. Whole populations were killed for religion. So, yeah, Muslims should stop being Muslims, and become more human. Leave the hate.
    1
  4.  @fasoooli2751  Correct. Democracy is merely a process of counting votes. The majority can often be wrong. Very wrong. BUT -- the other option is to have a person who decides what is right and wrong for everyone. That is ALWAYS subject to abuse. If you don't have democracy, then you will have some kind of autocracy. Sure, you can have wise kings. But, you can also have crazy cruel ones -- see Caligula, Hitler, Ottoman Sultans, Stalin, etc. A democracy will reflect the people that have it. That i why Vermont is a very different place from Mississippi. The people are different, so the democratic results are different. A democracy in a Muslim country will be different from US or Denmark. HOWEVER, if a democracy oppresses selected people within the society, then injustice is created. See American slavery, or South African Apartheid. Such a democracy will eventually have a crisis. A democracy that is not fair and just to all its people violates the basic principles of democracy. Unlike a monarchy, which assumes an aristocracy, that are privileged and special under the law. See Saudi Arabia. Or a Theocracy, where clerics are privileged and special under the law. See Iran. Anytime some people are privileged, you will have abuse and injustice. Such a system is doomed to unrest and collapse, though it could exist for many years or decades.
    1