I came across an article on internet which said some one asked a question on Quora what would the world be like if there were no Muslims. I thought that is an interesting question and the second pa…
I came across an article on internet which said some one asked a question on Quora what would the world be like if there were no Muslims. I thought that is an interesting question and the second part of the article was a reply given to this question by another person claiming that mathematics would not have been there photography would not have been there and many other inventions that were first invented in the Arab world and later on carried into the west world. Then there was a frenzy of people congratulating and praising the answer, I have no doubt that 99% of these would be Muslim just like whenever there is a news that Indian ancient text consisted of some knowledge which was earlier thought to have been discovered by some other culture every Hindu jumps out of the seat saying “look we were always ahead of other cultures” as if it matters, what matters is that Hindus were foolish enough to forget and let go of whatever knowledge that they had and lived as “beggars for 1000 years as a penalty first under Muslim rulers and then under the British rulers” so this chest thumping on the ancient knowledge makes me feel ridiculous being myself from a Brahmin family.
However coming back to the issue of what world would be if there were no Muslims in it. I would say there would be “zero negative impact” on the world if there were no Muslims in the world. If only there would have been a little positive impact in the world but “ZERO NEGATIVE IMPACT” on the world if there was no Islam in the world. Before everybody starts jumps onto the abusing bandwagon please do give me a chance to elaborate on what I mean.
Let us handle the question geography wise. The middle east would have been still the same with every tribe controlling the region by military power or getting united behind a tribe following some religion with some obscure name for every tribe like they used to before Islam. No country of middle east is in existence on the basis of religion but rather all of them are in existence under a particular tribal following like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran ( the Islamic revolution would have been some other obscure religion revolution with same result.), Bahrain, Jordan, Syria you name a country and it is just a tribe with a ruler with different name at the head of it. What role Islam plays in this region is only of unifying all these tribes rhetoric to appease their slavish population and not even actions against other religions like Jewish ,Christians, Hindus etc.
In Europe and North America the immigrants would have simply been called as pagans instead of Muslims and since their would not have been a single religion to blame for whatever tribal terrorism would have emanated from middle east not every one would have been blamed for terrorism rather national identities instead of religious identities would have been used to pinpoint the trouble makers and as such there would have been no way out for Saudi’s from 9/11 under the name of religious zealotry when it has got nothing to do with Islam but rather a backlash for cultural destruction in middle east due to American policy and funnily because of the occasion “Trump” would not have been called Islamophobic to ask for a better immigration policies for people of these nationalities.
In South Asia there would have been no Pakistan as there would have been no identity unifying the invaders of different tribes varying from Turks, Uzbek,Afghan or Mongolian. Invaders would have still attacked the Indian subcontinent with same intensity and ferocity as Islamic spread was never the reason for invasion of India by any force and it was always only the wealth of India that attracted the invaders. The Indian culture would have been the same as it was today just with lesser number of riots as there would have been no animosity that could have remained in the people if all the atrocities were not done in the name of religion and if there were lesser number of memorials that were built in the name of Islam to show the Hindus that they have been conquered. Islam was used in these invasions only to create a frenzy among the army that they were fighting not for their rulers but rather for a god even when the winner and beneficiary of all their lives were mere mortal rulers who would never step in the field of war for even a minute. The invaders would have more easily become part of the community as the mongol invaders became part of the Chinese culture since there was no religion involved in the invasion but were equally brutal in nature as were Indian invasion. This would have left India culturally united and even if British would have found some way to divide India into two parts to stop communist the acrimony between the nations would have been much lesser if no religion was involved.
The problem that seems to be plaguing the Islamic world is their refusal to use their nationalities as their identity and accepting that they have nothing in common other than a book. If you will randomly pick two guys who claim to be muslim there would be nothing else that would be common in between them, they would most probably be from tribes at war at the moment and would refuse to believe the other one as muslim since he would be of a different sect( Shia or Sunni and then different sects within) and would be hell bent that killing the other would lead them to heaven. Their refusal to identify with nationality and their quest to identify with religion leads them to follow traditions which are medieval in nature and have emanated from tribal culture of middle east and has no resonance with the modern society. It stops them from integrating into the societies which they are a part of and is slowly making each nation on this planet divisive. Islam is a religion of peace or not is not a question I want answer to. The question is Is Islam being followed in a way which makes it a religion of peace? Their can be no other religion which can be as violent in nature as Hinduism which says that to protect the right anything that you can do is allowed even if it means picking weapons against your own family. But is Hinduism being practiced in a way that makes it violent. Does Hindus have to cry every time that theirs is a religion of peace. So if Muslims have to do this every time then they need to introspect rather than shut every one else down in the name of Islamophobia. I watched a video of Mr. Zakir Naik who is a self proclaimed expert on Islam claiming that other religion cannot be allowed to exist in Islamic countries with the logic that if you know 2+2 =4 then how can you allow 2+2= 6 be taught to some one. The thing is that every religion says the same thing one says 2+2 other says 6-2, another says 8/2 and yet another says 4*1 but all are saying the result will be 4 it is the mind set of people who want others to remain backward that insist that only one will result in 4. If followers of Islam would have followed Islam wearing a cowboys hat in Texas with clean shaves and the women would have followed the same clothing as women in the west and understood that the conflict in the middle east has got to do nothing with them it is a matter of under developed civilizations ruled by tribal warlords and they have their own life to make in America or Europe and they need to maintain that culture if they want to reap the benefits from these societies no one and I mean literally no one would have been bothered with Muslim immigration in these countries. It is their refusal to let go off tribal identities that differentiate them and make them a threat to the western civilization and by doing so they loose their right to say that we are also a part of this society and why are muslims being victimized. The solution to this problem seems to lie only in individual introspection and open debate atleast in the western countries Islamic groups regarding separation of identities culturally and religiously. as I am sure no tribal leader worth his salt would allow such a discussion to take place in the middle east as it would endanger their practices of covert slavery.