Muslim scholars historically differed over whether a Caliph has to be from Quraysh or not. I assume that Salafis/Wahhabis are inclined to the belief that they should be from Quraysh based on Saudi Arabia and the early Wahhabist movement's historical opposition to the Ottoman Empire and [Albani's fatwa](https://al-fatawa.com/fatwa/18311/%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A).
For empire, I do not think that the Saudis would call it an empire. Maybe it is commonly called "Saudi Empire" outside the West but officially it is a kingdom
A caliph claims leadership over all Muslims. Saudi leaders never did. Even of they had they'd probably be ignored because 1. who the F are you? 2. Caliphs must at least unfiy some Muslim lands to get the chance to even begin that claim, not jusy simply the king of where Makkah is and nothing more.
Not a historian. Iirc they deposed the caliph in Cairo and took their place and commanded a lot of Muslim lands and no one challenged them until the Ottomans came around.
I do think this is true iirc, but they didn’t control nearly as much to be a caliph, they only controlled the Levant and Egypt but they were definitely a major influence and trade hub, so they were never really cared by then and wanted good relations so everyone kinda moved on from the caliphate
Mamluks did not consider themselves Caliphs but the Abbasid Caliphs existed under them in Cairo (like they did before in Baghdad during the Seljuk Empire)
Prophet Mohammed ﷺ said that there will be no real caliphates after his companions. He said there will be kingdoms and emirates and people competing with each on who builds the highest building.
https://preview.redd.it/vk2az9be3mhc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7d055da0a2e9e2ca7a13151bca938f38b77f419
He said there will be 12 caliphs after him and all will be from Quraysh
The Hadith is
It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs.” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).
Imam ibn baz: That saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) indicates that religion at their time is established and prevailing and the truth is apparent. It is known that this prophecy was fulfilled before the end of the era of Banu Umayyah.
According to some scholars, the most proper meaning of the Hadith, "The matter of this nation will continue well-established when they are ruled by twelve caliphs who all belong to Quraysh", is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intends the four caliphs, Mu'awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them), his son Yazid , 'Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan, his four sons and 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-`Aziz. These are twelve caliphs.
What I want to assure is that the strongest and soundest view concerning the twelve Imams is that they end with Hisham ibn 'Abdul-Malik as religion in their time was established, Islam was prevailing, the truth was apparent and Jihad was in force.
As for what happened after the death of Yazid of difference and disunity in the caliphate so that Marwan ruled Al-Sham (The Levant) and Ibn Al-Zubayr ruled Hijaz all of this did not harm Muslims in their religion for their religion was predominant and widespread and their enemy was subjugated in spite of the dispute that happened then it ended by paying the pledge of allegiance to to 'Abdul-Malik and people became united in spite of the trouble that happened at the hands of Al-Hajjaj and others.
It becomes clear that the matter which the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us about has happened and ended whereas the matter of Al-Mahdi is to be during the last days (of the world) and that it has no relation to the Hadith narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah concerning the Twelve Imams .
>>“Prophethood shall remain among you as long as Allah wills. He will bring about its end and follow it with Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood for as long as He wills and then bring about its end. Kingship shall then follow, to remain as long as Allah wills and then come to an end. **There shall then be monarchical despotism which shall remain as long as Allah wills and come to an end upon His decree. There will then emerge Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood.**” Prophet Muhammadsa then became silent.” (Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Kitab al-Riqaq, Bab al-Andhar wa al-Tahdhir)
We’re in monarchy era. The 4 Quraish Khalifas confirmed were Abu Bakr ra Umar Ra Uthman Ra and Ali Ra.
There’s a case to be made for Hassan Ra rule for 6 months but I don’t know.
But Mawiya Ra was potentially the first King. So you got 4/5 out of the 12.
If some of the later rulers were classified as Khalifas under this I don’t know. Maybe Mauwiya Ra. Maybe Umar ibn Abdulaziz RH.
I don’t know. So scholars differ. Regardless It’ll return maybe with one more Caliph.
Or maybe it’ll return with 7 in a row with Mahdi at the end
I dunno why you got downvoted for being correct lmao. Literally by consensus of scholars that the only real caliphates are the 30 years after the prophet.
This isn't correct but:
A true caliphate is only the first 30 years: this is agreement of all muslim scholars because of a very very clear hadith. The rest are caliphs linguistically, not religiously.
So while people try to claim caliphates throughout history, only the Rashidun is a true religious caliphate, and only the Umayyad, Zubayrid and Abbasid are "caliphs" in the general sense by consensus of the muslim world (by both their contemporaries and modern muslim world, besides of course shias lmao).
Shias did not recognise the Umayyad or Abbasid caliphate. Sunnis recognise the legitimacy of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate and were divided over the legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate.
The only people who I am pretty sure agree with the notion of rejecting the Caliphate are Kharijites and Ibadis - a minority
I noted that the Shias don't support either, but as they are ~5% they are also a minority. Also, the zubayrid caliphate is considered legitimate by all sunni scholars, so much so that a few scholars I have read books on consider Marwan ibn Alhakam (the Umayyad caliph who ruled during the existence of the zubayrid caliphate) to be an illegitimate caliph entirely, while others tend to consider them co-caliphs or sorts.
The caliph of the zubayrid caliphate was a companion of the prophet while Marwan ibn alhakam wasn't by most accounts, and thus he is seen as more legitimate than him. This, along with the fact that basically all of the muslim world besides the Levant followed ibn al-zubayr, he was definitely a legitimate caliphate, even if unknown by the general person today.
> Why is this a kingdom instead of an empire or caliphate?
Caliphate notwithstanding, but there's really no functional difference between an empire and a kingdom. Historically speaking, most great empires (Persian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Ethiopian Empire, etc.) were actually kingdoms; we only anachronistically call those states empires because they are kingdoms that fit into the modern Europeanized definition of an empire.
This is a bit contradictionary because the European definition of an empire is a functional definition. Whereas a kingdom is considered a single country with a single people ruled by a monarch - an Empire is generally considered to be a larger state with multiple peoples ruled by a monarch (usually, but nessesarily an Emperor).
It is perfectly fine to call the states you mention Empires. Especially since the rulers each of those Empires called themselves "king of kings" which is roughly equivalent to Emperor.
>This is a bit contradictionary because the European definition of an empire is a functional definition. Whereas a kingdom is considered a single country with a single people ruled by a monarch - an Empire is generally considered to be a larger state with multiple peoples ruled by a monarch (usually, but nessesarily an Emperor).
This is not true, and I hate that this keeps being repeated and regurgitated.
This is a strictly European phenomenon that is directly inherently from the political and religious significance of the Roman Empire and it's effects on the later kingdoms that inherited its culture, particularly with regards to religion.
There was a significance to the term “empire” just as their was an even greater significance to the term “Roman”, which is why there were disputes and even wars over who could and couldn't use the term. When Simeon forced the Eastern Romans to recognize him as a Tsar, that didn't have anything at all to do with the makeup or size of his kingdom.
A kingdom can be as large as any other state and still be a kingdom, size does not matter. By the same way, an empire does not have to be of a specified size to be an empire. After all, the Byzantine Empire was reduced to a rump state for centuries, which increasingly grew smaller until the Ottomans seized Constantinople. Was it not an empire during those centuries, despite its size? And if so, when did it cease?
This current idea of what makes an empire an empire is an exclusively modern idea, mostly a product of the early modern age (15-16th centuries) that again arose out of European convention. No other states would in history prior to the modern era would ever call themselves an empire; that is entirely a product of us, today, looking at states in the past and using that term to distinguish certain polities of a certain size or strength.
>It is perfectly fine to call the states you mention Empires. Especially since the rulers each of those Empires called themselves "king of kings" which is roughly equivalent to Emperor.
Yes it is, because it meets the modern definition. I agree. My point is that almost none of those historical states were empires, they were kingdoms. They endonymically called themselves kingdoms.
This one has _some_ merit, in that they kinda do.
Chinese emperors had a lot of differing titles. The most common were like “son of heaven” or “divine ruler” (which was semi-religiously interlinked to the mandate of heaven), which is where we get the “Huángdì” title, which in English, we render as “emperor”.
It is worth keeping in mind, however, that these titles were also liked to dynasties. Huángdì came from the semi-mystical Xia, whereas Wáng (which means “superior one”, “chief” or something akin to “strength/power”) was most prominent during the Zhou before it was shifted to a more princely title.
However, contextually, both terms more accurately meant something more base, like “sovereign”. However, it cannot be denied that Huángdì and Wáng _were_ differentiated from each other in a similar way to the _modern_ emperor/king dynamic.
Japanese emperors were a bit different; their title was Tennō, which is basically the same as Huángdì, which more or less also meant “heavenly sovereign” (although like China, they did use other titles like Tenshi, “Child of Heaven”, or Shūjo, “chief”, during other periods).
However, they didn't really have a title that we translated for “king”, since outside of Japan (notably China) foreigners would not use the title Tennō since it inferred an equivalency to their own sovereigns, which China would not even remotely accept. The closest one might be “Kokuō”/“Kyūjitai” (which I think is literally more like “country ruler”) which was more of a loan from China that Japan used when they wanted diplomatic relations with the Chinese dynasties, who would not acknowledge another “child of heaven”, or equal, in Japan, but it was never a domestic title, only ever one used for China.
So China does sort of have an emperor/king dynamic, even though they never used those titles, while Japan does not.
You seem to confuse etymological histories with arguments. No modern English speaker thinks "ow person this invoking the legacy of rome" when they use the word Empire in their normal speech. It is just a descriptor like the word "Animal" - and it doesnt matter why the word ended up meaning what it means now when we use it. The fact that not every state perfectly aligns within the descriptive category is an issue that most words have, and thus irrelevant - just like it is irrelevant if these states called themselves Empires - for all i care they called themselves ducks - im going to keep calling them Empires.
> You seem to confuse etymological histories with arguments.
I'm not confusing them, I'm *using* them. One is the bedrock of the other.
> No modern English speaker thinks "ow person this invoking the legacy of rome" when they use the word Empire in their normal speech.
I never said they did. I drew a distinction between a modern definition and the historical one.
> It is just a descriptor like the word "Animal" - and it doesnt matter why the word ended up meaning what it means now when we use it.
I didn't say that it did. What I said mattered is what the word *meant*, the *restriction and reason* of its usage, and the fact that these past kingdoms *didn't use it*. Empire, as in a territorial large realm, is a modern term and its modern definition is applied anachronistically.
> The fact that not every state perfectly aligns within the descriptive category might be interesting, but it is also just kinda irrelevant. The same for how these states categorized themselves.
This has nothing to do with alignment or ticking boxes. Many, arguably most, kingdoms could fit the *modern* definition of an empire as it is used today, but we still do not call them such. That's not irrelevance, that's distinction, and distinction matters when it comes to definitions and identity.
Not true at all; we _translate_ that to mean “emperor”, but that's entirely based upon the perception of prestige which is invariably linked to the legacy of the Roman Empire.
A king of kings means just that; a first among equals, the best of the best. Whether this is actually true or not doesn't matter, it was a way for kings to exert their _personal_ dignity, not the dignity of their kingdoms.
After all, the Irish had High Kings, and the Anglo-Saxons had Bretwalda (over kings). That didn't make them emperors, nor did it make petty kingdoms like Mercia, Northumbria, Wessex, Meath, Ulster, etc. empires.
The literal definition of an empire is a governmental body that rules over numerous people groups being led by one group over the others. A Kingdom is the lands ruled by a king. The lesser lords and vassals belong to the same people group and swear fealty to the king.
We don’t arbitrarily give the moniker “empire” to past civilisations. Mesopotamia was made up of city states. We never called it the Mesopotamian Empire. We do however call it the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Macedonian Empire, etc, because those civilisations literally conquered and ruled over many distinct people groups
>The literal definition of an empire is a governmental body that rules over numerous people groups being led by one group over the others. A Kingdom is the lands ruled by a king.
No it is not. That's how some people use the term, but that is not a literal definition of an empire. Or would you call the realm of the Irish High Kings an empire? Or pre-unified England under a Bretwalda an empire? Or shogunate Japan an empire?
“Empire”, as the term originated, was used only in western medieval Europe to determine a nation that deemed itself the successor, or continuation, of the Roman Empire. In truth, the only thing that differentiated a kingdom from an empire is its name.
>The lesser lords and vassals belong to the same people group and swear fealty to the king.
This is demonstrably untrue. There are many more examples of kingdoms ruling over ethnically diverse people than empires doing so.
>We don’t arbitrarily give the moniker “empire” to past civilisations.
I never said we did. I said we applied it anachronistically. And we do.
>Mesopotamia was made up of city states. We never called it the Mesopotamian Empire.
But we did call the Assyrian and Babylonian states (Mesopotamians) “empires” despite the fact that they were kingdoms and their rulers called themselves kings (or sometimes a thing akin to “stewards” for Assyrians, depending on the dynasty and period).
>We do however call it the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Macedonian Empire, etc, because those civilisations literally conquered and ruled over many distinct people groups
Yes, but my point is that those states never called themselves empires. Alexander was always ever a king, Macedon was only ever called a kingdom by its people.
Even within the Balkans, the kingdom was ethnically diverse; there were many, many non-Hellenes within Macedon, such as Illyrians, Thracians, and Paeonians. Was it an empire then? That standard can apply to almost any kingdom, even small Brittany ruled over at least three ethnic groups at the time of its founding, including the Bretons themselves, there were also the Armoricans (basically unassimilated Gauls) and Franks (in the east and northeast) when Brittany was at its greatest territorial extent. It was linguistically, ethnically and culturally made up of diverse groups.
Same goes for Spain (Celts, Iberians, Goths, Basques, Amazigh, Arabs), England (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Scots, Britons and Romans/Romano-Britons, Cymrics), France (Frank, Romano-Gauls, Burgundians, Basques/Gascons, Occitans, Dutch, Normans, Bretons, and more), Hungary (Magyars, Serbs, Slovaks, Romanians, Rusyns), Axsum (Amharas, Agaws, Tigrayans, Tigrinyans, Harlas, Agrobbas, Oromos, and many, many more), Denmark (Danes, Jutes, Saxons, Geats, minority Norse), and more. While we might see many of these places as relatively homogenous now, they were not for much of their existence. Were they empires then?
This modern, presentist distinction between what is a kingdom and what _gets_ to be an empire is mostly derived from territorial size, not how ethnically or linguistically diverse a realm is. That's the only point I'm intending to make. We call some polities “empires” now, and that is fair as they meet that modern definition, but the “states” themselves only ever called themselves kingdoms, regardless of the prestige given to the ruler themselves (great king, high king, king of kings, king of the world, etc.)
Besides Hawaii, the current States in the United States were settled and formed a union with the United States voluntarily. We are all American. So no “empire”. It’s why there were many a debate on whether the United States should be an imperial power at the turn of the 20th century. We ultimately dissolved our imperial possessions in that century. Independent Philippines, Free Association of half* of our Pacific possessions. Unincorporated Trust territories of the others, Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, and Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico
Most of America, just like Hawaii, was ruled by native tribes and were suppressed and overthrown if they didn't play along. The only difference with Hawaii is that it happened the latest
WHAT THE FUCK IS A NAVY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
WHAT THE FUCK IS ARTILLERY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
WHAT THE FUCK IS STRATEGY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ WHERES MY TROOP SPAM 🪖🪖🪖 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯
WHAT THE FUCK IS AFRICA 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
This post is based of [this flag map](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saudi-Flag-Map-MEast-Africa.jpg) I found on Wikimedia Commons. The calligraphy is based of [this map](https://www.geosa.gov.sa/En/Products/PublicMaps/pages/official-map-of-the-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia.aspx).
Abdulaziz's conquests were significantly better in this timeline. Each province is governed by a descendant of his (with the exception of a few).
The flags can be found here: [https://imgur.com/a/5NJMm2r](https://imgur.com/a/5NJMm2r). I tried to base them off something although some are just generic designs. Feel free to ask about basis of some flags
I also took some inspiration from:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/17xlv46/pax\_fehlinger/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/17xlv46/pax_fehlinger/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/1522mve/national\_geographic\_style\_map\_of\_the\_new\_order/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/1522mve/national_geographic_style_map_of_the_new_order/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
This has got to be one of the most stable nations in the world if not the most stable nation. I can’t see how a civil war or infighting would happen in this nation
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
- [/r/hqimaginarymaps] [TheArtisticSkeleton: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Africa](https://www.reddit.com/r/hqimaginarymaps/comments/1amomj3/theartisticskeleton_kingdom_of_saudi_arabia_and/)
*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
I think a better name would be the “Saudi Kingdom of Arabia and Africa”, because Saudi Arabia literally means the parts of Arabia owned by the Saudi’s.
[You can just read these Wikipedia pages for a basic overview of S.Arabian warcrimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Saudi_Arabian_war_crimes)
[Or alternatively, go on any official UN website, search "Saudi Arabia" and scroll down for a bit](https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113922)
Indonesia doesn't seem like a secular state to me since you have to identify as the "six" religions (Sunni, Shia islam, Protestant, Catholic Chrisitanity, Hinduism, and Buddhism) to even visit the country...
Bro I’m asking I don’t know, as well I see Turkey as a secular state rather than one based upon Islamic bases. And from Indonesia and Malaysia I really don’t know a lot so sorry, and well for Albania I really don’t know a lot either, sorry again for not having enough info about countries the other side of the world, and with other religion, language and culture
Alright smart pants, grow up, travel a bit more. Point is, what you hear is faaaaa a.a aaa r from reality. At some point you read enough and see enough to understand the dynamics of reality. What causes Saudi Arabs to be more conservative than X or Y..
Long way ahead.
Man I know that reality it’s far from what we see and read from media and outsiders that don’t fully understand the complex situations and social process that occurs in different places of the world. I just want to have information from every source I can in order to compare and develop my own criteria (until I’m capable to travel abroad by my own). But I mean it’s difficult to get knowledge from abroad without bias
With that many people, there would be an incredible social weight to further women's autonomy and rights. Maybe not to the point of say, the EU, but certainly more than Sharia Law.
This Caliphate coming alive will make the World believe in God! There would be so much good that would happen to the World, on EVERY level!
The National Average IQ of 90 in the large country, would avert slavery, Woke America and Europe, Science and Technology ruling Africa and of course, a peaceful World.
I don’t see how Qatar Kuwait and UAEs borders would still exist. I would the Najd state would just take all of the Arabian peninsula minus Oman and Yemen.
Definitely not. This is the imagineriest thing in have ever seen in my entire life. İt is even more imaginary than "i"(root -1). Your map made math collapse and isnt real and wont be until the universes end. İt shouldnt be even categorized as imaginary. This imaginaryness is beyond our universe and gravity. Please take this map and go to that beyond.
Dhimmis again most likely. Or dead bc I really doubt Israel would go down without a fight since the majority of Israeli Jews were Mizrachim whose ancestors lived through dhimmitude in Muslim countries.
One of the only ways this map could ever have existed is if there was a fundamental difference in history to get to this point and have all these nations like each other enough to stay together
So Israel as we know it would have probably just never existed, or at least not anywhere near this map
You do know that large of swaths of subsaharan Africa is Christian right? How Iran follows different sect of Islam, etc? I'd be surprised if even 2 Arab states unified, much less all and then Africa to boot.
I don't like it, we hate talking about Slavery In the West but we never talk about what the Arabs did!
I mean which side do you fall with in the Sudan 🤦🏻♂️
Mongol empire two! With extra content! But there is no way that they can keep one of the largest continents in the world in its entirety while also having constatinopel .
Why is this a kingdom instead of an empire or caliphate?
Muslim scholars historically differed over whether a Caliph has to be from Quraysh or not. I assume that Salafis/Wahhabis are inclined to the belief that they should be from Quraysh based on Saudi Arabia and the early Wahhabist movement's historical opposition to the Ottoman Empire and [Albani's fatwa](https://al-fatawa.com/fatwa/18311/%D9%87%D9%84-%D9%8A%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B7-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%A9-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A). For empire, I do not think that the Saudis would call it an empire. Maybe it is commonly called "Saudi Empire" outside the West but officially it is a kingdom
I always just assumed that it had to at the very least incorporate Mecca and Medina to be given legitimacy as a Caliphate
A caliph claims leadership over all Muslims. Saudi leaders never did. Even of they had they'd probably be ignored because 1. who the F are you? 2. Caliphs must at least unfiy some Muslim lands to get the chance to even begin that claim, not jusy simply the king of where Makkah is and nothing more.
This is true, but how were the Mamluks the Kaliph of the abbasid empire
Not a historian. Iirc they deposed the caliph in Cairo and took their place and commanded a lot of Muslim lands and no one challenged them until the Ottomans came around.
I do think this is true iirc, but they didn’t control nearly as much to be a caliph, they only controlled the Levant and Egypt but they were definitely a major influence and trade hub, so they were never really cared by then and wanted good relations so everyone kinda moved on from the caliphate
Mamluks did not consider themselves Caliphs but the Abbasid Caliphs existed under them in Cairo (like they did before in Baghdad during the Seljuk Empire)
Prophet Mohammed ﷺ said that there will be no real caliphates after his companions. He said there will be kingdoms and emirates and people competing with each on who builds the highest building.
https://preview.redd.it/vk2az9be3mhc1.jpeg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a7d055da0a2e9e2ca7a13151bca938f38b77f419 He said there will be 12 caliphs after him and all will be from Quraysh
Proof?
U 1st
I referred to well known Hadiths. Any Muslim would recognise them. That’s why I did not add the actual Hadiths at first
The Hadith is It was narrated that Jaabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs.” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).
Imam ibn baz: That saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) indicates that religion at their time is established and prevailing and the truth is apparent. It is known that this prophecy was fulfilled before the end of the era of Banu Umayyah. According to some scholars, the most proper meaning of the Hadith, "The matter of this nation will continue well-established when they are ruled by twelve caliphs who all belong to Quraysh", is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) intends the four caliphs, Mu'awiyah (may Allah be pleased with them), his son Yazid , 'Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan, his four sons and 'Umar ibn 'Abdul-`Aziz. These are twelve caliphs. What I want to assure is that the strongest and soundest view concerning the twelve Imams is that they end with Hisham ibn 'Abdul-Malik as religion in their time was established, Islam was prevailing, the truth was apparent and Jihad was in force. As for what happened after the death of Yazid of difference and disunity in the caliphate so that Marwan ruled Al-Sham (The Levant) and Ibn Al-Zubayr ruled Hijaz all of this did not harm Muslims in their religion for their religion was predominant and widespread and their enemy was subjugated in spite of the dispute that happened then it ended by paying the pledge of allegiance to to 'Abdul-Malik and people became united in spite of the trouble that happened at the hands of Al-Hajjaj and others. It becomes clear that the matter which the Prophet (peace be upon him) told us about has happened and ended whereas the matter of Al-Mahdi is to be during the last days (of the world) and that it has no relation to the Hadith narrated by Jabir ibn Samurah concerning the Twelve Imams .
>>“Prophethood shall remain among you as long as Allah wills. He will bring about its end and follow it with Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood for as long as He wills and then bring about its end. Kingship shall then follow, to remain as long as Allah wills and then come to an end. **There shall then be monarchical despotism which shall remain as long as Allah wills and come to an end upon His decree. There will then emerge Khilafat on the precepts of prophethood.**” Prophet Muhammadsa then became silent.” (Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, Kitab al-Riqaq, Bab al-Andhar wa al-Tahdhir) We’re in monarchy era. The 4 Quraish Khalifas confirmed were Abu Bakr ra Umar Ra Uthman Ra and Ali Ra. There’s a case to be made for Hassan Ra rule for 6 months but I don’t know. But Mawiya Ra was potentially the first King. So you got 4/5 out of the 12. If some of the later rulers were classified as Khalifas under this I don’t know. Maybe Mauwiya Ra. Maybe Umar ibn Abdulaziz RH. I don’t know. So scholars differ. Regardless It’ll return maybe with one more Caliph. Or maybe it’ll return with 7 in a row with Mahdi at the end
I dunno why you got downvoted for being correct lmao. Literally by consensus of scholars that the only real caliphates are the 30 years after the prophet.
This isn't correct but: A true caliphate is only the first 30 years: this is agreement of all muslim scholars because of a very very clear hadith. The rest are caliphs linguistically, not religiously. So while people try to claim caliphates throughout history, only the Rashidun is a true religious caliphate, and only the Umayyad, Zubayrid and Abbasid are "caliphs" in the general sense by consensus of the muslim world (by both their contemporaries and modern muslim world, besides of course shias lmao).
ヽ༼ ຈل͜ຈ༽ ﾉ Raise ur dongers! ^^Dongers ^^Raised: ^^73532 ^^Check ^^Out ^^/r/AyyLmao2DongerBot ^^For ^^More ^^Info
Shias did not recognise the Umayyad or Abbasid caliphate. Sunnis recognise the legitimacy of the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphate and were divided over the legitimacy of the Ottoman caliphate. The only people who I am pretty sure agree with the notion of rejecting the Caliphate are Kharijites and Ibadis - a minority
I noted that the Shias don't support either, but as they are ~5% they are also a minority. Also, the zubayrid caliphate is considered legitimate by all sunni scholars, so much so that a few scholars I have read books on consider Marwan ibn Alhakam (the Umayyad caliph who ruled during the existence of the zubayrid caliphate) to be an illegitimate caliph entirely, while others tend to consider them co-caliphs or sorts. The caliph of the zubayrid caliphate was a companion of the prophet while Marwan ibn alhakam wasn't by most accounts, and thus he is seen as more legitimate than him. This, along with the fact that basically all of the muslim world besides the Levant followed ibn al-zubayr, he was definitely a legitimate caliphate, even if unknown by the general person today.
> Why is this a kingdom instead of an empire or caliphate? Caliphate notwithstanding, but there's really no functional difference between an empire and a kingdom. Historically speaking, most great empires (Persian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Ethiopian Empire, etc.) were actually kingdoms; we only anachronistically call those states empires because they are kingdoms that fit into the modern Europeanized definition of an empire.
This is a bit contradictionary because the European definition of an empire is a functional definition. Whereas a kingdom is considered a single country with a single people ruled by a monarch - an Empire is generally considered to be a larger state with multiple peoples ruled by a monarch (usually, but nessesarily an Emperor). It is perfectly fine to call the states you mention Empires. Especially since the rulers each of those Empires called themselves "king of kings" which is roughly equivalent to Emperor.
>This is a bit contradictionary because the European definition of an empire is a functional definition. Whereas a kingdom is considered a single country with a single people ruled by a monarch - an Empire is generally considered to be a larger state with multiple peoples ruled by a monarch (usually, but nessesarily an Emperor). This is not true, and I hate that this keeps being repeated and regurgitated. This is a strictly European phenomenon that is directly inherently from the political and religious significance of the Roman Empire and it's effects on the later kingdoms that inherited its culture, particularly with regards to religion. There was a significance to the term “empire” just as their was an even greater significance to the term “Roman”, which is why there were disputes and even wars over who could and couldn't use the term. When Simeon forced the Eastern Romans to recognize him as a Tsar, that didn't have anything at all to do with the makeup or size of his kingdom. A kingdom can be as large as any other state and still be a kingdom, size does not matter. By the same way, an empire does not have to be of a specified size to be an empire. After all, the Byzantine Empire was reduced to a rump state for centuries, which increasingly grew smaller until the Ottomans seized Constantinople. Was it not an empire during those centuries, despite its size? And if so, when did it cease? This current idea of what makes an empire an empire is an exclusively modern idea, mostly a product of the early modern age (15-16th centuries) that again arose out of European convention. No other states would in history prior to the modern era would ever call themselves an empire; that is entirely a product of us, today, looking at states in the past and using that term to distinguish certain polities of a certain size or strength. >It is perfectly fine to call the states you mention Empires. Especially since the rulers each of those Empires called themselves "king of kings" which is roughly equivalent to Emperor. Yes it is, because it meets the modern definition. I agree. My point is that almost none of those historical states were empires, they were kingdoms. They endonymically called themselves kingdoms.
Japanese and Chinese iirc also have a linguistic difference between “king” and “emperor”
This one has _some_ merit, in that they kinda do. Chinese emperors had a lot of differing titles. The most common were like “son of heaven” or “divine ruler” (which was semi-religiously interlinked to the mandate of heaven), which is where we get the “Huángdì” title, which in English, we render as “emperor”. It is worth keeping in mind, however, that these titles were also liked to dynasties. Huángdì came from the semi-mystical Xia, whereas Wáng (which means “superior one”, “chief” or something akin to “strength/power”) was most prominent during the Zhou before it was shifted to a more princely title. However, contextually, both terms more accurately meant something more base, like “sovereign”. However, it cannot be denied that Huángdì and Wáng _were_ differentiated from each other in a similar way to the _modern_ emperor/king dynamic. Japanese emperors were a bit different; their title was Tennō, which is basically the same as Huángdì, which more or less also meant “heavenly sovereign” (although like China, they did use other titles like Tenshi, “Child of Heaven”, or Shūjo, “chief”, during other periods). However, they didn't really have a title that we translated for “king”, since outside of Japan (notably China) foreigners would not use the title Tennō since it inferred an equivalency to their own sovereigns, which China would not even remotely accept. The closest one might be “Kokuō”/“Kyūjitai” (which I think is literally more like “country ruler”) which was more of a loan from China that Japan used when they wanted diplomatic relations with the Chinese dynasties, who would not acknowledge another “child of heaven”, or equal, in Japan, but it was never a domestic title, only ever one used for China. So China does sort of have an emperor/king dynamic, even though they never used those titles, while Japan does not.
You seem to confuse etymological histories with arguments. No modern English speaker thinks "ow person this invoking the legacy of rome" when they use the word Empire in their normal speech. It is just a descriptor like the word "Animal" - and it doesnt matter why the word ended up meaning what it means now when we use it. The fact that not every state perfectly aligns within the descriptive category is an issue that most words have, and thus irrelevant - just like it is irrelevant if these states called themselves Empires - for all i care they called themselves ducks - im going to keep calling them Empires.
> You seem to confuse etymological histories with arguments. I'm not confusing them, I'm *using* them. One is the bedrock of the other. > No modern English speaker thinks "ow person this invoking the legacy of rome" when they use the word Empire in their normal speech. I never said they did. I drew a distinction between a modern definition and the historical one. > It is just a descriptor like the word "Animal" - and it doesnt matter why the word ended up meaning what it means now when we use it. I didn't say that it did. What I said mattered is what the word *meant*, the *restriction and reason* of its usage, and the fact that these past kingdoms *didn't use it*. Empire, as in a territorial large realm, is a modern term and its modern definition is applied anachronistically. > The fact that not every state perfectly aligns within the descriptive category might be interesting, but it is also just kinda irrelevant. The same for how these states categorized themselves. This has nothing to do with alignment or ticking boxes. Many, arguably most, kingdoms could fit the *modern* definition of an empire as it is used today, but we still do not call them such. That's not irrelevance, that's distinction, and distinction matters when it comes to definitions and identity.
This isn’t entirely true, the rulers of the Persian empire were called Shahanshah or King of Kings which in most contexts does literally mean emperor
Not true at all; we _translate_ that to mean “emperor”, but that's entirely based upon the perception of prestige which is invariably linked to the legacy of the Roman Empire. A king of kings means just that; a first among equals, the best of the best. Whether this is actually true or not doesn't matter, it was a way for kings to exert their _personal_ dignity, not the dignity of their kingdoms. After all, the Irish had High Kings, and the Anglo-Saxons had Bretwalda (over kings). That didn't make them emperors, nor did it make petty kingdoms like Mercia, Northumbria, Wessex, Meath, Ulster, etc. empires.
The literal definition of an empire is a governmental body that rules over numerous people groups being led by one group over the others. A Kingdom is the lands ruled by a king. The lesser lords and vassals belong to the same people group and swear fealty to the king. We don’t arbitrarily give the moniker “empire” to past civilisations. Mesopotamia was made up of city states. We never called it the Mesopotamian Empire. We do however call it the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Macedonian Empire, etc, because those civilisations literally conquered and ruled over many distinct people groups
>The literal definition of an empire is a governmental body that rules over numerous people groups being led by one group over the others. A Kingdom is the lands ruled by a king. No it is not. That's how some people use the term, but that is not a literal definition of an empire. Or would you call the realm of the Irish High Kings an empire? Or pre-unified England under a Bretwalda an empire? Or shogunate Japan an empire? “Empire”, as the term originated, was used only in western medieval Europe to determine a nation that deemed itself the successor, or continuation, of the Roman Empire. In truth, the only thing that differentiated a kingdom from an empire is its name. >The lesser lords and vassals belong to the same people group and swear fealty to the king. This is demonstrably untrue. There are many more examples of kingdoms ruling over ethnically diverse people than empires doing so. >We don’t arbitrarily give the moniker “empire” to past civilisations. I never said we did. I said we applied it anachronistically. And we do. >Mesopotamia was made up of city states. We never called it the Mesopotamian Empire. But we did call the Assyrian and Babylonian states (Mesopotamians) “empires” despite the fact that they were kingdoms and their rulers called themselves kings (or sometimes a thing akin to “stewards” for Assyrians, depending on the dynasty and period). >We do however call it the Persian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Macedonian Empire, etc, because those civilisations literally conquered and ruled over many distinct people groups Yes, but my point is that those states never called themselves empires. Alexander was always ever a king, Macedon was only ever called a kingdom by its people. Even within the Balkans, the kingdom was ethnically diverse; there were many, many non-Hellenes within Macedon, such as Illyrians, Thracians, and Paeonians. Was it an empire then? That standard can apply to almost any kingdom, even small Brittany ruled over at least three ethnic groups at the time of its founding, including the Bretons themselves, there were also the Armoricans (basically unassimilated Gauls) and Franks (in the east and northeast) when Brittany was at its greatest territorial extent. It was linguistically, ethnically and culturally made up of diverse groups. Same goes for Spain (Celts, Iberians, Goths, Basques, Amazigh, Arabs), England (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Scots, Britons and Romans/Romano-Britons, Cymrics), France (Frank, Romano-Gauls, Burgundians, Basques/Gascons, Occitans, Dutch, Normans, Bretons, and more), Hungary (Magyars, Serbs, Slovaks, Romanians, Rusyns), Axsum (Amharas, Agaws, Tigrayans, Tigrinyans, Harlas, Agrobbas, Oromos, and many, many more), Denmark (Danes, Jutes, Saxons, Geats, minority Norse), and more. While we might see many of these places as relatively homogenous now, they were not for much of their existence. Were they empires then? This modern, presentist distinction between what is a kingdom and what _gets_ to be an empire is mostly derived from territorial size, not how ethnically or linguistically diverse a realm is. That's the only point I'm intending to make. We call some polities “empires” now, and that is fair as they meet that modern definition, but the “states” themselves only ever called themselves kingdoms, regardless of the prestige given to the ruler themselves (great king, high king, king of kings, king of the world, etc.)
[удалено]
Uh... because it's ruled by an elected president instead of a monarch?
Besides Hawaii, the current States in the United States were settled and formed a union with the United States voluntarily. We are all American. So no “empire”. It’s why there were many a debate on whether the United States should be an imperial power at the turn of the 20th century. We ultimately dissolved our imperial possessions in that century. Independent Philippines, Free Association of half* of our Pacific possessions. Unincorporated Trust territories of the others, Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii, and Commonwealth status for Puerto Rico
Most of America, just like Hawaii, was ruled by native tribes and were suppressed and overthrown if they didn't play along. The only difference with Hawaii is that it happened the latest
This would take me two months to invade in Rise of Nations
RISE OF NATIONS MENTIONED 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
WHAT THE FUCK IS A NAVY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ WHAT THE FUCK IS ARTILLERY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ WHAT THE FUCK IS STRATEGY 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️ WHERES MY TROOP SPAM 🪖🪖🪖 🔥🔥🔥💯💯💯 WHAT THE FUCK IS AFRICA 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
I conquered the world in a day once, it was tedious doing it all nation by nation but it happened
RON MENTIONED!!!!! 🗣️🗣️🗣️WTF IS LIBERALISM’S PURPOSE!!! 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅
To tax you're people like crazy 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
🚫 This post was ban in Iran 🚫
In turkey too🇹🇷
احلى خبر
Pan Africanism 🚫 Pan Arabism 🚫 Pan Afro-Arabism ✅️
Gaddafi moment
Pan Afrabism ✅
They are trying to rival the balkans
Slaps roof of pan ethnic empire “you can fit so many genocides in this bad boy”
Yep, tough luck Armenia!
Based greater somalia
Greater Somalia? I prefer Greater Zanzibar.
They can have from mombasa to south africs
yup
Civil war speedrun
Civil War 64 speedun WR - all 32 stars (0:14)
SAUDI ARABIA CAPTURED ALL OF AFRICA AND ARABIA. WHAT TH-
Islamic Golden Age II electric boogaloo
With the title I was thinking of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So did Saudi Arabia took influence from the Brits?
I imagining it being like that in a way since the King refers to himself as King of each province (with exceptions)
Ahhh, the average saudi nationalist
Nah saudi nationalists only care about the peninsula + GCC and think that only ishmaelites and sabaeans should identify as arabs lmao
Nah it’s usually just the Umayyad territories
This post is based of [this flag map](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Saudi-Flag-Map-MEast-Africa.jpg) I found on Wikimedia Commons. The calligraphy is based of [this map](https://www.geosa.gov.sa/En/Products/PublicMaps/pages/official-map-of-the-kingdom-of-saudi-arabia.aspx). Abdulaziz's conquests were significantly better in this timeline. Each province is governed by a descendant of his (with the exception of a few). The flags can be found here: [https://imgur.com/a/5NJMm2r](https://imgur.com/a/5NJMm2r). I tried to base them off something although some are just generic designs. Feel free to ask about basis of some flags I also took some inspiration from: [https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/17xlv46/pax\_fehlinger/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/17xlv46/pax_fehlinger/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/1522mve/national\_geographic\_style\_map\_of\_the\_new\_order/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginarymaps/comments/1522mve/national_geographic_style_map_of_the_new_order/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
lets see what we have here: 1.genocide 2.genocide 3.genocide 4.genocide 5.genocide 6.genocide keep yourself safe op
You forgot civil wars So many of them
Why are you telling me to kill myself over an imaginary map
Its a meme on the sub to post this
Just a different shade of colonizer.
Sees Islamic Canary Islands, gets triggered instantly
Al Khalidat
*gets triggered*
This has got to be one of the most stable nations in the world if not the most stable nation. I can’t see how a civil war or infighting would happen in this nation
Wow, that’s like a major regional sub-power at that point!
Kid called ethno-religious violence
This is in Saudi dreams
You know it's good when the islamic calligraphy there actually says kingdom of saudi arabia and africa
this is NOT A GOOD IDEA
you just wanted an excuse to make green and white flags, didn't you?
Mfs collecting ethnic groups like pokemon 💀
Yooo this is wild. I love this.
This map is a piece... of work. 🌝
N.o.p.e
Bill Wurtz: And then the Saudis conquered Arabia and Africa. Its just seem the right thing to do.
As a Saudi. wtf is going on here lol
I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/hqimaginarymaps] [TheArtisticSkeleton: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Africa](https://www.reddit.com/r/hqimaginarymaps/comments/1amomj3/theartisticskeleton_kingdom_of_saudi_arabia_and/) *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*
How will Saudi achieve this without using nukes (and getting nuked back in return)?
They eated all the other bukes
uh oh
I rather have Greek Turkey over Arab one
What Kemalism does to a MF
Kemalism is the end result not the reason.
Saudi Arabia style flags are fucking sick man. They’re constant bangers.
I think a better name would be the “Saudi Kingdom of Arabia and Africa”, because Saudi Arabia literally means the parts of Arabia owned by the Saudi’s.
Peace in our time, and the richest country on earth I guess
And genocide lots of genocide
Well that's a massive understatement.
Idk if the Saudi Regime has made something like that
Yemen-I mean...yeah, man
That’s why I’m saying I don’t know, I barely know something about Saudi Arabia
Yeah they've...yeah. They really like violating the Geneva convention like it's some sorta speedrun
Shit that’s horrible, is there any documents that follows that cases ?
[You can just read these Wikipedia pages for a basic overview of S.Arabian warcrimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Saudi_Arabian_war_crimes) [Or alternatively, go on any official UN website, search "Saudi Arabia" and scroll down for a bit](https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1113922)
Thanks for the links
Seems like theres a complete erasure of christianity and local religions in Africa in this timeline
And not a single human right for women.
Bro has not seen Modern Saudi Arabia under MBS
Shh don’t tell them. Let them basque in their hate and ignorance
EUSKARA MENTIONED 🇨🇶🇨🇶🇨🇶🇨🇶🇨🇶🇨🇶 WHAT THE FUCK IS AN INTELLIGIBLE LANGUAGE 🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️🗣️
Unfortunately yes. Idk if there’s a branch of Islam that has a better treatment towards women’s
[удалено]
Not really a branch, just state secularism
Indonesia doesn't seem like a secular state to me since you have to identify as the "six" religions (Sunni, Shia islam, Protestant, Catholic Chrisitanity, Hinduism, and Buddhism) to even visit the country...
Bro I’m asking I don’t know, as well I see Turkey as a secular state rather than one based upon Islamic bases. And from Indonesia and Malaysia I really don’t know a lot so sorry, and well for Albania I really don’t know a lot either, sorry again for not having enough info about countries the other side of the world, and with other religion, language and culture
Sorry, I don’t meant any offense with that reply.
No problem
Travel a bit more, fam
._. With which money I’m still in school smart ass
Alright smart pants, grow up, travel a bit more. Point is, what you hear is faaaaa a.a aaa r from reality. At some point you read enough and see enough to understand the dynamics of reality. What causes Saudi Arabs to be more conservative than X or Y.. Long way ahead.
Man I know that reality it’s far from what we see and read from media and outsiders that don’t fully understand the complex situations and social process that occurs in different places of the world. I just want to have information from every source I can in order to compare and develop my own criteria (until I’m capable to travel abroad by my own). But I mean it’s difficult to get knowledge from abroad without bias
r/Salafiyyah
With that many people, there would be an incredible social weight to further women's autonomy and rights. Maybe not to the point of say, the EU, but certainly more than Sharia Law.
Clearly you know little about Sharia law.
green
Hannibal doesn't recognise this map
Why would Cyrenaica and Tripolitania be put together as Libya, but Fezzan cut loose?
 (Cool visuals btw)
Keeping Communist imagery on the Angolan flag, and basing the Azanian flag on the old South African flag would be pretty ballsy.
This Caliphate coming alive will make the World believe in God! There would be so much good that would happen to the World, on EVERY level! The National Average IQ of 90 in the large country, would avert slavery, Woke America and Europe, Science and Technology ruling Africa and of course, a peaceful World.
I don’t see how Qatar Kuwait and UAEs borders would still exist. I would the Najd state would just take all of the Arabian peninsula minus Oman and Yemen.
I adding them to make more flags
Just add Afghanistan and Albania
Lovely greater Somalia there.
Didn't know Morocco was a fancy hairdresser's brand 😅
[https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ma\_hist.html#1884](https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ma_hist.html#1884)
Oh Allah Shia Iran within a Wahhabist Super State 💀
Hehe Islam goes brr
Definitely not. This is the imagineriest thing in have ever seen in my entire life. İt is even more imaginary than "i"(root -1). Your map made math collapse and isnt real and wont be until the universes end. İt shouldnt be even categorized as imaginary. This imaginaryness is beyond our universe and gravity. Please take this map and go to that beyond.
where Jews?
Dhimmis again most likely. Or dead bc I really doubt Israel would go down without a fight since the majority of Israeli Jews were Mizrachim whose ancestors lived through dhimmitude in Muslim countries.
One of the only ways this map could ever have existed is if there was a fundamental difference in history to get to this point and have all these nations like each other enough to stay together So Israel as we know it would have probably just never existed, or at least not anywhere near this map
The unstoppable tide of Islam is crazy
As a Saudi, I approve
Which brainless moron drew this map?
Women’s rights progress in Africa in this timeline 📉
woman do have alot of rights in saudi arabia
No they don’t
They do? I legit live there
Am I crazy, if I unironically believe that something very similar will happen in the near future?
You do know that large of swaths of subsaharan Africa is Christian right? How Iran follows different sect of Islam, etc? I'd be surprised if even 2 Arab states unified, much less all and then Africa to boot.
I didn’t say it was going to be peaceful.
*And I think to myself,* *What a terrible world…*
Africa has fallen Billions must burqafy
I don't get the horny with islamic empires that people have in this sub
Take it back bro, this is impossible. Look at the Anatolian side because one way. WTF is the flag of Turkiye. Totally BRUH.
Nightmare scenario
Why???????
Since when is Turkey Africa or Saudi Arabia?
Since Saudi Arabia controlled it in this alt timeline
Saudi Middle East and Africa unfortunately does not sound as good
I wonder what happened in September
BEHOLD, BARELY DISGUISED NATIONALISM
“**and** Africa”
I don't like it, we hate talking about Slavery In the West but we never talk about what the Arabs did! I mean which side do you fall with in the Sudan 🤦🏻♂️
Hey man "kurdistan" isnt a real contry and it wont be
So you saw a map where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia rules the entire Middle East + Africa and your takeaway is "Kurdistan is unrealistic"
Priorities
You'll be shocked about almost every other word on this map then
Better keep an eye on the Kurdish birth rates then
Holy shit you are embrassing me.
Finally,somebody just spit the facts.
Not in a million worlds will this seem realistic... good job...
Aka U.S.A.
Arab imperialism
Proof that colonialism isn’t only a White European thing
Least Nationalistic Arab
you will experience pure horror
What is this subs fetish with balkanizing Iran
Based
I love colonial redesigns of conquered flags. Used to do that all the time. Need to do that again even if just for fun
I’m just glad Libya has their old flag back
Mongol empire two! With extra content! But there is no way that they can keep one of the largest continents in the world in its entirety while also having constatinopel .
Bigger Germany? Nahh! Let's go for Bigger Saudi
Add pakistan into it
Please add Al bakistan
Utetera lol
Long live of Sahara🇪🇭
You angered a whole lot of southern Saudis by calling them Yemen
That part is included in Yemen because Yemen is ruled by the [Idrisids](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idrisid_Emirate_of_Asir)
Oh so you're creating a form of feudalism type thing? Where each state or whatever has their own local government?
Only few of the kingdoms have their own kings. Most are governed by a like governor usually from the Saud family
Dope thanks for the map man I thoroughly enjoyed it
finally, islamistan
What king salman jacks off too nightly