Turkey

what if you can only travel back in time but to an alternate reality, and the one we live in is the primary reality as in the original and thus cannot be altered?

Why is Sweden not an option?

Iran.
I believe they are the least shitty option out of the 3.
Preferably destroy Islam, let it fade into dust, become nothing but a (arguably very large) footnote in history.

None. No caliph is literally the best outcome.

Iran is out of question since due to their religious afiliation is almost impossible for them to be global or a caliphate.

Turkey would be an awful seat for the caliph, in the same way that Spain (a nation with a high level of promiscuity and homosexual acceptance) would be an awful seat for the Pope.

Saudi Arabia would be an awful seat for the caliph in the sense that it would doom the Middle East to be even more horrible.

Islamic State of Iraq and Levant

Iran.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not morally righteous enough to deserve to lead the Ummah. You literally couldn't have picked two more dissolute Sunni states.

You know shit about Islaam. Look now in what condition Muslim world is without political Islaam. Now compare it to the times with political Islaam. During the time of political Islaam Muslims used to rule their territories, but now there are Western puppets.

>Iran
>morally righteous
t.Khomeini

Iran.

Turks don't belong in this world. Saudis are retards and don't deserve shit.

>2016
>they still believe the global ummah meme

Indonesia desu, largest islamic populated country in the world

arabs are fucking shit

Bosnia

>there are clubs, escorts, bars etc.
and?

Iran because they are Shia and can get along with all Muslims unlike most Sunni Muslims.

The Islam was barbaric meme came from the spread of wahhabism. They literally helped destroy the ottoman empire and was rewarded with Saudi Arabia.

Before that Islam was no where near as barbaric as other religious movements. Most caliphate just spread for the money. They didn't actually go around forcing people to convert or killing them. They just wanted rulership and jizya tax. The less people converted the richer they were so they were certain to make lives easy on people. They would rebuild churches and let people do their own thing. Also most places they conquered was places where Jews and Christians were being oppressed by other empires and they fought alongside the people against their rulership not against them.

There were certain dynasties that actually wanted people to convert and made it hard on other religious groups and socially Muslims think they're the shit and treat others badly, but Islam spread mostly peaceful through traders introducing Islam to new places and fighting oppressive rulership. You can read non Muslim history to confirm that.

Not claiming they were peaceful in spreading Islam but they weren't barbaric. That meme came from the rise of wahhabism which is why Saudi needs to die. Also why turkey is a cess pool.

Moroccans I've met have been pretty cool people desu

Well, Jizya was tough to pay since muslim conquerors would graze their goats and cattle on farmer's fields. The reason the Spanish fought so hard and so repeatedly was because of how severe the treatment was by their invaders. So it was convert or starve.

It was already a divided country. Lots of people hated King Roderick and helped the Muslims fight against. Even non-Muslims from other countries helped in the battles along side Muslims. It's not like the Muslims just swept in on everybody. They fought who they considered oppressive. At least under most rulership.

That's more of a romanticized version of history. The moorish conquest of spain was not a nice event. It included the usual burning of cities and killing of children/mass rape. After making terms with the muslims many christians attempted to flee. From the invasion to their expulsion it was unpleasant.

The Indians are now expelling muslims from their country because they have such terrible associated with their occupation

Koenraad Elst , the german historian writes in "Negation in India" "As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate).." Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this: "The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within." These are facts. Don't try and white wash muslim crimes in India.

Because fuck

You're basing your history off one historian. I've studied from multiple sources.

A sort of fatality attaching itself to human affairs would seem to command that in the relation of historical events those of the highest importance should descend to posterity through the justly suspected channels of narrations written by the conquering parties. The mutation of empires, the most momentous revolutions and the overthrow of the most renowned dynasties seem all to be liable to this disadvantage. It was by the Romans that the history of their own aggrandizement was written; the narration of their rivalry and sanguinary wars with the Carthaginians has come down to us from themselves; or if Greek writers have also treated the subject, these men were the tributaries and dependents of Rome, nor did they spare the flatteries best calculated to conciliate her favor. Scipio thus appears to us the most admirable of heroes, but is not that in part because the history of his life is the work of his admirers and flatterers? It is true that the noble and illustrious Hannibal cannot look otherwise than great and glorious even in the narratives of his mortal enemies, but if the implacable hatred and aggressive policy of Rome had not commanded the destruction of all the Punic annals, the renowned general would doubtless appear to us under an aspect differing much from that presented by the ruthless barbarian, described by Livy and accepted by his readers as the portrait of Hannibal. Therefore a sound and just discrimination forbids us to content ourselves with the testimony of one side only. This requires that we compare the relations of both parties with careful impartiality, and commands us to cite them with no other purpose than that of discovering the truth.

>Iran
Iran is turning to Christianity the same way the UK is to Islam.

>Turkey
>"peaceful"
Yeah sure thing, Memet.