Bali would probably be somewhat slower to experience the effects, but thanks to transmigrasi (Indonesia’s policy of re-settling Javanese on other less populated islands), the fact that Garuda (the national airline) would stop flying, the tendency to hire outsiders for mining work (most Freeport workers are not Papuan, they are Javanese), etc., I don’t think even islands with a large non-Muslim population base would be protected from immediate and devasting effects. Keep in mind, for example, that Bali relies largely on tourism. There are a lot of domestic tourists (IIRC, it’s quite a growing sector in Indonesia).
I’d be allowed to knit on the plane again. Not a huge consequence of the disappearance of millions of people, but would be for me.
Re: Malaysia and Brunei are a lot more religiously integrated… and thus it’ll be far more distruptive.
Malaysia’s only about 60% Muslim, last I checked. It has very large Chinese and Indian populations (and of course small numbers of Negritos) in addition to ethnic Malays.
Re: and those surrounding the Rapture in Christian ideology.
Not all Christians believe in the rapture, at least in the variety that a lot of modern evangelicals preach.
Speaking as a Christian, I’d certainly find it interesting and unusual if all Muslims were to disappear, and it would strengthen my belief that the supernatural exist, but I wouldn’t particularly feel any inclination to convert. There are plenty of hypotheses that could explain the disappearance of a billion Muslims without Islam necessarily being true.
Really? I would have trouble coming up with even one hypothesis.
The rapture is based on the Word of God as it is written in the Holy Scriptures and is not a “What if”, but is a when when situation.
Nobody knows the day or the hour, the signs are metioned in the book of St Luke if you care to read that book you need to be sober and comphrehend what it means.
Your theory doesn’t even have a begining just a joke thread I preceive.
If there is another 911 on American soil I predict a whole of muslims will be disappearing in a short amount of time afterwards.
The rapture is a matter of different sects of Christianity’s interpretation. Many Christians don’t believe it and parts of I and II Thessalonians has been disputed as far as authenticity. Regardless of that, the rapture is a “When” for you and evangelicals, but for the rest of Christianity, it is not.
As far as 9/11, it should bother people that there were no real forensics done that suppors the conclusions reached and no real evidence of who perpetrated it. Seven of the people blamed are still alive, but who’s counting. But I agree with you. Muslims will be blamed for the next attack too. That is no doubt a ‘when’ and not an ‘if’.
Just out of curiosity, Mr Quatro and IWLN, are you guys in Australia?
[ul]
[li]Any one of the other religions of the world is true, and their god or gods just disintegrated the Muslim population.[/li][li]The guy running the simulation we are all living in accidentally deleted them.[/li][li]Aliens from a higher dimension abducted them all to see how we’d react.[/li][li]Aliens abducted them to settle them on another planet to see how Islam would do as a world’s sole religion.[/li][/ul]
Do Islamic majority countries have much influence in global events? Aside from their natural resources I do not have the impression they do.
Abandoned nations in oil rich territory will cause the US, Europe, Russia, China, India to all scramble to conquer the unoccupied middle east. I don’t know if war would break out, but it could. Whatever nation controlled the oil could use it as political leverage.
Yeah but the victims of Islamic misogyny are likely Islamic women, so overall I don’t think it would matter.
Globally speaking, the world would become more free and democratic (Islamic nations have far lower than average human, civil and political rights). I don’t know if that would matter much for the world as a whole though since everyone else’s life wouldn’t change.
California 
I’m thinking there’s no war over Middle East oil, because since the U.S.A. has troops practically everywhere (including still a whole bunch in Afghanistan), we get there first with the most. We let India have Pakistan, we let Israel have the Sinai and however much of Jordan and Syria they want, we abandon Afghanistan virtually overnight to whoever the hell is crazy enough to want it, and we make sure the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, and Iraq are belong to us.
A nitpick: Qiyamah is not the same as the Evangelical Christian “Rapture” in that in the hadith, the Qiyamah states that the righteous will be separated from the wicked but in the sense that the righteous will die a peaceful death and leave the Earth to the wicked for a period of time before the resurrection of all the dead for judgement. Your link says the same.
Hence, you’d actually see the dead.
We’re already there. The United States has about 14000 troops stationed in Kuwait, 3000 in Bahrain, 1500 in Turkey, with a couple thousand more spread through Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE.
What I always thought was strange though was that despite the talk from both sides (from antiwar liberals *and *neocon hawks) that the Iraq War was going to net us a bunch of free oil (or at least as “repayment” for the costs of occupation) that never happened as far as I’ve ever heard. We still pay full market price for oil from all those countries, right? No better deal than any other country with no troops stationed there gets?
Why would an administration full of oil company executives want to have free oil flowing? Or even cheap oil?
It’s a good point, but you’re still saying that everyone who cried out that the war was about taking Iraqi oil had it all wrong. I don’t remember anyone levelling the accusation “this is to disrupt their ability to sell oil for a while so other oil producers will get higher prices for theirs”. Maybe that was the Machiavellian thinking, but if so it went unnoticed.
ETA: And that is all in regards to the Iraqi invasion. Your post that I responded to referred to troops stationed in Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE. But we don’t (AFAIK) disrupt oil supplies with those troops. Nor do we use them to leverage a good deal buying oil. So what are we getting out of it? The usual answer would be that we protect the stability of the oil supply. But then isn’t that benefiting all kinds of other countries just as much, who don’t have troops there? China and Japan, f’rinstance?
We may have troops there but Russia and Israel (and to some extent China) are all going to want as big a piece of the oil reserves pie (er, yuck) as they can grab, by hook or by crook. Even if open war doesn’t break out things are going to be very tense for a very long time.
NATO can get there “fustest with the mostest” by far. Besides, Russia has its own oil and natural gas resources these days and would be motivated mostly by a desire to play spoiler, something that Putin likes to do but isn’t a really great reason to risk the nation.
The Chinese are an interesting piece of the puzzle in this hypothetical. They have inroads into Muslim Africa already and some of those areas are oil rich. Maybe they’d be content with controlling those areas. But there would be no reason for us not to play nice, either.
Oil producers like cheap oil. Every company likes its production costs to go down so more people will buy their products. Expensive oil brings on threats from other fuel sources.