[Campion]

Contrary to popular belief the break up of the Islamic Empire did not in fact put an end to Imperial Islamic aspirations. Gahdafi, Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussein and others have all hinted at if not openly declared their intention to

It's the Saudis who are really interested in an Islamic Empire. Saddam and Gadhafi are basically socialist dictators. They are to Islam as Hitler was to Christianity: they're happy to use Islam for political purposes, but their real religion is their own power. If they weren't 1500 miles apart, they'd be at each others' throats, too.

[Prysson]

I dont disagree with you but it is important to note that just because a dictator is socialistic does not mean that he is not Islamic or just because he is secluar does not mean that he is above using Islamic faith as a means to their end. Even in the earliest days of the Islamic culture their were factions and powers within islam each seeing itself as teh "leader" of Islam. Some Factions would call other secular while other would complain that they were too radical. This is nothing new. Despite these infighting among factions however. It did not prevent them from conquering and establishing Islamic Empires in one form or another. To say that it was always one empire is inaccurate Just like the notion of a Chinese empire is true but not complete since there were many dynasty of verying power and influence in what was at one time a chinese empire. That did not cease being an Empire until the Communists in the 50's. My is that just because Saddam and Gahdafi are secular does not in fact mean that they do not aspire to control of a massive Islamic state...nor does nit make them NON muslim...and it certainly does not mean that they would not put aside there enmities to make common cause against an outsider. The Islamic histories are full of just those kinds of things.