Announcement

**oiqbal** · Apr 22, 2001, 11:09 AM

As for Saudis helping us, I am extremely sorry but I do not want them to help us. First we ruin the economy and industry, run away from taxes, destroy our system, destroy Islamic roots in our kids and then we become beggars too! Prophet(sm) discouraged beggary. And remember the famous incident when someone asked him to help and he sold his blanket, made him an axe and asked him to do work. I think we must learn from that.

As for the hadith, please do provide me with the reference, and also let me know how is nationalism different from the conceptes of helping relatives and neighbourhood first that Muhammad(sm) taught us? Only that neighbourhood has eventually become large enough to include a country.

Regards,
Omer

**MuhammedAliBarlas** · Apr 23, 2001, 01:04 AM

Its domain problem.

Nationalism has has small/limited domain applicable to its idealogy.
Islam provides a framework and Universal domain.

AS a human , your domain begins with
YOU,your close one, parentes, wife, siblings and relative, neighbour, you area you live in , your community , your city,
Where you are brought up, and live.
Nationalism tells you to bind to your country chracterstic which is nothing more then set of rules defined by humans, set of behavour traits of people evolved. Eg I am American because certain Chracteristc define me and where i live along with other people who share the same chracterstic, which is coutnry.
YES its natural to close to those people who you live and adhare to that chrastrictes as long as you dont violate ISLAM principle.
YES I will fight for pakisan, as part of nationalism but Before i do that I should look and see if in the name of nationalism I am not Violting My Religion.
another eg
I as American will fight for freedom, but refuse to do that if it involves killing of muslims, then my domain is not Nationalism but more to my religon.

**alizadeh2000** · Apr 23, 2001, 01:58 AM

oiqbal brother, please allow me to correct your very fundamental misunderstanding.

In the first analogy you used, the neighbor has to agree to financially helping your dying family member. Agreed. However, the current existence of "neighboring country" is not allowed in Islam. There should be no neighboring country to begin with. The question of asking or not asking does not arise. In the same country, everyone uses the same finances. Therefore, those living in the land of Hejaz/Najd are supposed to pay taxes to the same government as those living in Punjab. There is no point in asking a neighbor, because the neighbors are not supposed to exist. If my country is attacked, it is the Saudi's country as much as it is my country. California will not say Virginia is another country.

You say you are not concenred about a Jordanian dying if people in your own country are dying. But in Islam, you should be concerned equally about both. Both should have equal priority with you. It is not "your country". The land of Pakistan is as much a Jordanian's country as it is yours. The borders, like I said earlier, should not exist according to Islam. This would make the country really big, from Morocco to Indonesia, but wouldn't that be great? Why do you want to keep it small?

You cannot shift into one house with your neighbor. But this example does not apply to the Islamic state. When borders are removed, the state is expanded, and your neighbors are still there. If you are a Baluchi, is Sindh not your neighbor now? Then why should your other neighbor Sistan province in Iran not be equally close? Now do you see the flaw in your reasoning?

The Muslim parties of India opposed Partition because they had very limited vision and intellects. They could not see that by the division of Pakistan, the seeds for the re-union of the Islamic lands from Morocco to Punjab would be sown. When Pakistan was seperated from Hind, it gave more land to the future Islamic Union. More land was conquered for the future Khilafah without even realising it.

They were preventing the cutting of the small cake. They did not realise that by cutting the smaller cake, they could make the big cake EVEN BIGGER.

You say no Saudi will help us in the current drought. I agree 100%, this was exactly my point. If we had been one country, the Arabs of the Peninsula WOULD INDEED have helped us, because our government and their government would be one single government. So that is why we should unite and remove the borders. This is what Islam says.

You say Islam has given priorities in Huqooq Il abad. You are right, but these huqooq are priortized for your immediate relatives only. After your immediate relatives, the huqooq of the Sindhi, the Moroccon, and the Iranian are the same over you. There is no difference.

I hope you understand my point.

Originally posted by oiqbal:
Dear Alizadeh2000,

I am starting a new thread because of the objection in the previous one.

I want to know something, if a member from your family is dying, can you use the finances of your neighbour to help him? Only if he wishes so. By the same analogy, if your country is being attacked, no other country will help you. It is your problem and you should seek to solve it.

We have been divied and that is history now. We cannot reunite, there is a spacial constraint. We lost Bangladesh, one of the reasons was the same. Now what Islam demands is that everyone work together to boost their country so the dying can get food and shelter. This is at a much higher priority in Islam than anything else.

USA, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia are not one country, but all Saudis keep their finances in American and Swiss banks; don't take interest because its haraam and American and Swiss banks make money off them. They do not even put it in their own banks!

I am not really concerned about a Saudi or an Jordanian Muslim if people in my own country are dying, and that also because we're still wanting to reunite ourselves.

As far as your examples of dividing is concerned, my family is technically divided with my neighbour, what now? Shall we shift into one house? It is natural.

Almost all religious parties opposed the partition of India because Muslims were being divided. And later they realized that they were at mistake. Sometimes division is good, especially when you are being oppressed. Right now your countrymen are caught in drought and will die soon of famine. No Saudi will help you. You have to do it yourself. We have to do it ourselves.

To me, this is a totally useless issue because Islam itself has given priorities in Haqooq ul Ibaad, based on blood and spacial constraints. Muslims countries are just an addition to the list. Nowhere is nationalism disallowed in Islam, either directly or indirectly.

Regards,
Omer

**oiqbal** · Apr 23, 2001, 09:24 AM

Dear MuhammedAliBarlas,

I agree 100% with what you have said. Within the limits provided by Islam and as long as you do not violate, you should do everything to support your country.

--
Dear Alizadeh2000,

I understand your point, but I still do not find what is wrong in what I am saying. I would assert again that I do not mean harm to anyone else. And I also understand that Prophet(sm) talked about neighbourhood. Obviously it would have been ideal if there was one state, but the fact is that here isn't one. And the other fact is that Islam has not disallowed states, in fact even in Muhammad(sm)'s time there were governors, who had local powers with a central system. For whatever reasons, there is no central power now and separate states do exist - it is a fact and should not be denied.

In midst of such facts, it should also be understood that we have a separate state and Saudis a separate and there is no motivation, whether religious or in common sense whatsoever, to unite these two separate states under one government. As far as Islam is concerned, it has not even given a mode of government to its followers, it has given a vast set of ethical and moral values, and everything that does not violate those values is allowed in Islam. Thus, making better your own country at the expense of someone else's country is certainly against the teachings of Islam, but without causing hurt to anyone if you strive hard for the people in surrounding areas, it is certainly allowed.

God has said that he provides everyone's rizq on this Earth, but isn't it us who have to strive to get that rizq. The problem essentially is that of distribution and if we do not get above the history that has already happened, we cannot successfully conduct the operations of rizq-e-halaal in global market.

There are numerous examples in which groups of people are formed and those groups work for the benefit of people or a part thereof. This is evident in 7th century history as well as an essence in today's diverse multicultural world. As long as this distribution does not defy the principles of Islam, and does not cause harm in its aftermath or side-effects, there is no reason not to unite together for mutual benefit. And if due to spacial, cultural or political constraints and the ideology of countries, if we cannot unite, it is about time that we get ahead to benefit from what we have.

We do have a culture and its different from Saudis. Religion does not influence culture. Religion does not influence what I do between Zuhr and Asar as long as I do not violate the limits set by it. Religion does not influence my dress as long as it does fulfills the requirements of modesty. Pakistan has a culture, which is different from that of Saudia. This is natural.

As far as difference in transnational ideologies is concerned, let me say that Saudi ideology is to promote no army and works on monarchy, whereas Pakistan wants representation of the people to rule the country. Neither Pakistan nor Saudia is willing to give in and it could take centuries before these countries would unite.

And it is obviously more important to identify the problems that are higher at priority in religion. Right now there IS a Pakistan and people are dying in it, and if we were to not promote business here and go to Saudia instead to work, people here will keep dying for the same reason that people of intellect have already left this country. Some one has to fight poverty, corruption, dishonesty and nepotism.

Again, I still do not know how does your argument provide sufficient proof to not help my country at a higher priority; or even the fact that such countries are not allowed in Islam. Unity is certainly better but nowhere obligatory. And right now we cannot unite either.

And what about that which Muhammad(sm) said about our responsibility on our neighbourhood, which is supposed to be always higher than that of people of other regions? What Prophet(sm) said was that if there is a person sleeping hungry in my neigbourhood, I am responsible for him, and if someone slept hungry in some other province, his neighbourhood is responsible for him. And similarly if someone 5000 km away is sleeping hungry, I wouldn't even know, let alone me helping him! In fact for me, Islam encourages one to work for their country, so that people of the country get due share of their rizq as well as live a higher standard of living.

And now let me ask you something, when someone calls them a Sunni, is it not against Islam, and does it not breed the seeds of religious apartheid? Allah and Muhammad(sm) has given everyone only one name, Muslim. Thats what we are and thats what unites us irrespective of our governments. And countries are a fact so its about time that we learn to move forward into 21st century.

Best,
Musalmaan

[This message has been edited by oiqbal (edited April 23, 2001).]

**oiqbal** · Apr 23, 2001, 09:40 AM

And before you believe that my indication is to not cooperate with any other Muslim State (lets take it into consideration for the time being), here is how that can be achieved.

All Muslim states can create an economic treaty, in which they can start free trade, loans without interest etc for mutual benefit. And participation to that treaty can only be opened to Muslim states, thats how we can counter Summit of Americans and European Union. Unfortunately, we're not doing much in this direction and "clever" unification as I would say, but want to reunite the 7th century way, and keep ourselves attached to it.

Today, the stronger the economy, the more your conviction power, the stronger you are. Jihad has become economic Jihad. Japan has world say because of its economy. China is second US in military, thanks to its strong economy, which is supplemented by military. Its economic and propaganda war 99% of the time, and use of military only 1% of the time. And Muslims want to fight that 1%, completely ignoring the rest 99%.

Omer

**scarface1** · Apr 23, 2001, 08:11 PM

Nationalism is the lowest form of thought. In a hadith the Prophet (saw) referred to the people who call for Nationalism as 'dung beetles'.

The question is how does Nationalism unite the people. The answer is by continually making the people feel threathened by another country. This means that as long as there is a threat the people are united and are proud pakistanis and the sindhis, punjabis etc are one but when the threat is no more then the sindhis are busy hating the punjabis and vice versa.

Lets say you're living in a house and everybody hates each other. Somebody from outside throws a brick through the window, suddenly everybody is united in their effort to tackle the threat. When the threat is no more everybody starts hating each other again. Just because you're living under the same roof doesn't mean that all the problems that arise from your interaction with each other can be solved on the basis that ' we're living in the same house' or ' we're all pakistanis here'.

Just being pakistani doesn't solve the problems that arise from our interacting with each other. Nationalism doesn't bring a system to solve our problems, it is a disease that will be wiped out with the coming of the khilafah inshallah.

btw, calling for khilafah is calling for islamic rule.

Only Islam can unite the people because it offers a complete system in harmony with peoples instincts and organic needs. Islam is not just morals and ethics it is a complete system. Forbidding riba, rule by what Allah(swt) has revealed, how to form contracts, these are not moral or ethical issues.

Re-uniting the 7th century way just so happens to be the Method of the Prophet(saw) and any other method is haram.

Don't you think that Pakistan would be in a better position economically if it refused to pay any more interest to the IMF and World Bank?

Don't you think that the Muslims would be in a better position having one economy under one state instead of just treaties?

**oiqbal** · Apr 23, 2001, 09:00 PM

Scarface,

I find your arguments biased to an extent. What you are saying is that Sindhis, Balochis, Peshawaris and Punjabis will fight amongst themselves in Pakistan, but if there was one Ummah, they would not do so!

In nationalism people are united under threat only is also a biased point of view. Take Japan, they have no external threat whatsoever, yet they are united.

In my previous email I said that people "might" have been better under one economy but it is not possible because of geographical as well as cultural differences. And Islam is not a complete system, I can do whatever I want between Zuhr and Asar prayers. Not taking Riba and how to form contracts are ethics of finance and business respectively. You can call them law as well, because these ethics constitute in the drafting of laws eventually. But what you mean by a complete system, I do not understand.

As for any other method than that of prophet being haraam, please stop travelling in planes, cars and rails, use camels instead. Please stop using telephones and internet also - this is not the method of the Prophet(sm); and as you said all methods other than that of prophet(sm) are haraam.

Omer

[This message has been edited by oiqbal (edited April 23, 2001).]

**MuhammedAliBarlas** · Apr 24, 2001, 12:34 AM

JUst General Comments:
My indian collegaue, who happens to be muslim and American Born, had nice talk about him going to war if American Govt calls him and HE will be there to serve his country(USA) as result of Pateriosm.
I have noticed he is very paterotic(USA).
AS he believes what the millions american believes : WE ARE AMERICAN FIRST THEN WE ARE IRSIsH, JEWS, ETC.

I have explaind him that HE is mulsim first then he is american in rather harsh way. anybody has better idea to explain in nice and polite way?

thanks...

**alizadeh2000** · Apr 24, 2001, 01:42 AM

Having small states is not expressly forbidden, but if you read and study Islam extensively, you will find that the union is being implied implicitly.

God has expressly said in the Quran Majeed that Muslims are not allowed to rule by anything other than the Book.

If you have multiple governments, the probability that the small countries would be ruled by other doctrines than the Book, greatly increases. And this is exactly what is happening today. No single country has properly implemented Islamic Law. All countries, with the exception of Iran and Pakistan, are being ruled by corrupt, debauched and ruthless dictators, be it Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, you name it.

All of these countries have one thing in common: nationalism based on ever-narrower criteria. They have become so nationalistic that they have divided themselves even further though they have the same language Arabic. This is a never ending process of division. It is really pathetic, and totally unIslamic. Today, they cannot act against Israel, and every Arab Summit fails to even agree on action on Israel. This is exactly what the West wanted. They have succeeded in instilling nationalism beyond any bounds.

Geography and culture do not affect the future Islamic Union. Geography is always contiguous.

Omar, you are justified in being apprehensive about the probabibility of such a Union in the near future. Khilafah, after all, had become exceedingly corrupt and fell to its doom, with some assistance from the West.

However I am also heartened to know that you would support such a Union should it be possible.

In the future, any such Union would not concentrate power in the hands of the corrupt few. Khilafah did not even have the sanction of the Prophet PBUH. The system was evolved later by the Ummayad and Abbasid Caliphs. They became debauched dictators much like Saddam Hussein.

The new system would have lots of checks and balances to ensure transparency.

After all other options have been exhausted, this is the only viable option left. Cooperation without political unity would be too slow, without much results.

**Topee Wala** · Apr 24, 2001, 02:11 AM

Lickly for pakistan, 'nationalism' and Islam do not conflict. If they did then I would go for Islam coz i wont be taking my love for Pakistan to the grave...
The saying:
'Pakistan ka matlab kia, La Ilaha Illalah'
summarizes my point of view. As a nation we are Muslims, we call our A-Bomb the Islamic bomb. When muslims in Kashmir, Chechnea or Palestine die our hearts cry. Our forigen policy kinda supports this as well. We support the Jihad in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Chechnea. We give a court tuling baning riba. Yes, as a nation we do have faults eg. not implementing Islam properly, too much corruption, unequal rights for women and minorites and so on... BUT the fundamental reason why I have a 6ft Pakistani flag in my room is that we would rather be Pakistani and give our 'nationality' which is actully Indian for the sake of Islam and Muslims. We will stand up to an enemy which is many times larger (Russia, cold war, and India now) and not be afraid. We have made mistakes in the past, espicially the ill treatment of our bangali brothers which resulted in their seperation, yet we look to the future with our faith in Allah.

Well this is how I feel. If pakistan, like turkey banned hijab and like egypt arrested people going to mosques for fajar and like Syria level mosques to the ground i would hate Pakistan. But since pakistan supports jihad in Kashmir and is able to stand tall in front of the world and do its nuke-test and face the consequenses knowing the end result and put their faith in Allah to protect our mosques from our Hindu neighbours I support Pakistan coz for me it most closley resembeles what we should be looking for. We are the only muslim country in the world that allows Hibut-tahrir to funtion (which is banned from all other muslim countries because they promote the idea of Khilafat). Because we support The Kashmir groups openly and the world cant do anything about it for the sake of the Muslims in Kashmir, because we give refuge to our Afghani refugees and support their govt while the rest of the world puts sanctions to kill their suffering people. I say, may Allah make us pakistanis to be role modles for nations in the implementation of Islam as a world power and amy Allah never allow us to bow our heads infront of anyone except Allah.

**alizadeh2000** · Apr 24, 2001, 02:51 AM

When I was about 4 or 5 years old, my mother was putting me to sleep...

I asked her, "mother, when will Qiyamat come?".

She was a little suprrised when I asked this. I didn't know why I had asked her.

"After the Muslims will rule the world once again", she said. Now this was a strict Shi'ite family of mine, and notions of Khilafah are hated by Shi'as because of Ummayad and Abbasi practices.

Then I said "Mother, you know, I think too much. Just like Alama Iqbal."

Even today I never cease to wonder when I recall this.

Then Mom laughed and left. And I slept.

**oiqbal** · Apr 24, 2001, 08:03 PM

Dear Alizadeh2000,

All that you said is absolutely true, and I do not deny the fact that unity is wanted. But what I am saying is that no one in Pakistan knows what Saudi culture is for instance. No body in Saudia cares if Pakistan builds a Kalabagh dam or not.

In Pakistan, all provinces have autonomy to an extent. Islam does not deny autonomy to local groups. Building one Muslims state and then provinces spread all over the world are not quite possible at this stage. However, Europe is united under European Union; why can't Muslims do the same? Just form a unity. We do have OIC, but we have not united under it, unlike Europeans; and we carry the message of unity!

We are one Ummah nonetheless. Being an Ummah does not demand that we have to have one state as well. I still do not get where does the concept of one state come in from. Ummah and state are different. Ummah is more of a brotherhood based on equaliy, religion, etc; states are formed on cultures and on geography and ideology. Yes, Pakisani and Saudi ideology differs in that Pakistan has to have army to compete India, whereas Saudia has to discourage army to save monarchy; besides Saudia believes there is no need for a strong army either.

However, I want to know how high on priority is the concept of 'one state' in Islam? In Islam things fall broadly under four categories: forbidden, obligatory, recommended, and those on which Islam has not spoken. At best I would consider the concept of a single state to be recommended. There are millions of other things that are obligatory and need to be done. For instance many of my colleagues are about to take over and start sponsoring a government school for better facilities and better instructors to improve the standard of education in rural areas. I think poverty alleviation, spread of education and health are at a much much higher priority than unity. We're wanting to unite ourselves with our neighbours dying, which Islam is this?

As for Saudis helping us, they can do us anyways, in fact they do. But it is we who should turn down to solve our problems instead of begging for help everytime.

And we must be good Muslims. We must learn Islam. I find numerous groups of people calling all non-Muslims as Kuffar, even Khilafah movement does so (www.khilafah.com, check their website). I still have to meet a scholar who thinks that this is what Islam preaches. And even then I would want to see their arguments, for Qur'an did not use the words, "O Kuffar" until the time of Hegira of Muhammad(sm), which is after atleast ten years of preaching. Qur'an is very clear indeed in that Kuffar are those people who have understood the Message of God, know that it is right and yet refuse it. We do not preach anyone about Islam, do not answer their question, but call them Kuffar and kill them. This is not Jihad, rather extremism. Infact, Qur'an has not allowed Muslims to fight anyone, except when attacked. All I would request them is to go and consult some good scholars on Islam, so that nothing wrong is represented. We should not get carried away in our objectives and refuse to accept Truth. Anyway, if people at Khilafah think this is the right interpretation, then I guess they should believe it obviously. But Islam should be systematically studied as other sciences, not haphazardly as most people do.

Having said that, my point of view is that given the people and the conditions, it is obligatory for me to help the people who are dying - out of hunger and because of lack of health facilities - right next to me. I can help by doing charity, investing or running a business here so I employ a number of people who earn in form of salary through the business. If anyone has a better reason to not do so, please let me know, but I believe in Qur'anic and strong Hadith evidence only.

And if others believe that we must have 'one state' no grudges, keep up the good work. Just be good Muslims and good learned persons. Only education can build vision and perspecive required to understand the interdisciplinary facets of religion and science in the modern world.

Best Regards,
M. Omer Iqbal

[This message has been edited by oiqbal (edited April 24, 2001).]

**scarface1** · Apr 25, 2001, 10:57 PM

oiqbal,

We ARE one Ummah. If there was one Islamic state the Sindhis, Balochis, Peshawaris and Punjabis would leave that identity because to be recognised as a Muslim is what they would be proud of.

Unity means treating your neighbour like your brother and not only that considering any Muslim your brother. Football, Olympic games etc are also promoting Nationalism. The threat is the opponent. The glory is seeing your nation with the gold medals and trophies.

Islam is comprehensive. There isn't a issue that Islam doesn't have an opinion on. Go ahead and ask I'll get you an opinion on it.

If the person you are going to is telling you that planes, telephones etc are haram then I suggest you ask someone else. As for the issue of objects in Islam we are allowed to use an object which does not come directly from the kufr aqeeda. We are not allowed to have the cross for example because it comes directly from their aqeeda. Cars, planes, internet are tools and are not directly linked to the kufr aqeeda so we are allowed to use them.

The method I was referring to was :

1. To NOT take up a post in the kufr government.

2. To NOT take up arms against the rulers.

3. TO partake in intellectual struggle with the kufr concepts that exist in society with a view to remove them and their supporters from authority and place Islam in authority.

There was only ONE method to establish the ONE state uniting people from all walks of life into ONE Ummah that became THE leading nation.

**mean machine naseem** · Apr 26, 2001, 06:36 PM

Scarface and alizeedah2001 have the correct understanding.....iam with u guys because your reply's are based on islam.