Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nationalism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • muhammed kauser
    replied
    Salaam,

    “Islam is also very lenient and a religion that promotes love and good relationship, where does it say to not take anything from non-Muslims?”

    "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa to one another. And if amongst you takes them as Awliyaa, then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zaalimun (wrongdoers). And you see those in who’s hearts there is a disease (of hypocrisy), they hurry to their friendship, saying “we fear lest some misfortune of a decision according to His Will. Then they will become regretful for what they have been keeping as a secret in themselves.”
    [TMQ Al-Mai’dah: 51-52]

    and allah(swt) also say’s “And whosoever desires a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from him and in the hereafter he will be one of the losers”
    [TMQ 3:85]

    Muhammed

    Leave a comment:


  • scarface1
    replied
    Omer,

    I think you don't understand what aqeeda is.

    "O you who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the Book which He sent to His Messenger and the Book which He sent to those before (him). Any who denies Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgement, has gone far, far astray." [4:136]

    This is the basis for the Muslim aqeeda and of course anyone who doesn't believe in this is a kafir.

    I didn't say we couldn't take anything from Non-Muslims because the Prophet(saw) took weapons from the persians and the yemenis i.e. took their technology. Like today we can take televisions, radios, computers because they do come directly from the kufr aqeeda. But Christian crosses, hindu idols etc we will not take these. I hope you understand Inshallah.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiqbal
    replied
    Dear Scarface,

    To me it does not matter if the thing comes from the so-called "Kufr" Aqeeda or from Muslims. I judge things on their merit and come to think of it, Asoka built trees next to the roads and provided water to travellers, so did Umar. There is a Jew who teaches Hadith in Glasgow University and is supposedly one of the better professionals in the field. Dr Farhat Hashmi, who holds her PhD in Hadith literature has been his students for quite a while - interesting, isn't it?

    Islam is also very lenient and a religion that promotes love and good relationship, where does it say to not take anything from non-Muslims?

    And where does it say that everyone who is not a Muslim necessarily belongs to "Kufr" Aqeedah?

    Omer

    Leave a comment:


  • alizadeh2000
    replied
    Mad Scientist, your source Mr. Hassan does not seem to have the correct understanding of nationalism vs Islam.

    Kin means family and relatives, NOT your nation or ethnic group.

    A Punjabi cannot call all the people of Punjab his kin.
    ============
    Coming back to the point, nationalism is haram because it a futile exercise. It is self defeating.

    I have seen Indian Sikhs and Hindu Punjabis flaunting ethnic pride to such an extent that it becomes difficult to believe that they are even human. I often like to observe their ethnic festivals to see their nationalism.

    It is an emotion that is perfectly useless, regressive, restrictive and self defeating.

    It creates a false air of superiority. And if every ethnic group has this same false superiority complex, then in real terms, who is actually superior? The answer is: NO ONE. They are all equally foolish.

    In trying to be superior, they are in fact equalizing themselves because they are all equally chauvinistic.


    Leave a comment:


  • mAd_ScIeNtIsT
    replied
    And here is what he wrote about Nationalism..... sorry for the long posts, brothers and sisters.....
    -----------------------------------------
    Nationalism

    And now I shall speak to you about our stance towards the principle of nationalism.

    Honour

    If by the principle of nationalism, they mean that the descendants should follow the footsteps of their ancestors on the ladder to honour and grandeur; in their exceptional ability and resolution; taking them as good examples, that the greatness of the forefathers is something they may be honoured about, discovering bravery and magnanimity, then it is a worthy, fine goal which we encourage and advocate. Are we invigorating the ambitions of the present generation for any other reason than to spur them on to achieve past glories? Perhaps a clear directive for this may be seen in what the Apostle of Allah (PBUH) said:

    ‘Men are like treasure troves: the best of them in pagan times are the best of them in Islam, if they but knew’

    So you see that Islam does not deny the virtues and noble aspects of nationalism.

    Political Community

    Or if they mean by ‘nationalism’ that a man’s kin and his nation are the most deserving out of all mankind for his love and devotion, and the most worthy of his favour and striving [jihad], then it is the truth, for who does not think that the most deserving of mankind for his efforts are his people, when he has been raised and grown up among them?

    ‘By my life, a man’s kin are greater in forbearance toward him, even if they mount him on all kinds of saddles.’

    Discipline

    If what is intended by ‘nationalism’ is that all of us are put to the test and held accountable to work and strive, it is up to every group to accomplish this goal in all its aspects. Until we eventually meet, Allah willing, in the forecourt of victory, and then this division will have been a good thing indeed Who is with us, to spur on the Eastern nations to form individual battalions, each one on its own battlefield, until we all gain the felicity of freedom and liberation?

    All this is fine and great: It is not rejected by Islam which serves as the criterion, thus our hearts are open to receive it, and we urge all to accept it.

    Fanaticism

    If, however, what is meant by ‘nationalism’ is the revival of Pre Islamic customs which have been swept away, and distant memories that have been forgotten, while a successful civilisation which has long been established is effaced, and it’s Islamic ties dissolved by nationalistic propaganda and racial glorification, as some states have done, annihilating the characteristic traits of Islam and Arabism even down to personal names, the letters of the alphabet and the vocabulary, then this version of nationalism is reprehensible, destructive in its consequences and evil in its results, causing the East great loss, to forfeit its heritage, prestige and most intrinsic qualities of honour and nobility. But this will do no harm to the religion of Allah:

    ‘And if you turn your backs, He will replace you with another people, and they will not be like you.’

    (Surat-Muhammad (47), ayah 38)


    Aggression

    If what is meant by ‘nationalism’ is racial self-agg*****sement to a degree which leads to the disparagement of Other races, aggression against them, and their victimisation for the sake of one nation’s glory and its continued existence, as preached for example by Germany and Italy (before and during the Second World War), as claimed by every nation which preaches its superiority over all others then this too is a reprehensible idea. It has no share in humanitarianism and means that the human race will liquidate itself for the sake of a delusion with no basis in fact and embodying not the slightest good.
    ---------------------------------------
    All this was sourced from http://www.prelude.co.uk/mb/banna/message.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • mAd_ScIeNtIsT
    replied
    Iman Hasan Al-Banna Shaheed, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, wrote some interesting stuff on Islam, patriotism and nationalism before his murder......
    From http://www.prelude.co.uk/mb/banna/message.htm
    ------------------------------------------
    Patriotism

    People are at times seduced by the appeal to patriotism, at other times by that of nationalism, especially in the East, where they are aware of the abuse that the colonial West directs against them, abuse which has injured their dignity, their honour, and their independence; as well as exploited their wealth and shed their blood; and wherever they are suffering under the Western yoke which has been forced upon them, they are trying to free themselves with whatever strength, resistance, opposition, and endurance they can muster. The tongues of their leaders have been given a free rein, a stream of newspapers has gushed forth, their writers, their lecturers, and their broadcasters, are all working in the name of patriotism and the majesty of nationalism.

    This is all well and fine. However when you try to explain to the people (who are Muslims) that Islam is more complete, more pure, more lofty, and more noble than anything that can be found in Western speeches or European literature , they reject it and persist in imitating the latter blindly, claiming that Islam belongs in one category and this ideology in another. Some of them think that this is what splits the unity of the nation and weakens the solidarity of their youth

    This mistaken notion is a danger to the Eastern nations from all aspects, and with this notion I would now like to turn to the stance of the Muslim Brotherhood and their mission: insofar as their attitude towards patriotism; the stance they approve of and desire for themselves, and are trying to convince the people to adopt with them.

    Affection

    If the advocates of patriotism mean love for one’s homeland, attachment to it and sentiment and affection towards it, it is something anchored in the very nature of the soul, for one thing; it is prescribed by Islam; Bilaal, who sacrificed everything for the sake of his creed and his religion was the same Bilaal who uttered the following sentiments in the House of exile, longing for Mecca, in verses overflowing with affection and replete with sweetness:

    ‘If only I could spend one more night In the valley (of Mecca), about me sweet smelling herbs and grass; Or if only I could come down some day to the waters of Majanna, And if Shama and Tafil shall ever rise up before me.’

    The Apostle of Allah (PBUH) had listened to a description of Mecca by Usayyil, and his tears welled up in yearning for it. He said:’

    ‘O Usayyil, let our hearts rest quietly.’

    Freedom and Greatness

    Or if they mean that it is necessary to make every effort to free the land from its ravengers, to defend its independence, and to instil the principles of freedom and greatness in the souls of its people then we are with them in this too. For Islam has greatly stressed this, as Allah (SWT) says:

    ‘Greatness belongs to Allah, His Apostle, and the believers, but the Hypocrites do know not.’

    (Surat-al-Munaafiqun (63), ayah 8)


    And He says:

    ‘Allah will never grant to the unbelievers a way against the believers.’

    (Surat-al-Nisaa’ (4), ayah 141)


    Community

    Or if they mean by ‘patriotism’ to reinforce the bonds which unite individuals within a given country, and to show them a way of utilising this reinforcement for their best interests then we also in agree with them on this. For Islam regards this as a necessary religious duty, and its Prophet (PBUH) said:

    ‘Be worshippers of Allah, and brothers.’

    While the Noble Qur’an says:

    ‘O ye who believe! Do not take as confidants those who are not of you ! they will not fail to cast disorder among you; they are pleased by what troubles you. Hatred has been revealed out of their mouths: what their breasts conceal is yet greater. We have made the signs clear to you, if you would but under stand.’

    (Surat-aal-Imraan (3), ayah 118)


    Conquest

    Or if they mean by ‘patriotism’ the conquest of countries and sovereignty over the earth, Islam has already ordained that, and has sent out conquerors to carry out the most gracious and blessed of conquests. This is what He, the Almighty, says

    ‘Fight them till there is no longer discord, and the religion is Allah’s.’

    (Surat-al-Baqarah (2), ayah 193)


    Factionalism

    However if they mean by ‘patriotism’ the division of the nation into parties which engage in mutual throat cutting, hatred and reprehension, hurling accusations at one another, deceiving one another, and banding together to further their cause dictated by their desires, shaped by their personal motives and goals, and interpreted in accordance with their own selfish interests. Thus allowing the enemy to take advantage of this, encouraging this fire to blaze forth all the more fiercely, causing them to differ over the truth but be united on the false. Thus the enemy will prevent any communication or co-operation between the parties , but will allow them to communicate with him and to rally around him, such that they will only seek his company and those who associate with him. This type of patriotism is a forged one , which does no good neither for its advocates nor for people in general. Now you have already seen that we are on the side of those who call for patriotism, even those that do so ardently with respect to all it’s sound concepts returning the goodness back to the country and its people. You have also seen that this extensive and wide ranging patriotism is nothing more than part of the Islamic teachings.


    [This message has been edited by mAd_ScIeNtIsT (edited April 26, 2001).]

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied


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

    Leave a comment:


  • scarface1
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiqbal
    replied
    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).]

    Leave a comment:


  • alizadeh2000
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Topee Wala
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • alizadeh2000
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • MuhammedAliBarlas
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • oiqbal
    replied
    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).]

    Leave a comment:


  • scarface1
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X