Since I rip on you for not have any discussions that do not revolve around petty personal agenda’s I thought this was a subject would garner some attention.
So whats with the whole hating the concept of the Ummah. I mean it is by no means a critique of the actions taken by muslim countries, but Indians, Westerners and even Muslims laugh off the idea as absurd. The question is why?
I mean nobody laughs at the idea of European Solidarity as is the case with the EU. Rather people are rather happy that the Europeans work together and feel a common identity and unity for being European. That of course applied to muslims is seen as absurd or just sheer stupidity. Why?
People don’t find the practical side of the implementing the concept stupid. The find the notion that Muslims are one common group that feels for the other absurd. The notion itself is ridiculed, yet the European model is given great applause. Odd.
Why do you feel the need to ridicule the concept of a unified Islamic/Muslim populace? And attack it regularly to prove its absurdness?
Muslims start their Eid over the physically impossible period of three days, sometimes in the same timezone. Muslims routinely bomb each others masajid, thats when one sect hasnt completely suppressed another in that country. And finally the advocates of the Ummah today are usually the organizational equivalent of the Neo-nazis or KKK, not in terms of beliefs in any sense, but in terms of size, effectiveness, leadership quality and so on.
Once the level of debate about the Ummah has any semblance to the debate about EU, once the agents are the general population of atleast more than one country as opposed to Hizb nutjobs, once the enabling conditions such as religious unity regardless of national boundaries are present, the Ummah will not be such a laughable proposal.
Explain that. Because all comments presented by posters on these forums do not attack the practicality of the notion. They attack the concept as well. Meaning that muslims inherently can not be cohesive or be unified. An inherently ignorant and discriminatory premise don’t you think?
Also its good to see NGOs like Islamic Relief and the OIC linked with the Neo-Nazis.
does islamic relief advocate an Ummah? the most prominent proponents I see are folks such as Hizb ut Tahrir, whom I was thinking of. OIC is useless and sterile as an organization, pretty close to being a concept itself actually :)
So you say people mock it as a concept. Well you've narrowed your topic down to an extent that I cant be a part of it. You say people dont find the implementation stupid, i wager thats what is felt most strongly, thus making the concept, like unicorns and flying dragons, irrelevant in current WA or PA discussions. Perhaps the notion thats Muslims cant inherently be unified extends to the timeframe around which most WA or PA topics are under discussion, with which I wouldnt necessarily disagree.
These people who hate the concept of 1 Ummah, will be crying when 1 world government is established, not far from now. They would wish they had backed the concept of 1 ummah. But they can say whatever they want, insh'Allah 1 UMMAH will stand up against the hypocrites and disbelievers.
Explain that. Because all comments presented by posters on these forums do not attack the practicality of the notion. They attack the concept as well. Meaning that muslims inherently can not be cohesive or be unified. An inherently ignorant and discriminatory premise don't you think?
What is the "concept of Ummah"? Is it the concept given in Quran or the one we hear trumpeted these days in newspapers and some organizations like Hizb shouting about it? The concept in Quran is the only one I can support but then Quran discourages "sects" which we now have dime a dozen these days.
Also its good to see NGOs like Islamic Relief and the OIC linked with the Neo-Nazis.
I didn't expect this from you, where did LockJaw term relief orgs as neo-nazis? His reference was clearly about Hizb like "orgs".
LockJaw I said in the original post twice or thrice that the concept being mocked is the issue. I am not responsible for your inability to read.
Islamic relief organizes itself under Islamic principles when deal with Humanitarian aid, it hires muslims from broad spectrums etc etc. While it does not advocate the creation of a Muslim Ummah or state or whatnot. It does abide the position that Muslims form a common group with underlining and overt interlinkages.
ehtasab finally the start to a discussion - Defining the concept of the Ummah. Feel free to discuss the rather simplestic notion:
[quote]
The concept of the Islamic Ummah is that the Islamic world and Muslims have a common underlying tie that binds them all together. The issue is that of religion but also cultural linkages. Based on these two factors, Musims feel that unity with the followers of the faith is the ultimate goal to be attained.
[/quote]
LockJaw I said in the original post twice or thrice that the concept being mocked is the issue. I am not responsible for your inability to read.
Islamic relief organizes itself under Islamic principles when deal with Humanitarian aid, it hires muslims from broad spectrums etc etc. While it does not advocate the creation of a Muslim Ummah or state or whatnot. It does abide the position that Muslims form a common group with underlining and overt interlinkages.
For all your emphasis on the importance of reading skills, you missed the fact that I said 'advocates'.
Furthermore, I clarified how ground realities relate to the concept being mocked in real world affairs discussions. Feel free to address that.
[quote]
Feel free to re-work the definition as you wish.
[/QUOTE]
thats a rather elaborate definition that almost misses the point. it literally means 'nation' or 'state' in arabic, why the need for exposition beyond that?
Okay we go with your definition. The literal meaning of State. Why is the notion itself- A unified supranational unified muslim country - deemed worthy of ridicule?
Regarding ground realities affecting the ridiculing of an ideal, you would I guess say the same about fighting apartheid in South Africa, freedom in Palestine and the fight to save the environment. The on the ground realities were very far from the ideals or notion these causes espoused, you would say that because of the realities on the ground these should be actively ridiculed?
Okay we go with your definition. The literal meaning of State. Why is the notion itself- A unified supranational unified muslim country - deemed worthy of ridicule?
Regarding ground realities affecting the ridiculing of an ideal, you would I guess say the same about fighting apartheid in South Africa, freedom in Palestine and the fight to save the environment. The on the ground realities were very far from the ideals or notion these causes espoused, you would say that because of the realities on the ground these should be actively ridiculed?
when wildly impractical ideals with absolutely zero indications of current relevance are offered as solutions to current affairs, they will be mocked. now talk about achieving that ideal separately, taking into account the practical challenges and I'd have some ideas of my own. So I guess I can only offer a limited defence of the ridicule, which however, covers much if not most of the cases IMO.
to take your example, lets say the solution to the environment issue was the construction of the perpetual motion machine, or the capturing of dark energy and putting it in a lithium cell battery. neither is scientifically plausible as yet, and both would receive pretty limited tolerance in an environment discussion.
And why is the concept of the Ummah wildly impractical? Secondly how is the desire of a populace to see unified community not relevant to current politics? Wouldn't the concept of the OIC show some relevance to the idea?
Interesting you ignore the other two examples, which are more political orientated. Regarding the environment discussion, while it may recieve limited tolerance I would highly doubt people would insult those who espouse the idea and ridicule it as well?
And why is the concept of the Ummah wildly impractical?
see my first post.
[quote]
Secondly how is the desire of a populace to see unified community not relevant to current politics? Wouldn't the concept of the OIC show some relevance to the idea?
[/quote]
'current' relevance. against implying actualization. you may desire a unified community all you want, but it isnt happening now, it isnt relevant to the topics we discuss today. Furthermore you say the concept of OIC shows some relevance, I'd say so does its effectiveness and practical value.
[quote]
Interesting you ignore the other two examples, which are more political orientated.
[/quote]
easier to construct plausible counter-examples. i considered going with african unity for the apartheid thing, but I dont know enough about the topic. Palestine ofcourse has Ummah for it already.
[quote]
Regarding the environment discussion, while it may recieve limited tolerance I would highly doubt people would insult those who espouse the idea and ridicule it as well?
[/QUOTE]
I think if it was once or twice it wouldnt be insulted. if a lot of conferences/discussions on the environment became about perpetual motion machines as the solution, and 'if only perpetual motion machines existed'.. and 'when will we realise we need perpetual motion machines'..you'd see quite a lot of snark. and rightly.
Your first post discusses the practicality of the matter. Not the ideal or notion. I will break it down for you:
not clear to me what you're saying here. are you seriously distinguishing between practicality of the 'matter' and practicality of the 'notion'? Fine if it helps, I was speaking of the practicality of the 'notion' before, and misspoke.
The question is why is it that people ridicule this concept of Ummah or Unifed muslim state. Not the practicality of the matter, but that the idea itself is open to ridicule.
If you still can’t get what I mean, my comment regarding your failure to comprehend english stands.
Edit: Because the english grammer by which i posted was appalling and the thought process was not complete.
The question is why is it that people ridicule this concept of Ummah or Unifed muslim state. Not the practicality of the matter, but that the idea itself is open to ridicule.
Addressing your edited post, it seems we're back to square one. You say idea itself, i say not idea but relevance as wildly impractical solution to current problems, you ask why wildly impractical, i say post 1, you go back to saying why are you ridiculing idea.
To avoid the eternal recurrence of this discussion, lets just remember where we were before the distinction between matters and notions came up:
[quote]
And why is the concept of the Ummah wildly impractical?
[/quote]
Again, for all the reasons in post 1, the concept of the Ummah is wildly impractical in context of current world affairs topics/discussions. Doesnt mean it always has to be (infact anyone who believes in Imam Mehdi believes atleast at that time it wont be) and it doesnt mean that people who believe in the desirability of the Ummah should be ridiculed.
