PD. The concept of Islamic Ummah is not any different than a lose cartel, perhaps not that dissimilar to OPEC. It is (was) only a concept. The 60s Arab nationalism movements led by Asad of Syria and Qadafi of Libya were taken pretty seriously in many muslim countries at the time (not necessarily to create one big nation, but at least a solid block). The reason it never materialized is because you can’t have a group made up of 2 strong people and 20 beggars. The movement is dead, but you are right that it only is talked about in hobo nations. Bangladesh would love to share Saudi wealth.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
PD. The concept of Islamic Ummah is not any different than a lose cartel, perhaps not that dissimilar to OPEC. It is (was) only a concept. The 60s Arab nationalism movements led by Asad of Syria and Qadafi of Libya were taken pretty seriously in many muslim countries at the time (not necessarily to create one big nation, but at least a solid block). The reason it never materialized is because you can’t have a group made up of 2 strong people and 20 beggars. The movement is dead, but you are right that it only is talked about in hobo nations. Bangladesh would love to share Saudi wealth.
[/QUOTE]
well that is an interesting observation.......you mean in order for a coalition to be successful, all memeber countries should be of same status ( more or less)...well i agree to you to some extent...and now i am thinking that it would be interesting to alpply the same principal to EU also because a lot of poor countries have managed entering into EU lately..i wonder what would happen to EU....
Islamabad, the muslim brotherhood that you talk of hardly exists. If Pakistanis were a believer of Ummah, why could not they accept Mujib as their PM who was also from the same country then. Why did Iraq fight with Iran for 8-9 years. Why did Iraq attack Kuwait. Why are Iranian clerics major opponents of the Saudis. Why dont the Kurds get along with Iraqis or the Turks. And how would you select your next leader of the Ummah. Indonesians being the largest muslim bloc, you will get an Indonesian Khalifah. Will the Arab tribal head of states give away power so easily. And how do you go about selecting a new leader when the concept of democracy hardly exists in Arabstan. Will you have a duel the old fashioned way. All the best in your efforts in getting the Ummah together, but seriously, I have more of a chance of visiting Mars in my lifetime than seeing the formation of the Ummah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Surya: *
Islamabad, the muslim brotherhood that you talk of hardly exists. If Pakistanis were a believer of Ummah, why could not they accept Mujib as their PM who was also from the same country then. Why did Iraq fight with Iran for 8-9 years. Why did Iraq attack Kuwait. Why are Iranian clerics major opponents of the Saudis. Why dont the Kurds get along with Iraqis or the Turks. And how would you select your next leader of the Ummah. Indonesians being the largest muslim bloc, you will get an Indonesian Khalifah. Will the Arab tribal head of states give away power so easily. And how do you go about selecting a new leader when the concept of democracy hardly exists in Arabstan. Will you have a duel the old fashioned way. All the best in your efforts in getting the Ummah together, but seriously, I have more of a chance of visiting Mars in my lifetime than seeing the formation of the Ummah.
[/QUOTE]
Surya nationalism is one reason ummah is divided and fight each other.
Nationalism is the diseased sister of racism
But alhamdulilah even this discussion about one ummah shows people are now thinking and discussing about this concept only few decades ago it was all about nationalism and communism now the discussion has turned back again to one ummah.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Islamabad, you know jack about Pakistani brotherhood. You must be an import. There’s no love between Punjabis and Sindhis. What exactly are you? As a Punjabi, I feel closer to Indian Punjabis than to Baluchis.
[/QUOTE]
Other than his intense hatred for India, Islamabad's posts show nothing.
A recentlly published book called Pakistan:The eye of the storm by O. B. Jones (a journalist who spent 5 years in Pakistan) thouroghly debunks the concept of Islamic umma even within Pakistan. He asks a simple question. How many Tamil and malyali muslims moved to Pakistan in 1947? How many Pakistanis give a flying fart for Tamil muslims? Jones' on observation: outside of a narrow band of pakis most Pakistani don't give a damn about Kashmir. Ask a Pak sindhi os an Indian Tamil muslim if they would lay down their lives for Kashmir. The answer would be a deafeneing no.
The unreality of one Islamic ummah was arged very persuasively by Asghar Ali Engineer in his book (it's about 20 years old) called Ethnic Conflicts in South Asia. But then Islamabad never reads any books that might open his eyes.
Concpetually speaking, why should a bunch of Muslim countries joining together their resources and their abilities for their own good, be creating such a ruckus in some minds. Europe joined together. For better or for worse, its their choice and more power to them. I don't see countries in Africa or Asia taking a piss at Europeans for creating a Union.
Similarly with Muslim countries, right now they are disjointed, under-developed, uneducated, governed by dictators and what not. If by some miracle of fate, some or all of them join together under a lose confedration and pool their resources, it can really be a kick-start to help resolve some of their problems by capitalizing on some synergies and have better power-base globally.
Having said that, let me get off my soap-box and say that I see it highly unlikely, atleast in my life-time. The differences run deep and the mistrust is often violent. The sectarianism will be the death of us all. The one thing that can join them together is a big enemy challenging them. Then they will come together. Seems like that could be one possibility, still.
Faisal, the underlying reason for European Union is not ‘religion’, but economics, trade, and exchange without worrying about linguistic or geographical barriers. If it were done in the name of ‘Religion’, you will see how far it would have gotten, given that the Church of England can inflict a little bruising to Italians and Eastern Orthodox can tell Lutherans where to go. In addition, there’s a history of inter-European conflicts (where every nation has fought against every other nation) and this Union is designed to prevent Europe from self-disintegration.
If Asian nations wants to create such a block, it will only be a successful experiment is Ummah is asked to take a long vacation.
The concept of ummah would make more sense to some if they look back into history and observe.
Faisal, I was just supplementing to what you stated. It’s not to disagree with you.
Madhanee bhai, it is true that Muslims are divided and lost in conflicts. However, a united ummah would be better able to safeguard its rights and its resources. It seems like an impossible venture, but it may be possible as Muslim youth have already started thinking about it. Today its a thinking, who knows in our lifetimes we may see a united Muslim world.
Well, the first paragraph of my last post was directed at those who suddenly start jumping up and down trashing the whole concept, as soon as the topic of Pan-Islamism or Ummah is being discussed. Aray bhai, aap ka kiya jaa raha hai. Araam say betho.
Communities join together for many reasons. Ethnicity, economics, fighting a joint enemy, religion, war etc. So we can't just pin in only on economics (ofcourse, no one is trying to imitate Europeans here, right? :))
The last point was more esoteric than anything else. I have said it before, and although this is a very unpopular opinion, I don't believe there is any realistic chance of muslims getting together until they manage to over-come their differences in terms of religion (sects and what not). There is no way all these sects will suddenly dissolve, so IMV there has to be a re-orientation of the role of religion and the violence that ensues for those who don't agree to one's religious view-point.
Islamabad Bhaijan, I have an issue with that. India has more Muslims than all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula combined. Why don’t we make a Union with India? Also, if we unite Muslim countries purely on the basis of religion. What will happen to Muslims who live in non-Muslim nations? Who will look after their interests? If there’s some model of some kind of Union that puts aside religious differences aside, I am all in favor of it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Islamabad Bhaijan, I have an issue with that. India has more Muslims than all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula combined. Why don’t we make a Union with India? Also, if we unite Muslim countries purely on the basis of religion. What will happen to Muslims who live in non-Muslim nations? Who will look after their interests? If there’s some model of some kind of Union that puts aside religious differences aside, I am all in favor of it.
[/QUOTE]
A point worth pondering. However, when there is a single entity of Muslims, I think the rights of Muslims would be better safeguarded as they will be united. Muslims of India which are truly a lot, would get moral, political, and maybe economic support if there is a united Muslim country in the world. Maybe they can be in a better position that today.
Regarding the union with India, it would be great for Indian Muslims but since they are less that 15% of the population, would that be practical. In that sense France qualifies for the membership since it has roughly 20% Muslim population. So that means almost all countries, as they have some Muslims.
^ islamabad islamic state is for all peoples not just muslims.
Islamic ideology deals with all peoples needs not just muslims.
"Ummah" is different from a so-called "Islamic State". Every single muslim anywhere on the world is a member of "Ummah". Whereas everyone living in pre-defined geographic borders will be citizen of an "Islamic State". Hypothetical hi sahi, per lets not use the terms interchangably.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Madhanee: *
Islamabad Bhaijan, I have an issue with that. India has more Muslims than all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula combined. Why don’t we make a Union with India? Also, if we unite Muslim countries purely on the basis of religion. What will happen to Muslims who live in non-Muslim nations? Who will look after their interests? If there’s some model of some kind of Union that puts aside religious differences aside, I am all in favor of it.
[/QUOTE]
when you mean muslims in non muslim lands can you give examples?
Because each example it kind of different.
Union that puts aside religous differences, i think this is not reality because people have different beliefs its the way you treat people of different religion that matters.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Islamabad: *
It is a waste of time talking to matsuis and rvikzs and what not....all indian...same brand....same crap
[/QUOTE]
Your comments never cease to ooze your intense hatred of India and Hindus. I think you should just post one line again and again. I hate India. Why bother writing anything else? Other than some others of your ilk, we don't even read your venom.
ok what i don't understand is why do ppl love to talk about monopolizing identities. why do we have to create an either or situation btw nationalism and islamic unity. both can simultaneously exist veryeasily, with current historical situations dictating which one has the upper hand.
if there is regionalism today in pakistan, can we say simply say nationalism is superior, simply cuz it happend after the islamic-unity slogans of pakistans founders.
fine pakistanis are fighitng each other today, but how many sindhis are ready to join india against pakistan? how readily will balochistan and afghanistan join up with russia, against the selfish pujabi muslims.
not that it can't ever happen, but its just that i don't think nationalistic ideas are much of an answer always.
as for the ummah concept being out, i again dont think so. why? simply cuz a lot of the mostly asian islamic countries share this amazing third world economic situation with eachother, and this can very easily form a very unifying situation.
geographical boundaries need not only define concepts of unity. neither can ideological concepts ever rest solely on themselves.
Je t’accuse
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html
India Total Population estimate, July 2004: 1,065,070,607
India’s Muslim population, 2000 : 12%
12% of 1,065,070,607 = 128 million Muslims
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html
Pakistan Total Population estimate, July 2004: 159,196,336
Pakistan’s Muslim population: 97%
97% of 159,196,336 = 154 million
Mathematically speaking, you’re clinging on to a false reality 
Of course, I don’t believe that a population this high is good for Pakistan’s stretched resources, but it does mean that more Muslims live in Pakistan than in India.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Arvind: *
Your comments never cease to ooze your intense hatred of India and Hindus. I think you should just post one line again and again. I hate India. Why bother writing anything else? Other than some others of your ilk, we don't even read your venom.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah right.....All you know is "I hate Pakistan", "I hate Islam", "I hate Muslims!" Learn to differentiate between criticism and hatred.